|
Post by lordherefordsknob on Jun 16, 2018 16:56:30 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? If Denmark had broke and scored there could of caused bedlam in the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Jun 16, 2018 16:57:03 GMT
Have absolutely no problem with it at all and provided the right result is arrived at it can take all day as far as I’m concerned.
|
|
|
Post by terrorofturfmoor on Jun 16, 2018 17:22:26 GMT
VAR (or something similar) should only be used AFTER the game....obviously not to change any baring on the game....but to penalise either the offender (ie, if it was a deliberate foul and deserved a yellow or even RED card).... Or the offended, whether action needs to be taken if he dived or not!!!
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 16, 2018 17:37:36 GMT
Have absolutely no problem with it at all and provided the right result is arrived at it can take all day as far as I’m concerned. But if that is a matter of opinion or interpretation, it spoils the game. Both penalties today in the France match were judged to be incorrect decisions by all the experts on TV after the VAR decision. I'm OK with decisions on fact supported by camera evidence, such as: is the ball over the line or not? But how does VAR help on a decision on "deliberately" or "attempts to trip" or "excessive force", which are a matter of opinion. We have even seen wrong VAR decisions made on off-side.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 17:40:20 GMT
Have absolutely no problem with it at all and provided the right result is arrived at it can take all day as far as I’m concerned. But if that is a matter of opinion or interpretation, it spoils the game. Both penalties today in the France match were judged to be incorrect decisions by all the experts on TV after the VAR decision. I'm OK with decisions on fact supported by camera evidence, such as: is the ball over the line or not? But how does VAR help on a decision on "deliberately" or "attempts to trip" or "excessive force", which are a matter of opinion. We have even seen wrong VAR decisions made on off-side. The pundits didn’t unanimously judge them not to be penalties did they? Some did, some didn’t, and of the ones who did, Lawrenson clearly didn’t know the rules. The Umtiti pen was as clear a penalty as you’ll see, as was the one VAR gave (that the ref didn’t) in this Denmark game.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 17:59:34 GMT
The Denmark game was VAR done right IMO. Ref missed the pen, game was allowed to flow on and a decision was quickly made with less disruption than an Iceland throw in.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 16, 2018 18:01:45 GMT
But if that is a matter of opinion or interpretation, it spoils the game. Both penalties today in the France match were judged to be incorrect decisions by all the experts on TV after the VAR decision. I'm OK with decisions on fact supported by camera evidence, such as: is the ball over the line or not? But how does VAR help on a decision on "deliberately" or "attempts to trip" or "excessive force", which are a matter of opinion. We have even seen wrong VAR decisions made on off-side. The pundits didn’t unanimously judge them not to be penalties did they? Some did, some didn’t, and of the ones who did, Lawrenson clearly didn’t know the rules. The Umtiti pen was as clear a penalty as you’ll see, as was the one VAR gave (that the ref didn’t) in this Denmark game. Apologies, I wasn't thinking of the Umtiti incident, I was referring decisions in the first half, where I thought the pundits said the French penalty wasn't a penalty, and Australia should have been given a penalty but were denied. I am not anti VAR, but I think it's implementation is very flawed, and all we get is comments like it is new and officials need to learn. I agree the Umtiti decision was correct, but we also know that a ball can be hit directly at a player and he can't get his hand/arm out of the way and it is a "normal" position. How can VAR arbitrate in a situation that is in between? I'm sitting here with TV on and a pundit says VAR adds drama??????????? I give up!
|
|
|
Post by bridgnorthstokie on Jun 16, 2018 18:02:30 GMT
Agree - waste of time. It doesn't get rid of controversial decisions it just makes slower controversial decisions. Don't agree fully. Yes it takes time to reach a decision using var. But how long does it take for the argies or any team to surround the ref arguing about a decision. For the ref to restore order, caution players who have argued to intensely.before the decision is given. Is it really any longer. Don't think the main problem is var it's how players will try to force it's use on the referee. There has always been time lost on critical decisions from annoyed players or even managers ( can anyone remember man utd led by Roy Keane surrounding a ref and screaming in his face - how much time did that waste). The attitude of the players must change and allow the ref and technology to come to the right decision not use it as another tool to intimidate the ref.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jun 16, 2018 18:12:37 GMT
The only reason VAR should be used is to spot cheats.
At the next stoppage in play the offender should be given a black card. That would mean disqualification from the remainder of the tournament.
We saw offenders yesterday. They should all be on the plane home now.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Jun 16, 2018 18:39:14 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. He did touch the ball but caught him with the follow through.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Jun 16, 2018 18:42:55 GMT
Argies hassling the referee, asking for VAR. It's the group stage so imagine what it's going to be like in the knockouts? Crowds in the stadium and watching on TV haven't a clue what is going on. Even the Icelanders are at it now... Just not needed. A bit ironic that,after the hand of God incident by Maradona. A stark reminder to all England fans as to why it is very much needed.
