|
|
Post by hotterpotter on Jun 17, 2018 9:12:21 GMT
Needs refining, but I like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 17, 2018 9:31:05 GMT
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. It might be that or it might be their honest, agenda-free view of the incident as they saw it, depending on the human involved. Which is why the advent of VAR is a good thing, surely? Because you have more eyes on things, more time, different angles? All it can really do is give the ref some help. Which in the World Cup at least, it's done so far. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jun 17, 2018 9:41:30 GMT
Needs refining, but I like it. Agree Like all other sports the use of video is constantly evolving and improving. They are still going to be errors of all sorts, but, on balance it is better and holds the promise for further improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by jonparkinsgut on Jun 17, 2018 10:29:41 GMT
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. True, fair play. |
|
|
|
Post by jonparkinsgut on Jun 17, 2018 10:31:01 GMT
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. True, fair play. Not sure about losing both games though Toxic............... |
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 17, 2018 10:34:13 GMT
Not sure about losing both games though Toxic............... Which of those teams do you think we’d have beaten? Germany were embarrassingly better than us? Argentina won the World Cup that year and deservedly so. |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jun 17, 2018 10:35:41 GMT
It’s abysmal, and every bit as open to incompetence/corruption as your standard Martin Atkinson performance. Always a silver lining. Now we’ve dropped down a division we have a whole new set of refs we can blame! The Championship refs will have already been instructed to make sure we don't get promoted. |
|
|
|
Post by sheriffofrockridge on Jun 17, 2018 11:35:55 GMT
I don't mind VAR at all if it results in the right decision. But so far at the WC I've only seen it used to award a penalty. I've not seen it used to overrule a referee who has incorrectly awarded a penalty. Let's see if that happens.
What has really pissed me off is that referees are not punishing diving cheating scrotes. Have any been booked yet? Seen plenty of dives where the refs have correctly awarded free kicks against cheating wankers but can't recall seeing any subsequent yellow cards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jun 17, 2018 12:20:06 GMT
Not sure about losing both games though Toxic............... Which of those teams do you think we’d have beaten? Germany were embarrassingly better than us? Argentina won the World Cup that year and deservedly so. Lineker missed a guilt-edged chance to equalise against the Argies, the like of which you’d have bet your mortgage on him putting away. At 2-2 and with us having a psychological advantage, anything could have happened - though the conditions would have favoured them in the event of extra time. The Germans, I’ll give you. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jun 18, 2018 7:57:01 GMT
It’s creating more controversy than not having it. Why was the Swiss equaliser allowed. The Swiss player blatantly shoved the Brazil defender so he could not defend Shaqs corner kick and yet VAR did not rule it out. Get rid of it pronto or the final will be a right circus of stop/start/arguments. It will be a farce.
|
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jun 18, 2018 8:02:16 GMT
It’s creating more controversy than not having it. Why was the Swiss equaliser allowed. The Swiss player blatantly shoved the Brazil defender so he could not defend Shaqs corner kick and yet VAR did not rule it out. Get rid of it pronto or the final will be a right circus of stop/start/arguments. It will be a farce. So the door’s as open to corruption and bias as it ever was. Want a team to go through or go out? Just pick and choose which incidents VAR reviews. Stoke at home, Atkinson doing the reviewing, honest and unbiased decisions? Don’t make me laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by vahl on Jun 18, 2018 8:18:06 GMT
VAR is destroying football. Football is not an intermittent sport and it suffers because of it now. The referees are all too slow as well.
The better way to have implemented VAR is if it was 100% AI based and controlled. I don't understand why you would want to replace something because of Human error with even more chance of Human error (a room full of assistant refs?) as they have already proven they get it wrong.
To me that makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by burystokie on Jun 18, 2018 9:11:28 GMT
Overall I think VAR has been used reasonably well so far and on balance, I'd say it's just about been positive. However, I've always said there are two huge issues with using it in football. For some reason, these were never addressed before it started being used but they're both covered in this thread.
1) Most importantly, so many decisions in football are subjective. In almost any instance of it being used in other sports, it's for decisions of fact not opinion - did the player put a foot in touch, was the ball grounded successfully, was the tennis ball in or out, etc. Where it is used for more subjective matters, it hasn't been successful, eg someone's mentioned the farce in the NFL over what is or isn't a catch.
VAR promises the illusion of certainty, an end to refereeing injustices, but when so often pundits can't even agree with each other over whether a penalty or goal should / shouldn't be awarded, it's simply going to cause more controversy and supporters believing they've been shafted instead of less.
