|
Post by rcb on Dec 30, 2019 9:35:19 GMT
Following a frustrating weekend with VAR, particularly for Wolves, I think the current laws and interpretations are a bit of a joke. With millimetres deciding outcomes, I don’t even know what playing the ball means. Is it the moment when the foot, or other legal part of the body, touches the ball, or when the ball first leaves the foot, bearing in mind that the time involved in the ball being cushioned prior to release will involve sufficient time for players to move many millimetres? How do we know that the cameras accurately show the exact moment the ball is played? i like the sentiments of Graeme Souness this weekend - "I just don't get it," said Souness. "We're in the entertainment business. What we're doing is denying the people the enjoyment of goals. What we should do is say that if any part of an attacker is in an onside position they can't be given offside. "We cannot go on like this. There's too much frustration going on."
|
|
|
Post by chislenko2 on Dec 30, 2019 9:50:15 GMT
The Pukki "goal" for Norwich looked perfectly good to me.
I think, maybe cynically, the big teams get the decisions.
That may just be my mindset having never supported a "big team".
|
|
|
Post by weareblues on Dec 30, 2019 10:00:56 GMT
Got no time for VAR football is all about human error it’s what makes it so entertaining the fact you can’t even celebrate a goal no more kills the whole buzz about it
Premier league is dead if I’m honest Championship by far the most entertaining league
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Dec 30, 2019 10:12:20 GMT
It’s shite isn’t it? I rarely watch the PL these days, and easily find myself switching off when I do because of all this, as do many others judging by social media. The ironic thing is VAR was brought in solely for the TV viewer’s “entertainment” - yet its completely ruined it for the majority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2019 10:56:06 GMT
The Pukki "goal" for Norwich looked perfectly good to me. I think, maybe cynically, the big teams get the decisions. That may just be my mindset having never supported a "big team". Listening to that game, I believe the Norwich fans were singing "it's not football anymore" after that decision. I reckon the vast majority of supporters loathe VAR but, in the modern game, especially at PL level, their opinions have long since ceased to matter. Thank goodness we won't see it at our level for years, if at all
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Dec 30, 2019 11:09:07 GMT
Looks like the year it’s finally Liverpool’s year is the same year VAR has been introduced and awarded them a boatload of contentious decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lime on Dec 30, 2019 11:20:00 GMT
It's strange really. Offside was the one thing you'd thought they'd be able to get right. Last few weeks there have been a number of dubious decisions. Mainly where it's unclear whether they were off or not, but still overruled the goal.
Have you noticed too that the VAR official is often a referee far more inexperienced than the one on the pitch. Wonder how they feel about it all?
Referees' interpretations of a foul seem different from that of supporters too. Especially when viewed in slow motion. I thought VAR was probably a good idea, but not the way they seem to be using it.
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Agenda on Dec 30, 2019 14:26:55 GMT
It’s shite isn’t it? I rarely watch the PL these days, and easily find myself switching off when I do because of all this, as do many others judging by social media. The ironic thing is VAR was brought in solely for the TV viewer’s “entertainment” - yet its completely ruined it for the majority. Totally wrong. If VAR was brought in solely for the TV Viewers entertainment, then it would only be used in games that are Live on TV, the same way it's used in Cricket and Rugby League, where unlike VAR their version isn't used at every game. VAR was brought in to eradicate contentious goals/key desicisions all ALL games and not just those being broadcast live on TV. It wasn't brought in at the request of TV companies, but at the request of people high up in the game, who were frustrated with the amount of decisions refs were getting wrong.
|
|
ddod
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by ddod on Dec 30, 2019 14:39:32 GMT
What I'd do, get rid of linesmen, they're now redundant. You have a clearer view of offside from a position further away, in this case a VAR camera. VAR team watch the game for the offsides, when a play is off side, they then tell the ref and he stops the game accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by sealandender1 on Dec 30, 2019 15:11:48 GMT
Looks like the year it’s finally Liverpool’s year is the same year VAR has been introduced and awarded them a boatload of contentious decisions. Like a lot of others on this site, I have no affinity to any other team other than Chester FC - but honestly, what you have stated above, is absolute WALOOB.
|
|
|
Post by RonD on Dec 30, 2019 15:40:36 GMT
Looks like the year it’s finally Liverpool’s year is the same year VAR has been introduced and awarded them a boatload of contentious decisions. Think everyone has had a few dodgy decisions. I'm not a Liverpool fan but they are by far the best team in the country at present and show no signs of throwing the huge lead away.
|
|
jimmy
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by jimmy on Dec 30, 2019 16:32:00 GMT
I don't understand this dislike of everything Liverpool. Manchester United yes, but not Liverpool!
