The VAR again!!!

by **Don Sholeone** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:06 pm

VAR is just going to be a gimmick, the same old excuses are going to be used, things will be missed and excused, and they will give controversial decisions. Not to mention that it can near enough be negated by officials blowing play dead like on incorrect offside decisions. Unfortunately its just going to be a great idea that is misused and applied unfairly and inconsistently.

by **krully** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:47 pm

Rio is a cronut so I say the refs are right

by **Remember Colo** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:28 pm

Bodacious Benny wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:00 pm

Remember Colo wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:43 pm
Real late to this (just got back from vacation in New Zealand), but I think it's a bit tough that every questionable VAR decision gets stories written about it, while plenty of good VAR decisions that correct mistakes get taken for granted. As others have said, there will always been calls that are questionable with and without VAR, and I agree that some incidents look worse when analysed in slow motion (the degree in which replays even just for tv viewers rely on slow motion tends to annoy me), but overall I think VAR correcting the obvious errors outweighs the downsides, so long as they get a handle on the instances where they take too many minutes to make a decision that won't be conclusive no matter how long they look at it.
Went to NZ in 2016 and loved it. So relaxed and laid back compared to the UK (recent events aside). Definitely want to go back. I've got a mate who's there on holiday now, arrived on Saturday and spending 4 weeks travelling the North and South Islands.

I absolutely loved it too! Was there 2.5 weeks, and after a pretty brutal winter here in Canada, it was great to experience the tail end of their summer. As you said, very relaxed, plus gorgeous scenery, a lot of fun activities, good food and drink, and friendly people. I think I'd love living there, aside from how geographically isolated it is from everywhere.

by **bodacious benny** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:00 pm

Remember Colo wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:43 pm
Real late to this (just got back from vacation in New Zealand), but I think it's a bit tough that every questionable VAR decision gets stories written about it, while plenty of good VAR decisions that correct mistakes get taken for granted. As others have said, there will always been calls that are questionable with and without VAR, and I agree that some incidents look worse when analysed in slow motion (the degree in which replays even just for tv viewers rely on slow motion tends to annoy me), but overall I think VAR correcting the obvious errors outweighs the downsides, so long as they get a handle on the instances where they take too many minutes to make a decision that won't be conclusive no matter how long they look at it.

Went to NZ in 2016 and loved it. So relaxed and laid back compared to the UK (recent events aside). Definitely want to go back. I've got a mate who's there on holiday now, arrived on Saturday and spending 4 weeks travelling the North and South Islands.

by **Remember Colo** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:43 pm

Real late to this (just got back from vacation in New Zealand), but I think it's a bit tough that every questionable VAR decision gets stories written about it, while plenty of good VAR decisions that correct mistakes get taken for granted. As others have said, there will always been calls that are questionable with and without VAR, and I agree that some incidents look worse when analysed in slow motion (the degree in which replays even just for tv viewers rely on slow motion tends to annoy me), but overall I think VAR correcting the obvious errors outweighs the downsides, so long as they get a handle on the instances where they take too many minutes to make a decision that won't be conclusive no matter how long they look at it.

by **Colly** » Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:14 pm

ALF wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:01 pm

Colly wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:54 am
I mean I don't even agree with the term "stonewall penalty" because that's not what what stonewall means, but even using the football terminology that is anything but a stonewall penalty. There was barely an appeal, they were ready to take the corner.
Nobody appealing doesn't mean it wasn't handball. His arm is away from his body and blocks the shot whilst moving towards the ball.

It does suggest it was anything but "stonewall" though.

by **Colly** » Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:12 pm

daib0 wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:56 pm
do you guys reckon then that the VAR will in some point in the future extend to every part of the pitch and not just goal-mouth incidents?

It already does, red cards can be reviewed.

by **ALF** » Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:01 pm

Colly wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:54 am
I mean I don't even agree with the term "stonewall penalty" because that's not what what stonewall means, but even using the football terminology that is anything but a stonewall penalty. There was barely an appeal, they were ready to take the corner.

Nobody appealing doesn't mean it wasn't handball. His arm is away from his body and blocks the shot whilst moving towards the ball.

by **daib0** » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:56 pm

do you guys reckon then that the VAR will in some point in the future extend to every part of the pitch and not just goal-mouth incidents?

by **bodacious benny** » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:48 pm

daib0 wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:46 pm
so the VAR is not really helping to clear things up then?!

You’re never going to get 100% of incidents being definitely right or definitely wrong, there will always be grey areas with or without VAR.

by **daib0** » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:46 pm

so the VAR is not really helping to clear things up then?!

by **Colly** » Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:54 am

I mean I don't even agree with the term "stonewall penalty" because that's not what what stonewall means, but even using the football terminology that is anything but a stonewall penalty. There was barely an appeal, they were ready to take the corner.

by **bodacious benny** » Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:43 am

ALF wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:40 am
It was a stonewall penalty. I can't believe it's even being argued. Kimpembes reaction told the whole story.

Young’s against us was a stonewall (that wasn’t given).

If this one was so stonewall there is no way that so many former pros, pundits, media people, former referees etc would be having different views on it.

It does show that even with VAR we will get some debatable decisions, which is actually good in a way as it gives plenty of talking points.

by **ALF** » Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:40 am

It was a stonewall penalty. I can't believe it's even being argued. Kimpembes reaction told the whole story.

by **bodacious benny** » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:09 am

His arm was a little away from his body, but in the speed of the game you cannot jump with your arms bolted down to your side. It’s impossible. It’s definitely one that you’ve seen given but for me it wasn’t a penalty, nor was it a “clear and obvious error” from the ref so not sure why it even went to VAR. Also, the defender wasn’t trying to make his body bigger, so no penalty for me.

by **Colly** » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:32 pm

I think it's a 'you've seen them given' one, his arm is coming away from his body and had it been given on the field I don't think there'd be many complaints. What I do take issue with is that it wasn't given, then they spent three minutes to decide it was a "clear and obvious error" and therefore a penalty. It's a massively debatable penalty, not even remotely a clear error, and not what VAR was brought in to do. It was brought in to get rid of obvious cheating missed by a referee such as the Henry handball, not to rereferee marginal decisions.

That's my opinion, what is fact is that this definitely happened on Wednesday...

Oh, and never ever listen to Peter Walton or whoever it may have been, the BT Sport ref pundit will always back the decision the referee makes regardless of how farcical it is. They've been doing it for years and it's a complete joke, was worse when they briefly had Mark Halsey actually on commentary in one of their 4 man teams.

by **daib0** » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:25 pm

Last night's match in Paris was decided by a penalty for hand ball given by the ref using VAR. All three ex footballers on the TV panel (Ferdinand, Owen and Hargreaves) were adamant that it wasn't hand ball but the ref in attendance disagreed stating hat as the laws stood at present it was. Surely if there is such a disagreement the laws of the game need clarifying. Surely hand ball was meant to mean that a hand was deliberately used to block the ball.

Even if it wasn't obviously "deliberate" it DID alter substantially the course of the ball. That's NOT the fault of the striker making a shot, so SHOULD be taken into account!!!

Opinions???

The VAR again!!!

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

Re: The VAR again!!!

The VAR again!!!