Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not sure where to put this. I always find these signs a laugh. But have a new favourite. The Dingles are in town.

*sigh* Yes, all lives matter. That is what the BLM movement is about. No one has said that white lives don't matter. When the police created the blue lives matter, did you or other people complai

Posted Images

6 hours ago, philipl said:

Yes Liverpool have been lucky with VAR but yesterday's calls were correct- there was a marginal forward handball before the blatant TAA so the ball was technically dead before the penalty decision and Salah was onside.

Both decisions were so tight that without VAR they would have been passed over. You get the handball sometimes, and sometimes you don't.

What grated me, as it always does, was the 'soft' fouls by defenders on Sterling to let the ball run out for a goal kick. One was a push in his back and the other was one of those instances where the defender goes 8 feet away from the ball to just block off and bundle the striker away from the ball. If a striker had done either of those offences to a defender, and he went down, it is a free kick straight away.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hasta said:

Both decisions were so tight that without VAR they would have been passed over. You get the handball sometimes, and sometimes you don't.

Arlo White commentating on NBC sports said that for VAR to intervene it has to be a "clear and obvious error" by the referee. I don't think that Oliver made an obvious error. As you said some you get, some you don't. It wasn't a mistake.

They also checked Salah's goal and it stood. Quite rightly for me. Yet Sheffield Utd had a goal disallowed against Spurs under very similar circumstances. I thought that one should have stood too. Laws need to be clarified to be able to keep up. A players hair being in an offside position shouldn't warrant a stoppage. They've also been reviewed for toes. It's far too picky. The authorities changed the law to level is onside to help attacking play. It should be tweaked again.  

VAR is a farce. Its starts with the daft NFL style Stockley Park control room the Premier League decided to implement. It is here to stay, but let on pitch officials sort it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, speeeeeeedie said:

Arlo White commentating on NBC sports said that for VAR to intervene it has to be a "clear and obvious error" by the referee. I don't think that Oliver made an obvious error. As you said some you get, some you don't. It wasn't a mistake.

They also checked Salah's goal and it stood. Quite rightly for me. Yet Sheffield Utd had a goal disallowed against Spurs under very similar circumstances. I thought that one should have stood too. Laws need to be clarified to be able to keep up. A players hair being in an offside position shouldn't warrant a stoppage. They've also been reviewed for toes. It's far too picky. The authorities changed the law to level is onside to help attacking play. It should be tweaked again.  

VAR is a farce. Its starts with the daft NFL style Stockley Park control room the Premier League decided to implement. It is here to stay, but let on pitch officials sort it out.

VAR does, and must, deal in absolutes. It simply cannot make mistakes that a referee would be forgiven for after one glance. Football as a spectator sport is not designed for absolutes.

The next issue is the time taken. But as always the crux of the issue is consistency. The utter lack of scrutiny yesterday - both decisions going in Liverpool’s favour - is at odds with what is happening at other grounds.

Liverpool have been huge beneficiaries of a massive and poorly implemented rule change. If VAR cannot be used consistently and quickly then it has to be binned.

But this is armchair football taken to extremes and thanks to the money involved it will almost certainly stay.

How long until viewers are involved in these decisions?

DDB38DFB-25E9-4373-990C-15C6D41178CC.thumb.jpeg.8b976e25ba06f1552a3a380af67e6bde.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is called Football

How about at least 1 foot being offside the deciding factor. Not a toe, a full foot. Or maybe have it that both feet need to be offside. 1 foot might favour those players with bad posture, I'm only kidding.....

VAR is an incredible advancement and the technology is being let down and 'maybe' miss used by the Human factor.

As others have said certain rules need amending to fit in with what VAR can offer.

It's here to stay so it needs quick surgery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

The game is called Football

How about at least 1 foot being offside the deciding factor. Not a toe, a full foot. Or maybe have it that both feet need to be offside. 1 foot might favour those players with bad posture, I'm only kidding.....

VAR is an incredible advancement and the technology is being let down and 'maybe' miss used by the Human factor.

