|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 15:41:11 GMT
Which decision specifically? Both of those penalties were penalties. I didn't and still don't think that France's penalty was a penalty. I'm not convinced the defender didn't get a slight touch on the ball and I also don't believe there was any contact and Griezmann dived. The replays clearly showed there was contact on the follow through and getting the ball doesn't in and of itself mean it isn't a foul.
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Jun 16, 2018 15:41:50 GMT
Agree with a lot of points here. Was there really enough evidence to give France the pen? Bloke touched the ball and the first touch was very heavy due to it. It’s a 50/50 call and I certainly didn’t think VAR would overturn it
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jun 16, 2018 15:44:42 GMT
VAR is just horrible, get rid now, it'll be the end of me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 15:46:18 GMT
I didn't and still don't think that France's penalty was a penalty. I'm not convinced the defender didn't get a slight touch on the ball and I also don't believe there was any contact and Griezmann dived. The replays clearly showed there was contact on the follow through and getting the ball doesn't in and of itself mean it isn't a foul. And to turn that statement on its head, not all contact means it's a foul.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 15:48:15 GMT
The replays clearly showed there was contact on the follow through and getting the ball doesn't in and of itself mean it isn't a foul. And to turn that statement on its head, not all contact means it's a foul. Absolutely. Contact that takes the man out when he's through on goal in the box after the ball's gone is a penalty though. It was like Arnie's late pen at Goodison a few years back in the 4-3. Follow through took out the man, so it's a penalty.
|
|
|
Post by philb on Jun 16, 2018 15:48:45 GMT
The replays clearly showed there was contact on the follow through and getting the ball doesn't in and of itself mean it isn't a foul. And to turn that statement on its head, not all contact means it's a foul. He got the ball which deviated only slightly then took out the player who would have got to the ball. They were two separate incidents really. It was the correct decision.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Jun 16, 2018 15:53:29 GMT
Think Argentina should have had a second penalty. What's the point in VAR if they are still missing things? I am in no way bitter because it's fucked my acca up, either! It was a definite penalty that, yeah - bizarre that the ref didn't go to VAR for that, felt like he just bottled it. Seems like you are arguing against yourself. VAR still got it wrong in the France/Aussie game, and again in the Argentina game...so how can it be a good thing? The technology might, in principle, be a good thing but until we have the people who are good enough to operate and interpret it properly, it should be kept out of major tournaments Even Clattenburg, who claims to be 100% in favour of VAR, was highly critical of how it was used today
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jun 16, 2018 15:54:20 GMT
And to turn that statement on its head, not all contact means it's a foul. Absolutely. Contact that takes the man out when he's through on goal in the box after the ball's gone is a penalty though. It was like Arnie's late pen at Goodison a few years back in the 4-3. Follow through took out the man, so it's a penalty. He doesn’t take out the man though. Greizmann’s run isn’t affected by the contact. He continues with his stride, then presumably sees he’s not going to get to the ball and decides his legs have turned to jelly. It’s a blatant dive.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 15:54:36 GMT
It was a definite penalty that, yeah - bizarre that the ref didn't go to VAR for that, felt like he just bottled it. Seems like you are arguing against yourself. VAR still got it wrong in the France/Aussie game, and again in the Argentina game...so how can it be a good thing? The technology might, in principle, be a good thing but until we have the people who are good enough to operate and interpret it properly, it should be kept out of major tournaments Even Clattenburg, who claims to be 100% in favour of VAR, was highly critical of how it was used today VAR didn't get it wrong in the France Australia decision, it got it right. VAR got nothing wrong as far as I could see in the other game? The ref chose not to use it, which was his mistake.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 15:55:28 GMT
Absolutely. Contact that takes the man out when he's through on goal in the box after the ball's gone is a penalty though. It was like Arnie's late pen at Goodison a few years back in the 4-3. Follow through took out the man, so it's a penalty. He doesn’t take out the man though. Greizmann’s run isn’t affected by the contact. He continues with his stride, then presumably sees he’s not going to get to the ball and decides his legs have turned to jelly. It’s a blatant dive. His trailing leg clearly takes him out. Virtually every slow motion replay made that clear.
|
|
|
Post by philb on Jun 16, 2018 15:56:16 GMT
Shame we can’t just shit bin VAR isn’t it 😂
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jun 16, 2018 15:58:59 GMT
If a VAR decision sends England home, won’t that mean it was probably the right decision? After all the pissing and moaning about the disallowed goals against Argentina and Portugal, the Rooney red card, the Lampard ‘goal’, I’d have thought people would be happy about something designed to reduce the shaftings? I was worried it’d slow the games down after how it was used in the FA Cup but I’ve enjoyed the games so far today and the penalty calls in the France/Aus game were both spot on. Think Argentina should have had a second penalty. What's the point in VAR if they are still missing things? I am in no way bitter because it's fucked my acca up, either! They shouldn't of had the first one either, 2 pen decisions in one game and both wrong, it shouldn't have passed the in house testing faze, surely there's a better option.