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Jun 16, 2018 18:46:27 GMT
The problem with VAR is that today's high resolution images are actually too good. Every nick of contact or tiny detail of action can be picked up on camera, so the officials use it all as evidence to inform a decision. It sounds good in theory but in practice it makes the game tedious by the quest for the perfect decision.
It's got out of hand in the NFL to the point that nobody even knows what a catch is anymore, so fans watching at home and in the stadium are very frustrated by the confusion.
As hard as it is to accept at times, I'd just like to see officials do their best in real time and if they get it wrong then tough titty.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 18:56:18 GMT
The pundits didn’t unanimously judge them not to be penalties did they? Some did, some didn’t, and of the ones who did, Lawrenson clearly didn’t know the rules. The Umtiti pen was as clear a penalty as you’ll see, as was the one VAR gave (that the ref didn’t) in this Denmark game. Apologies, I wasn't thinking of the Umtiti incident, I was referring decisions in the first half, where I thought the pundits said the French penalty wasn't a penalty, and Australia should have been given a penalty but were denied. I am not anti VAR, but I think it's implementation is very flawed, and all we get is comments like it is new and officials need to learn. I agree the Umtiti decision was correct, but we also know that a ball can be hit directly at a player and he can't get his hand/arm out of the way and it is a "normal" position. How can VAR arbitrate in a situation that is in between? I'm sitting here with TV on and a pundit says VAR adds drama??????????? I give up! It’s a judgement call like any decision Cokey. The difference is the ref has time and various angles and more pairs of eyes on it to help him out.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 19:26:44 GMT
It's not the VAR that is ruining the game . It's the corrupt blind bastards that use it.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jun 16, 2018 19:49:52 GMT
All that football supporters want is to kill off cheating and get rid of the ridiculous number of penalties and free kicks that break up and ruin the modern game. VAR is doing nothing to solve either of these problems. The only way to get to the heart of it is to issue whole tournament bans for anything that looks like a dive, and to be tougher on niggly defending, while being more lenient to proper tackling. If the penalties are penalties and the free kicks are free kicks, what’s the problem? What is ‘proper tackling’? What if something that ‘looks like a dive’ is actually a bloke falling over or actually a foul not perceptible to the referee on the only viewing he gets? Is that whole tournament ban still enforced then? The penalties often aren't real penalties. They're 'oooh, there was a little bit of contact' things, or players smacking the ball out of play and running into a defender, or kicking a defender's leg. It's the same with the free kicks - one of the worst thing in the Premier League is that the game is turned to a stop start grind by the sheer number of nothing free kicks that are given in the transitionary parts of play. How often do you see the ball get played long towards a forward who challenges for it, only for the defender to fall over and everybody to then trot away and wait to repeat it at the other end of the pitch? It's boring. I just mean honest challenges. Rule changes have always prejudiced honest players but allowed the real dirty, snidey players to continue doing snidey things like shirt pulling etc.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 16, 2018 19:52:17 GMT
If the penalties are penalties and the free kicks are free kicks, what’s the problem? What is ‘proper tackling’? What if something that ‘looks like a dive’ is actually a bloke falling over or actually a foul not perceptible to the referee on the only viewing he gets? Is that whole tournament ban still enforced then? The penalties often aren't real penalties. They're 'oooh, there was a little bit of contact' things, or players smacking the ball out of play and running into a defender, or kicking a defender's leg. It's the same with the free kicks - one of the worst thing in the Premier League is that the game is turned to a stop start grind by the sheer number of nothing free kicks that are given in the transitionary parts of play. How often do you see the ball get played long towards a forward who challenges for it, only for the defender to fall over and everybody to then trot away and wait to repeat it at the other end of the pitch? It's boring. I just mean honest challenges. Rule changes have always prejudiced honest players but allowed the real dirty, snidey players to continue doing snidey things like shirt pulling etc. Which penalties has VAR awarded that weren’t penalties? I would’ve thought you’d have been in favour of it given how much you hate cheating - this is something to give refs a hand spotting it.