As others have said certain rules need amending to fit in with what VAR can offer.

It's here to stay so it needs quick surgery.

Let’s be honest, the issue isn’t that VAR didn’t overturn the Salah goal, or give the handball, it’s the interpretation of what is a “clear and obvious error”.

It is also open to abuse. I was watching a penalty appeal last weekend that was so obviously a mistake by the ref and should have been given as a penalty but the VAR official just watched replay after replay and quite clearly didn’t want to give it. Maybe it’s down to personalities and some refs don’t like being undermined and others don’t mind but it is the inconsistency that makes VAR the farce that it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stuart said:

Let’s be honest, the issue isn’t that VAR didn’t overturn the Salah goal, or give the handball, it’s the interpretation of what is a “clear and obvious error”.

It is also open to abuse. I was watching a penalty appeal last weekend that was so obviously a mistake by the ref and should have been given as a penalty but the VAR official just watched replay after replay and quite clearly didn’t want to give it. Maybe it’s down to personalities and some refs don’t like being undermined and others don’t mind but it is the inconsistency that makes VAR the farce that it is.

It seems to me to have progressed to when a goal is scored VAR is used to look for any reason to disallow it, or in Liverpool's case to allow it.

The 'clear and obvious error'  not necessarily being a factor in this 'search'.

In addition, it suits the Media to have as much controversy as possible, imo

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

The game is called Football

How about at least 1 foot being offside the deciding factor. Not a toe, a full foot. Or maybe have it that both feet need to be offside. 1 foot might favour those players with bad posture, I'm only kidding.....

VAR is an incredible advancement and the technology is being let down and 'maybe' miss used by the Human factor.

As others have said certain rules need amending to fit in with what VAR can offer.

It's here to stay so it needs quick surgery.

Is quick surgery the answer though? This will be seen as changing the rules part way through a season which will go down as unfair on other clubs. 

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

It seems to me to have progressed to when a goal is scored VAR is used to look for any reason to disallow it, or in Liverpool's case to allow it.

The 'clear and obvious error'  not necessarily being a factor in this 'search'.

In addition, it suits the Media to have as much controversy as possible, imo

Agree, Sky loves it purely for the controversy it causes off the field.

Only one solution, get rid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cherry Blue said:

Is quick surgery the answer though? This will be seen as changing the rules part way through a season which will go down as unfair on other clubs. 

Agree, Sky loves it purely for the controversy it causes off the field.

Only one solution, get rid.

You are quite correct, any changes to rules should only be effective from the next season.

Sky love it - get rid, Sky a major reason why it's here to stay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stuart said:

Let’s be honest, the issue isn’t that VAR didn’t overturn the Salah goal, or give the handball, it’s the interpretation of what is a “clear and obvious error”.

It is also open to abuse. I was watching a penalty appeal last weekend that was so obviously a mistake by the ref and should have been given as a penalty but the VAR official just watched replay after replay and quite clearly didn’t want to give it. Maybe it’s down to personalities and some refs don’t like being undermined and others don’t mind but it is the inconsistency that makes VAR the farce that it is.

I said similar about the clear and obvious error instruction. It's too open ended and the authorities are desperately trying to protect their refer and their reputations. If the instruction just said error I think there would be more consistency

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cherry Blue said:

Is quick surgery the answer though? This will be seen as changing the rules part way through a season which will go down as unfair on other clubs. 

Agree, Sky loves it purely for the controversy it causes off the field.

...and what was wrong with the controversy before VAR? 

Have to point out how well Leicester are doing at the moment. I doubt they will finish top 2 but certainly that Maguire sale hasn't hurt them in the least thus far. You have to question Maguire's decision to leave though obviously United were not his first choice. Hopefully their persistence with Solskjaer will be their downfall. It's a shame considering what Leicester went through a year ago that Maguire would leave but as always footballers are inherently selfish. It sums up United fans that they accused Leicester of disrespecting Vichai's supposed dying wish (from a man who wasn't even ill and died unexpectedly) for not backing down from their asking price.

