| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take 20:23 - May 15 with 1705 views | Lord_Lucan |
on it.
Personally I was never keen on it but then again I really don't care that much either way.
What I don't understand is that most people wanted VAR. Every time there was a bad decision people were wondering why, in this day and age, we couldn't have video technology.
Now we have it, people are moaning that it's daft that someone is deemed to be offside because it's only an inch.
Isn't this what people wanted?
Enlighten me someone. |  |
| |  |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 20:27 - May 15 with 1660 views | FrimleyBlue |
Think it's more about how the rules seemed to have changed to make Var as bad as it is now.
Offsides.. by shoulder etc isn't offside. Yes it is but that's against the spirit of the game imo. Same as if your knee is offside or if your foot is bigger than the defenders.
But also its how fouls have now changed and we are seeing pens given for tackles that were always seen as good solid ball challenging tackles but now a pen because the foot caught a players trailing leg after the ball was touched as its now dangerous play.
Or a bouncing ball causes a defender to try and volley it away, striker taps it at the same time and a pen is giving because the defender couldn't see behind him.
Let alone how hand balls have become a farce still. |  |
| |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 20:31 - May 15 with 1648 views | Trequartista |
I think it was brought in to correct clear and obvious mistakes, with the drawback being that is a matter of opinion of what is clear and obvious. |  |
| |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:05 - May 15 with 1587 views | HighgateBlue |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 20:27 - May 15 by FrimleyBlue |
Think it's more about how the rules seemed to have changed to make Var as bad as it is now.
Offsides.. by shoulder etc isn't offside. Yes it is but that's against the spirit of the game imo. Same as if your knee is offside or if your foot is bigger than the defenders.
But also its how fouls have now changed and we are seeing pens given for tackles that were always seen as good solid ball challenging tackles but now a pen because the foot caught a players trailing leg after the ball was touched as its now dangerous play.
Or a bouncing ball causes a defender to try and volley it away, striker taps it at the same time and a pen is giving because the defender couldn't see behind him.
Let alone how hand balls have become a farce still. |
OK, so how far should you have to be offside by, in order for it to be offside that's not "against the spirit of the game"?
You may say 2 inches, 6 inches, 50cm, 1m, whatever. But there has to be a figure, according to your position.
Now tell me that a human referee at real time speed is better at telling whether someone is 49cm or 50cm in front of someone else, than a video camera is.
There are many arguments against VAR, but this seems the most absurd. |  | | |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:11 - May 15 with 1558 views | FrimleyBlue |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:05 - May 15 by HighgateBlue |
OK, so how far should you have to be offside by, in order for it to be offside that's not "against the spirit of the game"?
You may say 2 inches, 6 inches, 50cm, 1m, whatever. But there has to be a figure, according to your position.
Now tell me that a human referee at real time speed is better at telling whether someone is 49cm or 50cm in front of someone else, than a video camera is.
There are many arguments against VAR, but this seems the most absurd. |
That is the difficult bit of course. But as they can make the rules what ever they like.. then make it as clear as day. If the whole body is offside your off. If any part of it isn't then your not. Like the ball over the line stuff, it's either over or its not.
Think that would cover it quite well. | |
| |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:14 - May 15 with 1553 views | HighgateBlue |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 20:31 - May 15 by Trequartista |
I think it was brought in to correct clear and obvious mistakes, with the drawback being that is a matter of opinion of what is clear and obvious. |
The clear and obvious stipulation is in respect of subjective questions such as whether an obvious goalscoring opportunity has been denied.
It is not, and has never been, part of the test for whether to overturn an offside. That is just a total myth. If the VAR sees that the goalscorer was offside, even by a small margin, the goal is ruled out. That's the rule. Many don't like it. I don't like it overly. But I'm stumped as to what the right answer is.
As the OP says, what did people really want? If VAR goes, we will have to put up with the fact that there will be decisions which are objectively wrong, by a little or by a lot, which go uncorrected even though they could have been. The trade off is that we get our time back, we achieve certainty, we get to celebrate a goal when it happens, and refs are given their balls back. | | | |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:18 - May 15 with 1540 views | SmithersJones |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:11 - May 15 by FrimleyBlue |
That is the difficult bit of course. But as they can make the rules what ever they like.. then make it as clear as day. If the whole body is offside your off. If any part of it isn't then your not. Like the ball over the line stuff, it's either over or its not.
Think that would cover it quite well. |
No, it would just shift the boundary of the argument.
Most of the arguments against VAR seem to fall into two categories: (a) it’s enforcing laws that we don’t really like (b) it takes too long. (a) is nothing to do with VAR and (b) should be worked on. But one thing we can be sure of, the TV companies are going to keep showing multiple angles, super slo-mo etc so the refs are going to carry on getting it in the neck. |  | | |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:20 - May 15 with 1532 views | JakeITFC |
I never wanted it and it’s even worse than I could have imagined.