By the way, to all of those people referring to the Lampard "goal" against Germany, you're talking about goal-line technology there, which is a completely different conversation. In that case, technology is perfectly suited to being used in football, which is why it never had any of the issues that VAR has had since it was introduced.
2) Every single sport that has successfully implemented some form of video replay is stop/start in nature. If you're checking for a try in rugby then the game has already come to a natural stop and will need to be restarted; obviously the ball goes dead after every delivery in cricket, etc. Football simply doesn't work like that. It's already been mentioned on this thread about play carrying on in the Denmark game and what would have happened if they'd scored, and also that we haven't yet seen a penalty awarded and then overturned. In that case, the game would have been stopped artificially, denying either the attacking team the opportunity to create another chance or the defending team an opportunity to break. I guarantee someone will be moaning bitterly should that happen in a game this World Cup.
Both of those issues are NEVER going to go away where VAR is concerned. People chose to ignore them before it was brought in and now they've seen it in action, they excuse it as being new and in need of a bit of refinement. However the simple fact is that no matter how much you try to refine it, those two fundamental issues will always exist. I'm not fundamentally anti-VAR, in fact if it's used as it has been so far in the WC (not how it was used in this country last season) then I'm just about in favour of it, but I suspect that those people putting a lot of faith in it are going to end up very disappointed.
|
|
|
|
Post by burystokie on Jun 18, 2018 9:28:54 GMT
By the way, on the subject of Lampard against Germany, I'm no cheerleader for England but it never ceases to amaze me how many people are ready to dismiss that as an irrelevance as England were bound to lose anyway.
Undoubtedly, Germany were a far better team than England but we all know that the better team doesn't always win (it would be boring if they did) and as Mexico have just demonstrated, German footballers aren't the infallible robots of tabloid myth. If that goal had been given then having spent the first half battering England, the Germans would have found themselves going in at half time somehow drawing 2-2. That would have been huge psychologically for both teams and who knows how the second half would have gone then? I've no idea, maybe the better team would still have won but it's ridiculous to take what actually happened - England collapsing and getting completely overrun - and simply assume that the same thing would have happened when the circumstances would have been completely different.
|
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Jun 18, 2018 9:45:01 GMT
By the way, on the subject of Lampard against Germany, I'm no cheerleader for England but it never ceases to amaze me how many people are ready to dismiss that as an irrelevance as England were bound to lose anyway. Undoubtedly, Germany were a far better team than England but we all know that the better team doesn't always win (it would be boring if they did) and as Mexico have just demonstrated, German footballers aren't the infallible robots of tabloid myth. If that goal had been given then having spent the first half battering England, the Germans would have found themselves going in at half time somehow drawing 2-2. That would have been huge psychologically for both teams and who knows how the second half would have gone then? I've no idea, maybe the better team would still have won but it's ridiculous to take what actually happened - England collapsing and getting completely overrun - and simply assume that the same thing would have happened when the circumstances would have been completely different. This. If we'd come out for the 2nd half at 2-2 maybe we wouldn't have started it as if we were chasing a goal in the last 5 minutes of a game. So we wouldn't have sent everyone up for an aimless free-kick which lead to the German counter-attack for their 3rd goal. Maybe we'd have still lost, we'll never know. But it was a hugely significant moment in the match. |
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Jun 18, 2018 9:47:26 GMT
Not sure about losing both games though Toxic............... Which of those teams do you think we’d have beaten? Germany were embarrassingly better than us? Argentina won the World Cup that year and deservedly so. Argentina beat us 2-1, so That Goal was the decider, and at the end it was us doing all the attacking. How can you possibly know we'd have lost anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by professorplump on Jun 18, 2018 11:13:33 GMT
I think VAR should be there just for the howler like Thierry Henry's hand ball goal against Ireland, or the penalty decision given against Northern Ireland in last years playoffs. Any decisions which are more subjective should stay with the on field referee. I don't mind if the referee wants to check the screen before giving his decision. It will take some time to perfect the system and so for the time being I think it should only be used in International football and not used in the domestic game.
If it is able to eradicate diving and cheating from the game then I am in favour of it, as they are the true ruination of football.
|
|
|
|
Post by BristolMick on Jun 18, 2018 14:09:26 GMT
VAR will remove the bias towards the big club that we have been all too familiar with over the last 10 years. It's a very good thing.
