I just don't think the tech is accurate enough to make a call on such tight offsides so I think we're using a flawed system to over-check decisions that I'd rather see left alone. If you can't make the decision without a shadow of doubt then it shouldn't be made, especially to rule out a goal that for 100 years so more probably would've stood.Stranded wrote:About the only thing I'd question in your post, though I tend to like VAR, all the offsides given have been correct by the law - if VAR is showing anything it is that the law may no longer fit for purpose but with VAR there will always be this issue - if they change the rule there will always be a point at which the on/offside decision has to be made and if VAR rules they are off by half a centimetre it doesn't really matter where that line is.Hoop Blah wrote:So, another few weeks on and we're seeing plenty of goals disallowed for questionable offsides and a lack of decisions being overturned.
Current impressions of VAR?
I still don't think it's worth the time, effort and impact it's having on the game. How decisions like Lascelles vs Matip aren't reviewed as clear and obvious I don't know. Similarly, some of these marginal offsides that are being ruled as factual just don't stack up for me either and I don't like the non-decision making effect it has on the officials.
Nothing I've seen so far is winning me over to VAR.
Perhaps the best way forward is if a goal is scored, a quick word to the assistant ref - "Any chance he was offside?" - assistant ref's job then is to make a judgement call on narrow offsides but maybe keep the flag down - if goal sored and he thinks there may have been a tight one then it is referrred.
This of course may mean that a number of tight offsides are not called but as often mentioned, the attack often gets no real advantage so could be an agreeable middle ground and games see less stops for offside.
that's exactly what they want you to thinkWinston Biscuit wrote:Its being said that VAR actually worked fine at Spurs today, it was some bonehead working the big screen in the stadium that hit the wrong button.
LOL yeah, can someone who bothers to know about these things explain why the United goal was allowed?BR0B0T wrote:VAR working perfectly at Old Trafford!
United 'foul' is subjective, however...St Pauli wrote:LOL yeah, can someone who bothers to know about these things explain why the United goal was allowed?BR0B0T wrote:VAR working perfectly at Old Trafford!
It hasn'tsandman wrote:Suddenly Carragher hates VAR![]()
Have Liverpool finally run out of luck? Doubt it.
Kicks the guy’s leg, without contacting the ball, from behind. Not subjective IMO but yeah I see your point.BR0B0T wrote:United 'foul' is subjective, however...St Pauli wrote:LOL yeah, can someone who bothers to know about these things explain why the United goal was allowed?BR0B0T wrote:VAR working perfectly at Old Trafford!
any handball in the box that results in a goal is automatically disallowed
(my understanding of the new rule)
Never mind the goal, whatever happened to the foul from behind being a mandatory free-kick and a booking?St Pauli wrote:Kicks the guy’s leg, without contacting the ball, from behind. Not subjective IMO but yeah I see your point.BR0B0T wrote:United 'foul' is subjective, however...St Pauli wrote:
LOL yeah, can someone who bothers to know about these things explain why the United goal was allowed?
any handball in the box that results in a goal is automatically disallowed
(my understanding of the new rule)
'foul' was a bit soft tbfVictor Meldrew wrote:Never mind the goal, whatever happened to the foul from behind being a mandatory free-kick and a booking?St Pauli wrote:Kicks the guy’s leg, without contacting the ball, from behind. Not subjective IMO but yeah I see your point.BR0B0T wrote:
United 'foul' is subjective, however...
any handball in the box that results in a goal is automatically disallowed
(my understanding of the new rule)
Am not complaining as these VAR decisions will, as with "luck",even out over a period of time but it just seems a bit odd that the Old Trafford home team favourtism by referees has survived the mighty VAR.
It would've been a soft foul, and Origi probably didn't help him self by going down quite so theatrically., but it's still a foul and should've been given.BR0B0T wrote:'foul' was a bit soft tbf
VAR can fook off as well...didn't want to celebrate the goal until after the review
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 22 guests