Forum | VAR by Garv | TWTD.co.uk

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

VAR 20:25 - Sep 30 with 4702 views

Can we dispell the myth that offside is 'factual' now?

VAR was a funny experiment gone wrong. Let's draw a line shall we? Pun intended.

Poll:

Pick a goal to win the derby in stoppage time...

VAR on 09:00 - Oct 1 with 1294 views

redrickstuhaart

VAR on 23:45 - Sep 30 by Plums

Thank you for making the point superbly. 'Intent' has no part in the decision.
There was no option but to give a red for endangering the opponent.

Serious foul play

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

[Post edited 30 Sep 2023 23:46]

Simply wrong. Intent is relevant. Endagering an opponent should not be used to penalise a player who, in the chaos of a contact sport, completely unintentionally commits a foul in circumstances where the same challenge, 100 times, would probably not have led to the same result.

VAR on 09:02 - Oct 1 with 1294 views

Vaughan8

VAR on 00:01 - Oct 1 by Plums
It definitely endangered the opponent. Once it does that, the rest of the clause is irrelevant.

Could argue a lot of tackles "endanger" opponents. If you want to go down that route, make it non contact.

VAR on 09:02 - Oct 1 with 1293 views

Plums

VAR on 23:45 - Sep 30 by Plums

[Post edited 30 Sep 2023 23:46]

Downvoted because of those annoying fact things. Sad

	It's 106 miles to Portman Road, we've got a full tank of gas, half a round of Port Salut, it's dark... and we're wearing blue tinted sunglasses.
Poll:	Which recent triallist should we have signed?

VAR on 09:04 - Oct 1 with 1285 views

redrickstuhaart

VAR on 00:01 - Oct 1 by Plums
It definitely endangered the opponent. Once it does that, the rest of the clause is irrelevant.

Every contested header or tackle endangers an opponent. The force, intent and control is plainly part of the equation.

VAR on 09:05 - Oct 1 with 1282 views

Plums

VAR on 09:04 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart
Every contested header or tackle endangers an opponent. The force, intent and control is plainly part of the equation.

A clear misunderstanding of the the word 'or' in that clause

	It's 106 miles to Portman Road, we've got a full tank of gas, half a round of Port Salut, it's dark... and we're wearing blue tinted sunglasses.
Poll:	Which recent triallist should we have signed?

VAR on 09:06 - Oct 1 with 1279 views

Wickets

VAR on 23:55 - Sep 30 by Plums

Harsh? Definitely. But also correct.
If one of ours was off for the same, I'd definitely be disappointed but you cannot blame the official for applying the law. As I've posted elsewhere. 'Must' leaves no option.

Serious foul play

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

Never a red for me and i completely agree with Neville , you simply cant play football without the odd bash and bang .If you freeze frame the point of contact it looks terrible but if you see a 10 second clip of the incident it becomes apparent that the Lpool player gets a good lump on the ball his foot then bounces into his opponent without excessive force the Spurs player was not hurt . Yellow Card move on .

VAR on 09:07 - Oct 1 with 1278 views

Plums

VAR on 09:02 - Oct 1 by Vaughan8
Could argue a lot of tackles "endanger" opponents. If you want to go down that route, make it non contact.

I don't want to go down any route. I'm just pointing out why the correct decision was made. I'm stunned how many people are arguing black is white.

	It's 106 miles to Portman Road, we've got a full tank of gas, half a round of Port Salut, it's dark... and we're wearing blue tinted sunglasses.
Poll:	Which recent triallist should we have signed?

VAR on 09:07 - Oct 1 with 1277 views

redrickstuhaart

VAR on 09:05 - Oct 1 by Plums
A clear misunderstanding of the the word 'or' in that clause

Nope. Why not address the point made?

VAR on 09:10 - Oct 1 with 1274 views

Plums

VAR on 09:07 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart
Nope. Why not address the point made?

I have. The law is clear. Replace 'or' with 'and' and you have a point.

Anyway. I must go, Sunday morning football calls.

	It's 106 miles to Portman Road, we've got a full tank of gas, half a round of Port Salut, it's dark... and we're wearing blue tinted sunglasses.
Poll:	Which recent triallist should we have signed?

VAR on 09:14 - Oct 1 with 1264 views

Wickets

VAR on 09:10 - Oct 1 by Plums
I have. The law is clear. Replace 'or' with 'and' and you have a point. Anyway. I must go, Sunday morning football calls.

Enjoy your Sunday morning game but remember it is a contact sport in which we want our players free to give 100% effort .

VAR on 09:18 - Oct 1 with 1257 views

Plums

VAR on 09:14 - Oct 1 by Wickets
Enjoy your Sunday morning game but remember it is a contact sport in which we want our players free to give 100% effort .

I will be watching my daughter referee. I just hope she's working with coaches, players and parents who understand the laws of the game they've employed her to apply...
Because I can assure you, it's a tough watch when they don't.