|
|
|
Post by delamereal on Dec 30, 2019 16:56:03 GMT
Looks like the year it’s finally Liverpool’s year is the same year VAR has been introduced and awarded them a boatload of contentious decisions. All of which were correct under the rules which are the same for every team in the premiershite. You don't like Liverpool?? I think we get that by now for God's sake move on.
|
|
|
Post by 54321 on Dec 30, 2019 16:58:32 GMT
Who are the VAR team? guessing made up of Traffic Wardens Car park attendants PCSOs and ruby union players.
|
|
|
Post by bing on Dec 30, 2019 20:32:35 GMT
Looks like the year it’s finally Liverpool’s year is the same year VAR has been introduced and awarded them a boatload of contentious decisions. People made out that the refs were conspiring to gift Liverpool the league last season. Yet this season it's VAR - despite overturning the same refs who were "biased" towards Liverpool last season. You couldn't make it up! My main issue with VAR is that it takes too long and you're never quite sure whether it's a goal or not. Football is about spontaneous moments and VAR is currently sucking the enjoyment out of the most exciting moments of all. I've wondered whether they could adopt something similar to cricket, where you have a review you can call upon at any time if a striker feels he was onside, for example, or has been wrestled to the ground?
|
|
ddod
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by ddod on Dec 30, 2019 22:30:25 GMT
Players rolling around on the floor acting like fannies slows the game down, pretending to be hurt it's embarrassing, even when Chester players do it.
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Dec 30, 2019 22:56:24 GMT
The only thing that surprises me is that so many fans seem surprised about this. I've said for years that once we start microanalysing the game in this way, we'll kill it.
The irony is that the decisions that are annoying people the most are the ones that are technically correct. All VAR is doing is brutally enforcing rules that have been in place for decades. The likes of marginal offsides, encroachment into the area on penalties, goalkeepers stepping off their lines - these aren't new rules. They've always been there, it's just that refs allowed some leeway on them as there's only so much they could be sure of and they didn't want to be seen as overly officious. And we all preferred it that way.
We now have a situation where players are being ruled offside by margins that could come down to them having a bigger nose or chin than the defender. Kanu was said to have worn size 15 boots when he was playing. When players are being caught offside by a matter of millimetres, this sort of thing can make a genuine difference.
Let's remember why the offside rule exists. It's to discourage 'goal-hanging' and reward inventive attacking play. If players are being called offside after three minutes of analysis because they're armpit is past the last defender, that goes against the spirit of what the game is meant to be about in my opinion.
The most important matter in football is not to get every decision 100% correct. It's to make sure the game is controlled, free-flowing and based on the simple, working-class premise of trying to kick the ball into the other teams' net. This is how we all got into it.
VAR can do one as far as I'm concerned. Bad decisions happen - get over it! If you're good, you'll still win, and if you're crap, you'll still lose.
|
|
|
Post by rcb on Dec 31, 2019 8:47:00 GMT
Football's law-makers say the video assistant referee system should not be "too forensic" when it comes to offsides - and should only be used to reverse "clear and obvious" errors.
Five goals in the Premier League were ruled out at the weekend for marginal offsides, leading some managers and players to criticise VAR.
Lukas Brud, general secretary of the International Football Association Board, said: "With VAR we see some things that are going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust."
He said the body would reissue guidance on VAR's use after its annual general meeting in February.
"If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original decision should stand," he said.
He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee.
"In theory, 1mm offside is offside, but if a decision is taken that a player is not offside and the VAR is trying to identify through looking at five, six, seven, 10, 12 cameras whether or not it was offside, then the original decision should stand.
|
|
|
Post by rcb on Dec 31, 2019 8:47:58 GMT
Extract from BBC Sport - “Football's law-makers say the video assistant referee system should not be "too forensic" when it comes to offsides - and should only be used to reverse "clear and obvious" errors. Five goals in the Premier League were ruled out at the weekend for marginal offsides, leading some managers and players to criticise VAR. Lukas Brud, general secretary of the International Football Association Board, said: "With VAR we see some things that are going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust." He said the body would reissue guidance on VAR's use after its annual general meeting in February. "If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original decision should stand," he said. He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee. "In theory, 1mm offside is offside, but if a decision is taken that a player is not offside and the VAR is trying to identify through looking at five, six, seven, 10, 12 cameras whether or not it was offside, then the original decision should stand.
|
|
|
Post by bing on Dec 31, 2019 12:11:21 GMT
Problem is, take the Wolves one the other day... the VAR people would have seen that and correctly called him to be offside, albeit very marginal. As it isn't clearly and obviously offside, should they have allowed the goal to stand?! Too much of a grey area for me.
|
|
|
Post by Wortleyblue on Dec 31, 2019 13:24:41 GMT
Problem is, take the Wolves one the other day... the VAR people would have seen that and correctly called him to be offside, albeit very marginal. As it isn't clearly and obviously offside, should they have allowed the goal to stand?! Too much of a grey area for me. I've said it before if its that close then what should happen is the same as in cricket the on field decision stands also I believe each team should also have a limited number of revues as in cricket.