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Jun 16, 2018 20:00:00 GMT
The penalties often aren't real penalties. They're 'oooh, there was a little bit of contact' things, or players smacking the ball out of play and running into a defender, or kicking a defender's leg. It's the same with the free kicks - one of the worst thing in the Premier League is that the game is turned to a stop start grind by the sheer number of nothing free kicks that are given in the transitionary parts of play. How often do you see the ball get played long towards a forward who challenges for it, only for the defender to fall over and everybody to then trot away and wait to repeat it at the other end of the pitch? It's boring. I just mean honest challenges. Rule changes have always prejudiced honest players but allowed the real dirty, snidey players to continue doing snidey things like shirt pulling etc. Which penalties has VAR awarded that weren’t penalties? I would’ve thought you’d have been in favour of it given how much you hate cheating - this is something to give refs a hand spotting it. A lot of people seem to think that the France penalty wasn't a penalty. This seems to be because a great many are under the mistaken belief that touching the ball automatically means it's not a foul. They are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Jun 17, 2018 5:34:23 GMT
Personally I agree with it, it may slow the game a little but all I want is the correct end decision to be made and hopefully stop all the cheating..... surely that aint a bad thing Nobody can object to that surely? Except me. I don't care. I want the ref to make the decision in real time on his own merits. I will accept that VAR in the WC is probably a good thing. I base that solely on (1)my opinion that some of the refs in the WC are more susceptible to corruption than in the UK and (2) the WC is a knock out competition for big stakes. If all the refs were honest I would not want VAR anywhere near a football game. I absolutely agree with any third party intervention to stamp out cheating but I would want this done retrospectively. In the UK I think the refs, on the whole, are not corrupt but maybe incompetent or slightly biased. I can live with that. Hurling abuse at the ref for perceived incompetence is part of the fun and helps to deflect the true reasons for your teams loss..namely that your (our) beloved team is shite!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 6:52:08 GMT
Which penalties has VAR awarded that weren’t penalties? I would’ve thought you’d have been in favour of it given how much you hate cheating - this is something to give refs a hand spotting it. A lot of people seem to think that the France penalty wasn't a penalty. This seems to be because a great many are under the mistaken belief that touching the ball automatically means it's not a foul. They are wrong. And also that the minimal contact didn't bring Griezmann down, he decided to fall down because he wasn't getting the ball is also a factor as well so don't forget that.
|
|
|
Post by jonparkinsgut on Jun 17, 2018 6:55:19 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. The Lampard “goal” you refer to was actually a goal, you didn’t need VAR to have decided that, so clear cut you could see it with the naked eye!
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jun 17, 2018 7:21:40 GMT
In the World Cup VAR is used only to review goals, penalties, straight red cards and mistaken identity. This is very ambiguous because does it mean that incidents are automatically reviewed without a call from the ref. I said in a previous thread that assistant refs have been instructed to not flag for very marginal offside incidents and allow the game to flow and if a goal results then the VAR would disallow it if it was definitely offside. This would indicate that goals are always subject to VAR scrutiny. However the blatant penalty Arg vs Iceland would indicate that VAR is only used when called for by the ref. Very unfair and just adding to the general confusion of VAR. I personally don’t like it because controversial decisions are all part of the game and create great discussion. Cheating can be stopped by review panel after the game in a similar way that bans are issued for missed violent conduct.
|
|
|
Post by VolvicStokie on Jun 17, 2018 7:32:21 GMT
I've liked it for the World cup so far
People just don't like change, end of the day, correct decisions are given and in time it'll stop the cheats and we'll have fairer games.
It's a work in progress, but it's needed
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Jun 17, 2018 7:53:33 GMT
I think it’s been used quite ok so far. I was expecting longer delays.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 17, 2018 7:55:13 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. The Lampard “goal” you refer to was actually a goal, you didn’t need VAR to have decided that, so clear cut you could see it with the naked eye! But the ref didn’t, and VAR would’ve sorted it out. That’s the point. That and the Hand of God were the only times the refs actually did shaft England, and we’d have lost both games regardless anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jun 17, 2018 7:58:09 GMT
I think VAR's work fine where the decision is handed over to a machine to decide, for example a line call in tennis, a snick at cricket or a goal line clearance in football.
But where all you is hand over some video to another group of decision makers you simply court further controversy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 8:16:04 GMT
Re: The penalty to France. Whilst you could argue, by letter of the law, the referee could conclude it was a foul / penalty, I do wonder (and yes, I'm Australian), whether in the same circumstances the same conclusion would have been drawn if it was at the other end of the park
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 17, 2018 8:17:23 GMT
Re: The penalty to France. Whilst you could argue, by letter of the law, the referee could conclude it was a foul / penalty, I do wonder (and yes, I'm Australian), whether in the same circumstances the same conclusion would have been drawn if it was at the other end of the park Equally one might wonder if the reaction on here might have been a lot more sympathetic to the award of the penalty if that had been the case...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 8:22:40 GMT
Re: The penalty to France. Whilst you could argue, by letter of the law, the referee could conclude it was a foul / penalty, I do wonder (and yes, I'm Australian), whether in the same circumstances the same conclusion would have been drawn if it was at the other end of the park Equally one might wonder if the reaction on here might have been a lot more sympathetic to the award of the penalty if that had been the case... I guess my point is, for all this technology, a human still makes a subjective decision. Which could be - the talented Greismann was clearly taken out by the defender at one end, whilst at the other - the no-name Nabbout just went to the ground so easily on minimal contact because he knew he couldn't get there. Play on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 8:26:00 GMT
Re: The penalty to France. Whilst you could argue, by letter of the law, the referee could conclude it was a foul / penalty, I do wonder (and yes, I'm Australian), whether in the same circumstances the same conclusion would have been drawn if it was at the other end of the park Equally one might wonder if the reaction on here might have been a lot more sympathetic to the award of the penalty if that had been the case... Not from me. Even if it had been awarded for England in the last minute of the final to win us the world cup I'd still say it wasn't a penalty. Obviously after celebrating and getting as pissed as I possibly can that is.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jun 17, 2018 8:31:38 GMT
Anyone else noticed that the standard of refereeing so far is better than we get in England?
|
|