| Everyone waking up this morning 08:03 - Oct 3 with 1625 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
And wondering how the football authorities can still think VAR is fit for purpose?
Only way around this is to prevent a remote observer from taking the final decision, it MUST be shown to the referee for a decision.
Unbelievable this wasn’t given. Pack the experiment up and put it away, it’s failed.
[Post edited 3 Oct 8:04]
|  |
| |  |
| Everyone waking up this morning on 11:03 - Oct 3 with 181 views | EuanTown |
So that is the only angle we see. Does VAR have alternative angles that may show differently, we don't know. This is why replays should be shown on TV or in the ground for all to see like rugby.
If a decision was made on that angle alone I have to agree that VAR is corrupt.
Ruining the game. |  | | |
| Everyone waking up this morning on 11:11 - Oct 3 with 162 views | Guthrum |
| Everyone waking up this morning on 11:03 - Oct 3 by EuanTown |
So that is the only angle we see. Does VAR have alternative angles that may show differently, we don't know. This is why replays should be shown on TV or in the ground for all to see like rugby.
If a decision was made on that angle alone I have to agree that VAR is corrupt.
Ruining the game. |
Given the number of cameras we had to (expensively) install at PR for VAR and coverage going into the Prem, they ought to have had more angles than that. |  |
| |
| Everyone waking up this morning on 11:12 - Oct 3 with 161 views | Radlett_blue |
| Everyone waking up this morning on 10:04 - Oct 3 by Guthrum |
It really needs to be used in the same way as non-technical* video assistance in pretty much every other sport - an on-field decision is made, then requires clear evidence on video to overturn it. That includes no change if there isn't a decent camera angle. In rugby, the replays are shown on the big screen, with the refs watching on, so everyone can see (and now often also hear) the process.
* i.e. Not Hawkeye, Snicko and other empirical-mathematical systems. |
The original trumpeted point about VAR was that it would only be used to over-rule "clear & obvious errors". For a variety of reasons, this isn't happening &it seems that the VARs are looking for an excuse to get involved & here it's pretty obvious that it's rule out a perfectly good goal.
This big problem is that as most important decisions in football involve a degree of interpretation, VAR has simply added another level of subjectivity so the result is even more controversial decisions.
We'll be gutted if we lose the derby on Sunday thanks to a refereeing howler, but I'd prefer to take that risk than have the wild card of VAR interference deciding the game. |  |
| |
| Everyone waking up this morning on 11:50 - Oct 3 with 113 views | Guthrum |
| Everyone waking up this morning on 11:12 - Oct 3 by Radlett_blue |
The original trumpeted point about VAR was that it would only be used to over-rule "clear & obvious errors". For a variety of reasons, this isn't happening &it seems that the VARs are looking for an excuse to get involved & here it's pretty obvious that it's rule out a perfectly good goal.
This big problem is that as most important decisions in football involve a degree of interpretation, VAR has simply added another level of subjectivity so the result is even more controversial decisions.
We'll be gutted if we lose the derby on Sunday thanks to a refereeing howler, but I'd prefer to take that risk than have the wild card of VAR interference deciding the game. |
VAR is too powerful in the game. Needs pegging back to being a tool for checking decisions, rather than something which needs prominence because of the money and political clout invested in it. | |
| |
| Everyone waking up this morning on 12:26 - Oct 3 with 80 views | rickw |
Disgraceful decision by the VAR referee - they should be 100% confident it should not be a goal to overturn it - and watching that I'm 99% confident it DIDN'T hit his arm!! |  |
| |
| Everyone waking up this morning on 12:32 - Oct 3 with 74 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Everyone waking up this morning on 09:18 - Oct 3 by Basuco |
My point is that VAR is not automated technology, it is simply a referee looking at a replay of an incident. The question is how did this particular referee and his assistant come to that decision? It is not a VAR failure, it is yet another clearly incorrect referee decision. |
So you didn't watch it or read my OP then.
The ref and linesman gave the goal. The Ref was asked to delay the restart for a possible handball by VAR and so he did. There are two angles in that replay. One from ahead which shows the ball come off the players forehead and the goal be scored, and the reverse angle which shows the players shape indicate that there *might have been* contact with the arm.
The head on angle clears any suggestion of handball.
Several things have happened here.
1. The Ref has given the goal.
2. The VAR has watched the reverse angle and suspected contact with the arm
3. VAR has not looked at any other angle, and VAR has given the handball
4. The ref has accepted this and given an indirect free kick.
So, the question I have is who is officiating the game and has the final say? The on-field referee or the VAR 100 or 200 miles away in a sterile environment. In my opinion it should NEVER be anyone other than the on-field referee. If VAR suspects an offence, the ref should be called to the screen and shown all available angles so if he can make his own decision, not be led by the nose.
And if there is any ambiguity at all, then the on-field decision should stand. This is about making referees more important than they actually are to the game, little else.
Edit: Its been a bad morning. [Post edited 3 Oct 12:38]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