We truly are fortunate to not have to had put up with it inside stadiums as Ipswich fans to date, it’s an absolute joke how bad the experience is. |  | | |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:24 - May 15 with 1504 views | Trequartista |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:14 - May 15 by HighgateBlue |
The clear and obvious stipulation is in respect of subjective questions such as whether an obvious goalscoring opportunity has been denied.
It is not, and has never been, part of the test for whether to overturn an offside. That is just a total myth. If the VAR sees that the goalscorer was offside, even by a small margin, the goal is ruled out. That's the rule. Many don't like it. I don't like it overly. But I'm stumped as to what the right answer is.
As the OP says, what did people really want? If VAR goes, we will have to put up with the fact that there will be decisions which are objectively wrong, by a little or by a lot, which go uncorrected even though they could have been. The trade off is that we get our time back, we achieve certainty, we get to celebrate a goal when it happens, and refs are given their balls back. |
Yes I was talking about the subjective decisions (penalties and red cards)
With reference to offsides, as I said on another thread, the issue is that goals that have already been celebrated are then ruled out for what to all intents and purposes is a striker level with a defender. My solution, although not perfect, is call any overlap of defender and attacker "level" and only disallow the goal if daylight between defender and attacker. You cannot then complain about celebrating a goal that is clearly offside. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:52 - May 15 with 1453 views | bluelagos |
So issues I have with it...
Drawing lines to see to the mm whether someone is on/off - no that's not what I wanted. To me that's level and you give the attacker the benefit of the doubt.
Time taken - decisions have taken 3-4 mins - which is ridiculous.
Goal celebrations - you can't actually celebrates a goal with certainty now.
They still make mistakes (albeit fewer)
When do/don't they intervene? That will always still be a subjective call.
I never had a huge issue with refs making mistakes - is part of the game, we just now get VARs making mistakes, with no certainty of when a goal has been scored and lots of interuptions. |  |
| |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:57 - May 15 with 1433 views | wkj |
If I recall correctly, the big want was for GLT after the world cup game vs USA. Then VAR kinda got bundled in with it. I think that VAR isn't a bad system in principle but it doesn't go well with the fast paced nature of football.
A lot of people at a footy game will never know if someone is offside for having a toe beyond the defensive line, and I think it is a silly use of VAR. What I do like VAR for is picking up on certain elements of foul play that the ref misses - like the time Luis Suarez decided to have a snack attack. |  |
| |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 22:01 - May 15 with 1405 views | Lord_Lucan |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 21:57 - May 15 by wkj |
If I recall correctly, the big want was for GLT after the world cup game vs USA. Then VAR kinda got bundled in with it. I think that VAR isn't a bad system in principle but it doesn't go well with the fast paced nature of football.
A lot of people at a footy game will never know if someone is offside for having a toe beyond the defensive line, and I think it is a silly use of VAR. What I do like VAR for is picking up on certain elements of foul play that the ref misses - like the time Luis Suarez decided to have a snack attack. |
My memory was the Lampard goal against Germany.
As I said, I don't really give two hoots either way, it's just that I don't fully understand the criticism as this is pretty much what people were demanding. | |
| |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 22:02 - May 15 with 1400 views | norfsufblue |
Still think the biggest problem is a panel judging the ref... if we must have a review system then do it on limited captains appeal and let the actual ref then review without outside influence... the we can protect " the referees decision is final" which has always been a bedrock of the laws! |  | | |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 22:04 - May 15 with 1396 views | eireblue |
I wonder if it would be interesting to have something similar to other sports. In that a team can ask for a limited number of official reviews.
Maybe interesting if it could be used to turn over decisions gained through “simulation”. |  | | |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 22:38 - May 15 with 1326 views | SitfcB |
14 votes needed as a majority is a bit shîte as well isn’t it, surely it should be 11 or more!?! |  |
| |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 23:40 - May 15 with 1191 views | MattinLondon |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 22:01 - May 15 by Lord_Lucan |
My memory was the Lampard goal against Germany.
As I said, I don't really give two hoots either way, it's just that I don't fully understand the criticism as this is pretty much what people were demanding. |
People were demanding it and that factor is often overlooked or forgotten. I guess the theory of VAR appealed to many (it looks good on paper) but the practicalities of it has instead made the same people angry.
Goal line technology is instant and that’s why it’s popular- unfortunately VAR isn’t. |  | | |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 00:18 - May 16 with 1167 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| VAR again. Sorry but I thought it needed a new thread as it's a different take on 22:38 - May 15 by SitfcB |
14 votes needed as a majority is a bit shîte as well isn’t it, surely it should be 11 or more!?! |
So that 'The Big Six plus one' can fcuk it.
Welcome to Premier League 'democracy' |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