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Agenda on Dec 31, 2019 13:34:29 GMT
Problem is, take the Wolves one the other day... the VAR people would have seen that and correctly called him to be offside, albeit very marginal. As it isn't clearly and obviously offside, should they have allowed the goal to stand?! Too much of a grey area for me. I'm not saying I agree with it but under the current rules you're either offside or your not, no matter whether it's by a cm or 3 yards. The problem with marginal decisions is if they start leaving it to the discretion of the people in charge of VAR we're gonna get situations where someone see's it as offside in one game, and a totally different person doesn't in a different one, and then we'll be back into the debates of why did that goal stand today, when such and such was deemed offside last week, when they were both only marginally offside.
|
|
|
Post by chesterken on Dec 31, 2019 13:59:52 GMT
Extract from BBC Sport - “Football's law-makers say the video assistant referee system should not be "too forensic" when it comes to offsides - and should only be used to reverse "clear and obvious" errors. Five goals in the Premier League were ruled out at the weekend for marginal offsides, leading some managers and players to criticise VAR. Lukas Brud, general secretary of the International Football Association Board, said: "With VAR we see some things that are going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust." He said the body would reissue guidance on VAR's use after its annual general meeting in February. "If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original decision should stand," he said. He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee. "In theory, 1mm offside is offside, but if a decision is taken that a player is not offside and the VAR is trying to identify through looking at five, six, seven, 10, 12 cameras whether or not it was offside, then the original decision should stand.
|
|
ddod
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by ddod on Dec 31, 2019 14:08:40 GMT
Problem is, take the Wolves one the other day... the VAR people would have seen that and correctly called him to be offside, albeit very marginal. As it isn't clearly and obviously offside, should they have allowed the goal to stand?! Too much of a grey area for me. I'm not saying I agree with it but under the current rules you're either offside or your not, no matter whether it's by a cm or 3 yards. The problem with marginal decisions is if they start leaving it to the discretion of the people in charge of VAR we're gonna get situations where someone see's it as offside in one game, and a totally different person doesn't in a different one, and then we'll be back into the debates of why did that goal stand today, when such and such was deemed offside last week, when they were both only marginally offside. Exactly, you're either onside or off. If you're off by a few mm, you're still off.
|
|
|
Post by rcb on Dec 31, 2019 14:22:33 GMT
What Lukas Brad emphasises, under current laws, is that VAR is intended to adjudicate where a ‘clear and obvious’ error has taken place. Microscopic examination takes the analysis process way beyond the intended parameters, therefore authorities are totally ignoring what should be a common sense ideal. What, the FA having total disregard for common sense? Surely not!
|
|
|
Post by oldsealandroadender on Dec 31, 2019 21:17:24 GMT
One of the complaints about VAR is how long the check is taking. Instead of the lengthy delay why don't the VAR adjudicators slow the picture down look at it a couple of times with the naked eye and if they cannot say if it is definitively offside without resorting to micro measurement then it is not a clear and obvious error so goal should stand unless the match referee wants to view the VAR. This could be done in the time it takes to get the ball to the centre spot.
Whatever happened to the idea of giving the attacking team the benefit of the doubt for more goals and excitement. The current system seems to be having the opposite effect.
|
|
|
Post by chislenko2 on Jan 4, 2020 23:34:56 GMT
The world has now gone totally mad, FA Cup games today that were played at Premier League grounds had VAR but the rest didn't.
In the Watford Tranmere game they used VAR to award Tranmere a penalty but not to look at an earlier incident where the Watford keeper caught the ball well outside of his area.
Nothing makes sense anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Feb 4, 2020 22:18:44 GMT
Shrewsbury got a replay at Liverpool that they wouldn't have got if VAR was in place. Tonight they were denied the lead at Anfield because it was it place. What a load of bollocks. I wouldn't mind but I put a fiver on Shaun Whalley for the first goal. F**ks sake!
|
|
|
Post by catfordbags on Feb 5, 2020 15:46:54 GMT
VAR is shite - I've not got a problem with refs making decisions and the ones in the prem are pretty good.
Sort out timewasting and give me severe retrospective suspensions for feigning injury, diving and dissent and everything is sorted.
|
|
|
Post by bing on Feb 5, 2020 16:06:38 GMT
VAR is shite - I've not got a problem with refs making decisions and the ones in the prem are pretty good. Sort out timewasting and give me severe retrospective suspensions for feigning injury, diving and dissent and everything is sorted. 100% agree with this. These are surely easy things to implement. Regarding VAR, I wish journalists would stop referring to, "VAR controversy" when VAR makes a correct call. Definitely annoying (the time it takes), but it doesn't have to be "controversial" every time!
|
|