Speaking of unselfish...there was some speculation (in the Venkys London Ltd accounts) that King Power expressed some interest in Rovers before their attention diverted elsewhere. Now it's stupid to suggest they would have won the League title (if ever the phrase lightning in a bottle is apt that was it) but it's a superfluous statement to say they would have done much better than the Raos. I have to credit Vichai's son in the fine job he has done with his Father's legacy for the most part. He wasn't overheard badmouthing his Dad two months after lapping up applause from fans in the wake of his death.

Some people are just an unselfish credit to their families and themselves. Others are just greedy pieces of trash. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stuart said:

Let’s be honest, the issue isn’t that VAR didn’t overturn the Salah goal, or give the handball, it’s the interpretation of what is a “clear and obvious error”.

It is also open to abuse. I was watching a penalty appeal last weekend that was so obviously a mistake by the ref and should have been given as a penalty but the VAR official just watched replay after replay and quite clearly didn’t want to give it. Maybe it’s down to personalities and some refs don’t like being undermined and others don’t mind but it is the inconsistency that makes VAR the farce that it is.

I think the determining factor is what the referee has seen and why he hasn’t given the penalty. For instance, yesterday if Michael Oliver has seen the ball hit the arm and has adjudged that the ball was coming too quickly and from too close to give the player reasonable time to get out of the way, then thats fair enough and there is no way that the VAR official can say he has made a clear and obvious error. However, if he tells the VAR official that he thinks the ball hasn’t hit the arm then he has obviously missed something and therefore made a clear and obvious error and the VAR official can talk to him and see if he wants to overturn his original decision. 
 

The issue for the fans (as well as the players and managers) is that, unlike in other sports, we don’t get to hear the conversation between the ref and the VAR official. If we could then I think that a lot of  the decisions would seem much less controversial. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The VAR penalty incident was technically settled by the probable City hand ball before the Alexander Arnold blatant handball but the fact the ball stayed in play and Liverpool scored ten seconds later would have made one hell of a VAR penalty ruling.

Even had they gone that way with VAR, Liverpool were easily the better side and would have won regardless. Aguero is so jinxed at Anfield, he would have missed the penalty...

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Whatever one's views on VAR one thing that sensible people can agree on is that the idea that there is some sort of conspiracy to favour Liverpool is complete nonsense. The previous week they had a goal disallowed by VAR because of an offside armpit !

In the decisions that matter, particularly the marginal ones, Liverpool have been the biggest beneficiaries of VAR. City have been the least.

Any inconsistency in the implementation and “learning” has also favoured Liverpool and disadvantaged City.

It may be accidental rather than intentional but without VAR the gap would not be 9 points and City would probably be top. Just off the top of my head, +2 points from the Tottenham game and +1 yesterday, with -2 to Liverpool. That’s a 5 point swing without any real checking of points gained by Liverpool. 4 points instead of 9 and a lot more momentum behind City.

Let’s see if all controversial incidents now have VAR decisions taken in only 3 seconds to check, with no replay and instead just a pithy “VAR has completed the check” as is now the benchmark after Sunday.

Somehow I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Stuart said:

In the decisions that matter, particularly the marginal ones, Liverpool have been the biggest beneficiaries of VAR. City have been the least.

Any inconsistency in the implementation and “learning” has also favoured Liverpool and disadvantaged City.

It may be accidental rather than intentional but without VAR the gap would not be 9 points and City would probably be top. Just off the top of my head, +2 points from the Tottenham game and +1 yesterday, with -2 to Liverpool. That’s a 5 point swing without any real checking of points gained by Liverpool. 4 points instead of 9 and a lot more momentum behind City.

Let’s see if all controversial incidents now have VAR decisions taken in only 3 seconds to check, with no replay and instead just a pithy “VAR has completed the check” as is now the benchmark after Sunday.

Somehow I doubt it.

What you are alleging - in the form of a conspiracy to favour one club over another - is probably a criminal offence. I suggest you have cast iron evidence before you make such an allegation. I think you are talking nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.