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jun 16, 2018 16:03:55 GMT
He doesn’t take out the man though. Greizmann’s run isn’t affected by the contact. He continues with his stride, then presumably sees he’s not going to get to the ball and decides his legs have turned to jelly. It’s a blatant dive. His trailing leg clearly takes him out. Virtually every slow motion replay made that clear. I’ve seen the replays Rob. The defenders leg makes contact with Greizmann’s calf, but you can see that it doesn’t affect his run. He simply decides to flop to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jun 16, 2018 16:04:47 GMT
Are we saying that if a defender makes contact with an opponent in the penalty area then it is always a penalty, because that seems to be the trend here?
if thats the case the problems are only just starting because
a) not all incidents will be referred - inconsistencies still occur, only more of them that there were before b) attackers are playing for minimal contact and will appeal every incident- therefore slowing the game and making defending exceptionally difficult, putting more pressure on refs c) the VAR does not guarantee the correct decision, its still interpretation not fact, therefore inconsistencies that existed before are still existing d) we are going to get 5-6 pens per game
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 16:05:23 GMT
His trailing leg clearly takes him out. Virtually every slow motion replay made that clear. I’ve seen the replays Rob. The defenders leg makes contact with Greizmann’s calf, but you can see that it doesn’t affect his run. He simply decides to flop to the ground. It’s more than ‘contact’, it’s forceful enough to take him out.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 16:05:49 GMT
Are we saying that if a defender makes contact with an opponent in the penalty area then it is always a penalty, because that seems to be the trend here? if thats the case the problems are only just starting because a) not all incidents will be referred - inconsistencies still occur, only more of them that there were before b) attackers are playing for minimal contact and will appeal every incident- therefore slowing the game and making defending exceptionally difficult, putting more pressure on refs c) the VAR does not guarantee the correct decision, its still interpretation not fact, therefore inconsistencies that existed before are still existing d) we are going to get 5-6 pens per game No, nobody’s saying that.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Jun 16, 2018 16:07:48 GMT
Seems like you are arguing against yourself. VAR still got it wrong in the France/Aussie game, and again in the Argentina game...so how can it be a good thing? The technology might, in principle, be a good thing but until we have the people who are good enough to operate and interpret it properly, it should be kept out of major tournaments Even Clattenburg, who claims to be 100% in favour of VAR, was highly critical of how it was used today VAR didn't get it wrong in the France Australia decision, it got it right.
VAR got nothing wrong as far as I could see in the other game? The ref chose not to use it, which was his mistake. Nah...never a pen
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 16:08:24 GMT
VAR didn't get it wrong in the France Australia decision, it got it right.
VAR got nothing wrong as far as I could see in the other game? The ref chose not to use it, which was his mistake. Nah...never a pen Oh, ok.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 16:28:05 GMT
This thread is proof alone that even after VAR has been used there are still plenty of people at loggerheads over the decision.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 16:30:58 GMT
This thread is proof alone that even after VAR has been used there are still plenty of people at loggerheads over the decision. You’ll never get 100% consensus but refs clearly need help and this will see more correct decisions given overall. If it doesn’t overly slow the game down, and it hasn’t so far, I don’t see the issue?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 16:35:32 GMT
This thread is proof alone that even after VAR has been used there are still plenty of people at loggerheads over the decision. You’ll never get 100% consensus but refs clearly need help and this will see more correct decisions given overall. If it doesn’t overly slow the game down, and it hasn’t so far, I don’t see the issue? I don't think that referees do need help. They just need to get tough on the players who are cheating and making their job a lot harder than it should be.
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Jun 16, 2018 16:35:46 GMT
I'm not a fan of it at all however it needs to be given time before a firmer judgment can be made.
I seem to remember when they first introduced the challenges in cricket it was absolutely bedlam and now it is enhancing the experience and I actually don't think it would be the same without it.
It needs streamlining and it must involve the spectators however and this is where it is currently failing.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 16:36:52 GMT
You’ll never get 100% consensus but refs clearly need help and this will see more correct decisions given overall. If it doesn’t overly slow the game down, and it hasn’t so far, I don’t see the issue? I don't think that referees do need help. They just need to get tough on the players who are cheating and making their job a lot harder than it should be. But they only have one go at normal speed to make those decisions. That’s the point. It’s incredibly difficult. You often can’t tell at first glance if a player he cheated or not.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jun 16, 2018 16:38:37 GMT
VAR designed to take out the controversial decisions yet we still have fans arguing the toss whether it was a penalty or not.
1. The number of players harassing the referee as the tournament goes on will grow and grow - it could get ugly. 2. The PAYING supporters in the ground and the watching millions don't know what is happening - that can't be right. 3. VAR proves nothing - you still have blokes making a judgement call.
I think goal line tech has been great, the rest is a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by adi on Jun 16, 2018 16:46:43 GMT
VAR worked very well just in Peru v Denmark. Excellent in fact
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Jun 16, 2018 16:49:05 GMT
There'll be penalties in every game now.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 16:52:58 GMT
VAR worked very well just in Peru v Denmark. Excellent in fact Shows how wank the ref is, plain as the nose on your face that one... It makes me very uncomfortable that they play on for 30 seconds after, like what's the fucking point at all?
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jun 16, 2018 16:53:57 GMT
Worked that time.
What would have happened if Denmark had scored in the time it took to go to VAR
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jun 16, 2018 16:54:11 GMT
VAR designed to take out the controversial decisions yet we still have fans arguing the toss whether it was a penalty or not. 1. The number of players harassing the referee as the tournament goes on will grow and grow - it could get ugly. 2. The PAYING supporters in the ground and the watching millions don't know what is happening - that can't be right. 3. VAR proves nothing - you still have blokes making a judgement call. I think goal line tech has been great, the rest is a waste of time. I tend to agree, though the VAR produced the right decision for Peru there. But this his throws up the question as to whether the ref would normally have given the penalty but decided to let VAR make the decision for him. The problem then is that once it’s introduced in the Premier League (hopefully with us there in it), supporters are going to have to get used to the delayed decisions, which I don’t really like the sound of. Football’s an instant game. I think VAR could kill some of the things we love about the game, like full-on goal celebrations.
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jun 16, 2018 16:56:25 GMT
Worked that time. What would have happened if Denmark had scored in the time it took to go to VAR The commentator seemed to suggest that he’d waited til the ball was in a neutral part of the pitch, so no danger of a goal.
|
|