BM
|
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jun 18, 2018 14:12:04 GMT
VAR will remove the bias towards the big club that we have been all too familiar with over the last 10 years. It's a very good thing. BM I don’t think it will. The shove before the Switzerland goal shows they can pick and choose which fouls they give and which ones they don’t. Imagine Stoke score that goal and Martin Atkinson is operating the VAR. |
|
|
|
Post by professorplump on Jun 18, 2018 14:21:11 GMT
VAR will remove the bias towards the big club that we have been all too familiar with over the last 10 years. It's a very good thing. BM I don’t think it will. The shove before the Switzerland goal shows they can pick and choose which fouls they give and which ones they don’t. Imagine Stoke score that goal and Martin Atkinson is operating the VAR. That shove was a subjective incident, the commentator didn't think it was a penalty. For those incidents the decision should stay with the on field referee as it did. VAR should be used for the clear decisions such as the penalty in the Sweden game. So far I think it is working quite well. |
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jun 18, 2018 14:33:13 GMT
I don’t think it will. The shove before the Switzerland goal shows they can pick and choose which fouls they give and which ones they don’t. Imagine Stoke score that goal and Martin Atkinson is operating the VAR. That shove was a subjective incident, the commentator didn't think it was a penalty. For those incidents the decision should stay with the on field referee as it did. VAR should be used for the clear decisions such as the penalty in the Sweden game. So far I think it is working quite well. It was no more subjective than a number of decisions that have been given already, and three out of four of the panel after the match thought it was a penalty. Isn’t what’s a clear decision and what’s not a clear penalty equally as subjective. It was a bloody clear push. |
|
|
|
Post by slother on Jun 18, 2018 15:01:01 GMT
I think var has been fantastic in this tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jun 18, 2018 15:12:35 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. I've got absolutely no faith in its proper application, because the people applying it are the same sort of people as those on the pundits' sofa who talk about the right to go down. I can think of the England game a few weeks back and the Liverpool West Brom game in the cup as examples of VAR being used badly. There's just been a perfect example in the Belgium game. The blatant dive by the Belgian player has just been completely ignored, even with TV replays showing just how awful a dive it was. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 18, 2018 15:20:59 GMT
Sure, but it's inevitable, just like the other sports that have been ruined by video reviews--except horse racing I suppose. It’s enhanced cricket because it’s been done right. It’s worked in tennis by in large too. Once football gets it right it will work. |
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 18, 2018 16:19:32 GMT
Which of those teams do you think we’d have beaten? Germany were embarrassingly better than us? Argentina won the World Cup that year and deservedly so. Argentina beat us 2-1, so That Goal was the decider, and at the end it was us doing all the attacking. How can you possibly know we'd have lost anyway? They were the better team for most of the game, they were a better team in general and we almost never beat the top sides when we play them. I see no reason to believe we’d have beaten them in that game, Hand of God or not. Disgusting cheating yes, but don’t think we were ‘robbed’, as we hardly started playing until he put the wingers on. |
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 18, 2018 16:22:01 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. I've got absolutely no faith in its proper application, because the people applying it are the same sort of people as those on the pundits' sofa who talk about the right to go down. I can think of the England game a few weeks back and the Liverpool West Brom game in the cup as examples of VAR being used badly. There's just been a perfect example in the Belgium game. The blatant dive by the Belgian player has just been completely ignored, even with TV replays showing just how awful a dive it was. That isn’t VAR’s fault though is it, that’s the ref choosing not to use it. He wouldn’t have given it anyway. What it has done is lead to a number of correct penalties being given that the ref would otherwise not have done, so that’s already a positive impact, surely? |
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Jun 18, 2018 16:38:44 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. That's thanks to dumb commentators and pundits who peddle the myth. |
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jun 18, 2018 16:44:59 GMT
VAR will remove the bias towards the big club that we have been all too familiar with over the last 10 years. It's a very good thing. BM On review if there’s any doubt the ref will still air on the side of caution and give the decision to the big 6 club mate It won’t change much at all |
|
|
|
Post by bhp on Jun 18, 2018 16:55:11 GMT
The fact that VAR still relies on someones opinion and not facts is utterly pointless in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jun 18, 2018 17:00:20 GMT
VAR will remove the bias towards the big club that we have been all too familiar with over the last 10 years. It's a very good thing. BM On review if there’s any doubt the ref will still air on the side of caution and give the decision to the big 6 club mate It won’t change much at all Like I said earlier mate, the goal that Belgium scored with the blatant push in the defender's back, if we score that and Martin Atkinson's operating the VAR, is the goal given? |
|
