Silver Fox but if anyone can explain how the lads in the VAR booth couldn’t see that Pogba clearly dived before eventually manufacturing contact with Coasy’s foot I’d really appreciate it.

Silver Fox but if anyone can explain how the lads in the VAR booth couldn’t see that Pogba clearly dived before eventually manufacturing contact with Coasy’s foot I’d really appreciate it.
Silver Fox I didn’t see all the weekend’s games so have no opinion on the Man City VAR “controversy” but if anyone can explain how the lads in the VAR booth couldn’t see that Pogba clearly dived before eventually manufacturing contact with Coasy’s foot I’d really appreciate it.
The review of Wolves’ goal was also bullshit but at least they somehow managed to get that one right, try as they might to give United a break
BR0B0TSilver Fox but if anyone can explain how the lads in the VAR booth couldn’t see that Pogba clearly dived before eventually manufacturing contact with Coasy’s foot I’d really appreciate it.
I don't think I've seen a team complain less about giving away a pen
Snowflake RoyalStrandedHoop Blah Another joy-sapping moment from VAR yesterday.
I know fans of VAR will say it's the correct decision by the letter of the (revised) law, but that change to the interpretation has only been brought in because of the use of VAR, and, IMO, it's totally against the spirit of the game.
Such moments are not for the good for the game.
Saw an interesting thought on F365 I think, why should one teams fans joy being sapped be worth more than the other teams fans spending the next week (or however long) annoyed at a clear injustice.
I know this instance highlights the inadequecy of a new law but a goal being chalked off by VAR only ends joy slightly slower than those moments where your team have scored and you don't notice the whistle has blown.
Yeah, the joy angle is an absolute nonsense for me.
Joy in this respect is a largely unconscious response not a decision. You'll get the joy anyway, and then either disappointment or more joy. And as you say, it's largely the same - just a bit slower - when compared to looking across to see if the linesman had flagged offside or not.
The new system has flaws that need to be fixed. But that can be achieved incrementally and with experience. Some ambiguous decisions going a way you don't agree with is nothing different to without VAR. And with VAR you have far fewer glaring errors that should have been spotted by the referee or linesman but weren't.
With VAR, there'll never be another Maradona 'hand of god' moment. That is positive.
by Winston Biscuit » 20 Aug 2019 10:44
by WestYorksRoyal » 20 Aug 2019 18:42
by Winston Biscuit » 20 Aug 2019 18:44
by John Madejski's Wallet » 20 Aug 2019 22:32
Winston Biscuit Red card for any player or substitute entering the VOR, even though the closest Premier League ground to the VOR location is 13 miles away![]()
John Madejski's Wallet Is there a running tally of how many goals have been denied by VAR compared to how many pens have been given (that wasn't originally given)?
Alongside sucking all the joy out of the game, is it making it a lower scoring game too?
NamelessWinston Biscuit Red card for any player or substitute entering the VOR, even though the closest Premier League ground to the VOR location is 13 miles away![]()
That’s a Law of the Game not a Premier League competition rule isn’t it ?
Can’t you just imagine someone like Fergie having a helicopter on standby and dashing down To Stockley Park to have a row with a video,official !
For what it’s worth I think VAR is quite likely to be the death of football. It’s unnecessary, badly implemented and grossly unfair.
Whilst goal line technology is a great addition to the game VAR is an abomination. Sooner they realise it is going to ruin what was a simple game the better.
I also agree that there is a desperate need to revisit and simplify the current offside law.
by Winston Biscuit » 21 Aug 2019 13:08
Nameless For what it’s worth I think VAR is quite likely to be the death of football. It’s unnecessary, badly implemented and grossly unfair.
Whilst goal line technology is a great addition to the game VAR is an abomination. Sooner they realise it is going to ruin what was a simple game the better.
I also agree that there is a desperate need to revisit and simplify the current offside law
John Madejski's Wallet Is there a running tally of how many goals have been denied by VAR compared to how many pens have been given (that wasn't originally given)?
Alongside sucking all the joy out of the game, is it making it a lower scoring game too?
by Franchise FC » 21 Aug 2019 13:35
by Four Of Clubs » 21 Aug 2019 17:19
WestYorksRoyal VAR is a good thing, but it needs to be used more sparingly. Why did they waste time checking Wolves' equaliser yesterday when it was so obvious to everyone watching?
I also think the new handball rule is nonsense, but VAR is ensuring it's implemented properly and is therefore doing its job. The rule is the problem; not VAR.
Hoop BlahJohn Madejski's Wallet Is there a running tally of how many goals have been denied by VAR compared to how many pens have been given (that wasn't originally given)?
Alongside sucking all the joy out of the game, is it making it a lower scoring game too?
There's a definite imbalance to the way it negatively effects things. The City/Spurs game being a perfect example because they chalked off a goal through the systematic checking of all goals but didn't give the penalty for City because it apparently wasn't a clear and obvious error (in my opinion it was).
Same thing happened at the World Cup when everyone said VAR was a total success. I think England should've had a couple of penalties for fouls that VAR should've awarded but didn't.
Sanguine I know I'm repeating myself here, but that's a problem with your perception of what VAR should do, or is designed to do. It gives referees an opportunity to make a 'better' subjective decision - that you happen to think the City incident was a penalty is irrelevant. The referee didn't, subjectively, think that it was, and the VAR officials didn't think that that was a 'clear and obvious' error, subjectively, when they reviewed it. The emphasis remains on disproving the referee's original decision. VAR won't, and isn't designed to, remove all subjectivity from decision-making, or produce only decisions that we can all agree with. It should produce more decisions that we can all agree are correct, by adjusting the obvious errors.
Hoop BlahSanguine I know I'm repeating myself here, but that's a problem with your perception of what VAR should do, or is designed to do. It gives referees an opportunity to make a 'better' subjective decision - that you happen to think the City incident was a penalty is irrelevant. The referee didn't, subjectively, think that it was, and the VAR officials didn't think that that was a 'clear and obvious' error, subjectively, when they reviewed it. The emphasis remains on disproving the referee's original decision. VAR won't, and isn't designed to, remove all subjectivity from decision-making, or produce only decisions that we can all agree with. It should produce more decisions that we can all agree are correct, by adjusting the obvious errors.
The imbalance exists because they have to check every goal for every possible infringement and will over rule some.
As you say, they don't do that unless a goal is scored, so there is an imbalance. And rightly so really, because otherwise the game really would be ruined.
In terms of the City penalty claim, apparently it wasn't given because the ref felt the contact wasn't enough to bring him down and, because he fell forward (to my mind the way his momentum and the pressure from the defender would push him), he concluded that it wasn't a foul. The VAR checked his thinking with him and said yeah, fair enough. I think that's a clear and obvious error because I don't agree with it, and neither have most people I've heard talk about it.
It is a subjective decision. This takes us back to the initial conversations around this where you said it would only be clear and obvious errors, but clear and obvious to who? They maintaining the refs position which is great, but if VAR is there to bring in more consistency and accuracy to decisions, then they'll need to come up with a better definition IMO.
Sanguine Clear and obvious to the officials - my point on this is consistent. It is respect for referees' decisions that is the problem here. Broadly speaking, you suggest you expect VAR, if it worked properly, to agree with all of your opinions, and that therefore because it can't, VAR isn't suitable for football. Which is bizarre.
For the hundredth time, VAR gives officials the opportunity to make better subjective decisions. That doesn't mean you'll always agree with them. But at the same time the technology will correct absolute howlers and/or stuff the on-pitch officials don't see. Which is a good thing.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 45 guests