[Post edited 1 Oct 2023 9:19]

	It's 106 miles to Portman Road, we've got a full tank of gas, half a round of Port Salut, it's dark... and we're wearing blue tinted sunglasses.
Poll:	Which recent triallist should we have signed?

VAR on 09:25 - Oct 1 with 1249 views

redrickstuhaart

VAR on 09:18 - Oct 1 by Plums
I will be watching my daughter referee. I just hope she's working with coaches, players and parents who understand the laws of the game they've employed her to apply... Because I can assure you, it's a tough watch when they don't. [Post edited 1 Oct 2023 9:19]

You plainly don't understand them. You are hiding behind a blinkered interpretation rather than showing any understanding of the game.

-2

VAR on 09:40 - Oct 1 with 1243 views

Plums

VAR on 09:25 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart
You plainly don't understand them. You are hiding behind a blinkered interpretation rather than showing any understanding of the game.

Oh dear. I have a couple of minutes before we leave so I'll try and explain the situation.

On field. Yellow. Completely understandable.
VAR check - we don't know (yet) whether the check was requested by the ref, 4th official or they decided to do it but it was checked. As soon as it was checked, they have to apply the test as written in the laws of the game - there is no other option. VAR correctly advise the referee to look at what they have seen on the video. He also has no option - red card as instructed by the laws.

Context, 'understanding of the game', intent (which has been removed from many laws because it's impossible to prove) etc becomes completely irrelevant once they commence that review against the law of the game.

I have said earlier in the thread that I thought it was harsh, the on field yellow was the correct decision but it's also clear that (at that point) the referee didn't have all the information.

With my daughter, I have been to two recent presentations by PL officials, I think they should do them more widely as the understanding it provides (which is obfuscated by commentators as I said earlier) is really helpful to us fans.

I'll stop hiding now and take my blinkers off. Perhaps you might like to reconsider the assumptions you've leapt to?

	It's 106 miles to Portman Road, we've got a full tank of gas, half a round of Port Salut, it's dark... and we're wearing blue tinted sunglasses.
Poll:	Which recent triallist should we have signed?

VAR on 09:48 - Oct 1 with 1228 views

redrickstuhaart

VAR on 09:40 - Oct 1 by Plums

Instead of setting out a patronising explanation which does not address the points made, maybe take a couple of minutes to actually consider the reasons people are disagreeing with you.

The tackle was typical, normal and routine. The outcome was a freak ocurrence. The outcome was unfortunate. But if that tackle is contrued as "endangering an opponent" then so must every tackle be, if it could potentially end the same way. That is plainly nonsense. People that understand the game get that.

I think that PL officials are so obssessed with complicating straightforward rules and spoiling a simple game, they are probably the worst people to listen to.

VAR on 09:56 - Oct 1 with 1224 views

WeWereZombies

VAR on 08:36 - Oct 1 by Wickets
Good point of course we just cant go back . The Lino got it wrong before VAR ignored his mistake . 2 questions why did Lino raise his flag as that isn't the instruction , Why then didn't VAR check the decision ?

When this was discussed on 'Match Of The Day' last night it transpired that the man in charge of the VAR did check the decision and realised that it was wrong but because of personal (human) error failed to communicate this to the referee. Astonishing, yes, but even worse is that that human has a human assistant who had twenty seconds or so to point out to his principal that he hadn't made the call - but the (human) assistant failed to do this.

Poll:

What was in Wes Burns' imaginary cup of tea ?

VAR on 23:31 - Oct 2 with 1144 views

WeWereZombies

I think Liverpool can smell blood on this one:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66987861

'The club called for a "review with full transparency" and added they will "explore the range of options available given the clear need for escalation and resolution".'

Poll:

What was in Wes Burns' imaginary cup of tea ?

VAR on 07:39 - Oct 3 with 1112 views

tractorboy1978

VAR on 09:48 - Oct 1 by redrickstuhaart

Everything looks worse in slow motion too. I do feel sorry for players when the reality is that the game is played at such a speed that being half a second late can be freeze framed and slowed down to the point where all context is removed from a challenge.

The offside mess was inexcusable really. As have been several other decisions, and it doesn’t seem to be getting better. Personally I could always understand human error pre VAR - refs don’t get everything right. But it’s very hard to understand it when these guys have every camera angle possible, multiple chances to look at it and all the technology to get these decisions right.

VAR on 16:40 - Oct 4 with 1031 views

WeWereZombies

And now the inevitable request has been made:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67003386

'Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp wants the Premier League game against Tottenham to be replayed after Luis Diaz's goal was wrongly disallowed by the video assistant referee.'

Poll:

What was in Wes Burns' imaginary cup of tea ?

VAR on 17:08 - Oct 4 with 1021 views

gringoblue

VAR on 08:50 - Oct 1 by Pique
While I have some sympathy with the challenge system idea, the problem with it is that it might actually encourage spurious challenges sometimes. What would be to stop managers throwing in a VAR challenge every time the opposition score in the hope that a minor infraction gets picked up?

Even worse, managers would use time outs to tactically break up play / stop dangerous attacking situations.

Klopp asking for a replay is absolutely ridiculous.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread