VAR

[Hoop Blah]

As predicted, VAR isn't really solving any of the issues video technology was supposed to address.

At the same time it's created it's own issues, slowed down the game at times, impacted on the way referees appear to be making decisions, and it's starting to have a negative effect on the joy of watching a game.

[Snowflake Royal]

he didn't 'accidentally touch someone', he trod on his foot. That's a foul anywhere else on the pitch, so it's a penalty too. I found the MoTD analysis of the Keane foul frustrating. They (and Shearer in particular) have rightly been highlighting how VAR hadn't been used up to now to <i>give</i> a penalty, and the second that it is, and it was a foul whether Keane intended contact or not, they are up in arms. Bizarre.

Wahey , been waiting for you to come and defend your beloved VAR. No one apart from you and the VAR ref thinks that was a pen

Well, a) that's not true, and b) VAR is not my 'beloved' (when did you morph into DD), I just try to have a level of debate beyond 'waaaaaaa, stop spoiling my footballz!'

Sangers is right. Treading on someone's foot accidentally and impeding them is still a foul even if it was an accident.

[URZZZZ]

But then you look at some of the incidents VAR hasn’t given and you wonder how the Brighton one can be given compared to others

And this is where I find VAR confusing. I thought they were only meant to overrule something which is a “clear and obvious error”. Take an offside decision by literally millimetres. If the linesman doesn’t flag it, can they really overrule him? Is the situation defined as a “clear and obvious error” if we’re talking about millimetres here. I’d have thought that if they were spending minutes and minutes looking at the situation, it’s not clear or obvious, otherwise they’d have already made their mind up

If they could iron out the inconsistencies that arises because of VAR and if it wasn’t so slow, people may become on board with it. Personally, after three months, i haven’t seen any signs of development which is why I think it needs to go, along with other people. But I guess time will tell. There has been occasions this season where it has been used to good effect

[Hoop Blah]

But then you look at some of the incidents VAR hasn’t given and you wonder how the Brighton one can be given compared to others

And this is where I find VAR confusing. I thought they were only meant to overrule something which is a “clear and obvious error”. Take an offside decision by literally millimetres. If the linesman doesn’t flag it, can they really overrule him? Is the situation defined as a “clear and obvious error” if we’re talking about millimetres here. I’d have thought that if they were spending minutes and minutes looking at the situation, it’s not clear or obvious, otherwise they’d have already made their mind up

If they could iron out the inconsistencies that arises because of VAR and if it wasn’t so slow, people may become on board with it. Personally, after three months, i haven’t seen any signs of development which is why I think it needs to go, along with other people. But I guess time will tell. There has been occasions this season where it has been used to good effect

I believe that the checks run against a goal for things like offside are deemed to be factual checks and so clear and obvious doesn't come into it. It's not accurate to make calls of the nature it is though, so it's ridiculous the extent they've gone to.

The rest is all just one subjective opinion vs another because they're not making factual judgements. There's no consistency and there's no real benefit to them game.

It's interesting that there is always this comparison with how well it works in Rugby. From the little I've followed of the RWC, TMO has made a number of errors and taken ages over them too. The communication is infinitely better, yes, but it's still nowhere near a perfect solution.

[Franchise FC]

But then you look at some of the incidents VAR hasn’t given and you wonder how the Brighton one can be given compared to others

And this is where I find VAR confusing. I thought they were only meant to overrule something which is a “clear and obvious error”. Take an offside decision by literally millimetres. If the linesman doesn’t flag it, can they really overrule him? Is the situation defined as a “clear and obvious error” if we’re talking about millimetres here. I’d have thought that if they were spending minutes and minutes looking at the situation, it’s not clear or obvious, otherwise they’d have already made their mind up

If they could iron out the inconsistencies that arises because of VAR and if it wasn’t so slow, people may become on board with it. Personally, after three months, i haven’t seen any signs of development which is why I think it needs to go, along with other people. But I guess time will tell. There has been occasions this season where it has been used to good effect

I believe that the checks run against a goal for things like offside are deemed to be factual checks and so clear and obvious doesn't come into it. It's not accurate to make calls of the nature it is though, so it's ridiculous the extent they've gone to.

The rest is all just one subjective opinion vs another because they're not making factual judgements. There's no consistency and there's no real benefit to them game.

It's interesting that there is always this comparison with how well it works in Rugby. From the little I've followed of the RWC, TMO has made a number of errors and taken ages over them too. The communication is infinitely better, yes, but it's still nowhere near a perfect solution.

Right or wrong, the rugby TMO is with a screen visible to the crowd (both live and on tv), with communication audible to the crowd and the very least they do is justify their decision with both touch judges, the referee and the TMO coming to a joint decision. And yes, they still get some things wrong, but my experience is very few.
However, the clock is stopped for the TMO so no game time is lost at all, so the 'ages' is irrelevant - unlike football

[John Madejski's Wallet]

Wahey , been waiting for you to come and defend your beloved VAR. No one apart from you and the VAR ref thinks that was a pen

Well, a) that's not true, and b) VAR is not my 'beloved' (when did you morph into DD), I just try to have a level of debate beyond 'waaaaaaa, stop spoiling my footballz!'

Sangers is right. Treading on someone's foot accidentally and impeding them is still a foul even if it was an accident.

Impeding my arse

And you know it's not a pen when the receiving manager sheepishly laughs at being lucky with the decision

[Victor Meldrew]

But then you look at some of the incidents VAR hasn’t given and you wonder how the Brighton one can be given compared to others

And this is where I find VAR confusing. I thought they were only meant to overrule something which is a “clear and obvious error”. Take an offside decision by literally millimetres. If the linesman doesn’t flag it, can they really overrule him? Is the situation defined as a “clear and obvious error” if we’re talking about millimetres here. I’d have thought that if they were spending minutes and minutes looking at the situation, it’s not clear or obvious, otherwise they’d have already made their mind up

If they could iron out the inconsistencies that arises because of VAR and if it wasn’t so slow, people may become on board with it. Personally, after three months, i haven’t seen any signs of development which is why I think it needs to go, along with other people. But I guess time will tell. There has been occasions this season where it has been used to good effect

I believe that the checks run against a goal for things like offside are deemed to be factual checks and so clear and obvious doesn't come into it. It's not accurate to make calls of the nature it is though, so it's ridiculous the extent they've gone to.

The rest is all just one subjective opinion vs another because they're not making factual judgements. There's no consistency and there's no real benefit to them game.

It's interesting that there is always this comparison with how well it works in Rugby. From the little I've followed of the RWC, TMO has made a number of errors and taken ages over them too. The communication is infinitely better, yes, but it's still nowhere near a perfect solution.

Right or wrong, the rugby TMO is with a screen visible to the crowd (both live and on tv), with communication audible to the crowd and the very least they do is justify their decision with both touch judges, the referee and the TMO coming to a joint decision. And yes, they still get some things wrong, but my experience is very few.
However, the clock is stopped for the TMO so no game time is lost at all, so the 'ages' is irrelevant - unlike football

"unlike football"?
Time is added on (or is meant to be) for VAR stoppages by the ref.

[Franchise FC]

I believe that the checks run against a goal for things like offside are deemed to be factual checks and so clear and obvious doesn't come into it. It's not accurate to make calls of the nature it is though, so it's ridiculous the extent they've gone to.

The rest is all just one subjective opinion vs another because they're not making factual judgements. There's no consistency and there's no real benefit to them game.

It's interesting that there is always this comparison with how well it works in Rugby. From the little I've followed of the RWC, TMO has made a number of errors and taken ages over them too. The communication is infinitely better, yes, but it's still nowhere near a perfect solution.

Right or wrong, the rugby TMO is with a screen visible to the crowd (both live and on tv), with communication audible to the crowd and the very least they do is justify their decision with both touch judges, the referee and the TMO coming to a joint decision. And yes, they still get some things wrong, but my experience is very few.
However, the clock is stopped for the TMO so no game time is lost at all, so the 'ages' is irrelevant - unlike football

"unlike football"?
Time is added on (or is meant to be) for VAR stoppages by the ref.

But that’s exactly the point. Time is ‘specifically’ added on in rugby and ‘might’ be added on in football. Time is managed by what is effectively the fourth official in rugby and should be in football.

[Sanguine]

Well, a) that's not true, and b) VAR is not my 'beloved' (when did you morph into DD), I just try to have a level of debate beyond 'waaaaaaa, stop spoiling my footballz!'

Sangers is right. Treading on someone's foot accidentally and impeding them is still a foul even if it was an accident.

Impeding my arse

And you know it's not a pen when the receiving manager sheepishly laughs at being lucky with the decision

Struggling to see how treading on someone's foot doesn't impede someone in a game of football.

[Victor Meldrew]

Right or wrong, the rugby TMO is with a screen visible to the crowd (both live and on tv), with communication audible to the crowd and the very least they do is justify their decision with both touch judges, the referee and the TMO coming to a joint decision. And yes, they still get some things wrong, but my experience is very few.
However, the clock is stopped for the TMO so no game time is lost at all, so the 'ages' is irrelevant - unlike football

"unlike football"?
Time is added on (or is meant to be) for VAR stoppages by the ref.

But that’s exactly the point. Time is ‘specifically’ added on in rugby and ‘might’ be added on in football. Time is managed by what is effectively the fourth official in rugby and should be in football.

Couldn't agree more, that's why I added "or is meant to be".

[Franchise FC]

"unlike football"?
Time is added on (or is meant to be) for VAR stoppages by the ref.

But that’s exactly the point. Time is ‘specifically’ added on in rugby and ‘might’ be added on in football. Time is managed by what is effectively the fourth official in rugby and should be in football.

Couldn't agree more, that's why I added "or is meant to be".

I think I might be arguing with the wrong person

[Victor Meldrew]

But that’s exactly the point. Time is ‘specifically’ added on in rugby and ‘might’ be added on in football. Time is managed by what is effectively the fourth official in rugby and should be in football.

Couldn't agree more, that's why I added "or is meant to be".

I think I might be arguing with the wrong person

The Great (or grey) Buffoon?

[Franchise FC]

Couldn't agree more, that's why I added "or is meant to be".

I think I might be arguing with the wrong person

The Great (or grey) Buffoon?

I wouldn't argue with the Great Buffoon - just invite him to choose a ditch.

I'm happy to phone the coroner and even pay for the phone call (well, my company will, of course)

p.s. What makes you think I'm grey - or is that you ?

[Victor Meldrew]

I think I might be arguing with the wrong person

The Great (or grey) Buffoon?

I wouldn't argue with the Great Buffoon - just invite him to choose a ditch.

I'm happy to phone the coroner and even pay for the phone call (well, my company will, of course)

p.s. What makes you think I'm grey - or is that you ?

Surprisingly, despite being ancient, I don't have much grey.
No, the "grey" man is the buffoon with the wayward hair, matching his personality.
BTW, The Fat Dictator, Billy Bunter Liar or The Dozy Ditchman might suit as well.

[Old Man Andrews]

Politics thread

Talking about football is the only way to forget the omnishambles of our current political system.

[Franchise FC]

The Great (or grey) Buffoon?

I wouldn't argue with the Great Buffoon - just invite him to choose a ditch.

I'm happy to phone the coroner and even pay for the phone call (well, my company will, of course)

p.s. What makes you think I'm grey - or is that you ?

Surprisingly, despite being ancient, I don't have much grey.
No, the "grey" man is the buffoon with the wayward hair, matching his personality.
BTW, The Fat Dictator, Billy Bunter Liar or The Dozy Ditchman might suit as well.

I really like The Dozy Ditchman

[tmesis]

As predicted, VAR isn't really solving any of the issues video technology was supposed to address.

At the same time it's created it's own issues, slowed down the game at times, impacted on the way referees appear to be making decisions, and it's starting to have a negative effect on the joy of watching a game.

I was in favour of VAR at first, but I think it's having a very negative impact on the game. All it seems to be used for is to rule out goals because a player was half an inch offside.

[Franchise FC]

As predicted, VAR isn't really solving any of the issues video technology was supposed to address.

At the same time it's created it's own issues, slowed down the game at times, impacted on the way referees appear to be making decisions, and it's starting to have a negative effect on the joy of watching a game.

I was in favour of VAR at first, but I think it's having a very negative impact on the game. All it seems to be used for is to rule out goals because a player was half an inch offside.

I've been very consistent in my view. It's GPS (the goal prevention system).

[Sutekh]

VAR a disaster yet again. How on earth was Firmino offside?

[Hoop Blah]

VAR a disaster yet again. How on earth was Firmino offside?

I've not seen it, but heard it was given for his armpit being offside or something daft!

How close a call was it? These marginal decisions are still being made with technology that just isn't accurate enough to be able to make these calls with 100% confidence so I don't understand why it's being allowed.