|
Post by skip on Jan 11, 2020 14:46:15 GMT
Hard to know how to work this question without seeming ageist so apologies if you're offended VAR is very clearly not working, its an absolute farce which works against the so called smaller teams 9 times out of 10. I don't think I'm exaggerating there either My question is was it this embaressing when new in rugby, tennis and cricket or is it just football where its utterly inept? What do we do about it? Cricket have pretty much perfected technological intervention, and Hawk Eye being bought in to tennis was as fascinating as it was useful. When you think of the spectacle of half a dozen rugby players in a pile on on the touchline, arguably, technology has been incredibly useful, a true game changer. When association football has rules that are pedantic as opposed to accurate and the game itself has speeded up beyond all measure over the last decade and a half, I'm not surprised VAR is a nightmare. Also, association football is run by idiots, which doesn't help. Only association football could fuck it up this badly.
|
|
|
Post by pavel on Jan 11, 2020 14:54:35 GMT
Nothing wrong with the concept, everything wrong with implementation
|
|
|
Post by superpej on Jan 11, 2020 16:44:36 GMT
Being in the right age category - for me
First a game of football is more than just applying the rules - there is the quality of the game itself and the way it is played e.g. in a particular league. You look for a free flowing game with two competitive teams but where stoke come out on top. Artistry excitement and skill - the working man's ballet.
Second the ref is the MC and can make or ruin a game by the way in which he interprets the rules and uses his discretion - e.g letting the game flow or pulling out his cards, adding time beyond the fourth official, booking for simulation time wasting etc.
Three for me he is the one in charge and it is his decision which should be final not some blokes in a box miles away
Four it is called the video assistant referee so that means assist - advise and help the ref in running the game
Five I thought the idea was VAR could contact the ref only when they thought he had made a serious error or missed something important - other than that I thought it was up to the ref to call for advice - consult the screen etc when he wanted thought he needed another opinion or to check something he might have missed - "in a game changing" situation e.g a pen or red card.
Basically you can't have two people reffing a match and if there is a choice and I know there are lots of duff refs I would go with the man on the spot make the decisions for the sake of the spectator - he is responsible so in my scenario if he gave a goal very there was a very marginal offside he should stand by his decision and ignore VAR's advice because the game is always more than simply the rigorous application of the rules.
|
|
|
Post by redwhitesingfight on Jan 11, 2020 16:58:24 GMT
Premier league is finished. I’m taking the view it doesn’t exist until VAR is fucked off.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jan 11, 2020 18:18:21 GMT
If I could have one thing for VAR to pick up on it would be these bloody technical fouls, taking one for the team bollocks.
Everyone is doing it now. Liverpool so far in this game must have done about 7. For me any technical foul where a player is through on the break and there's no attempt to play the ball and they click him on the break I'd start making it a straight red. Its spoiling the game now.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jan 12, 2020 0:16:15 GMT
Does anybody else fancy not going back to the prem until it’s gone?
|
|
|
Post by eastyorksexile on Jan 12, 2020 1:47:47 GMT
Me and my Forest mate are at complete loggerheads on VAR, I think it’s the anti-Christ that will kill football and he thinks it is bringing the game up to date, we are both touching 60 and season ticket holders at our clubs, it just shows how divisive VAR is, except in my eyes when I know I am righ5 an£ it’s SHIT ......
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Jan 12, 2020 9:40:19 GMT
Does anybody else fancy not going back to the prem until it’s gone? Haha. That's the only thing stopping us.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jan 12, 2020 10:03:26 GMT
Does anybody else fancy not going back to the prem until it’s gone? Haha. That's the only thing stopping us. Yes it’s been the master plan this season remove all negativity that we aren’t going up by getting us into a relegation scrap that will occupy our thoughts so next season we can get promoted with the promise that the season after there will be no more var! Sneaky fucking owners
|
|
|
Post by spiderpuss on Jan 12, 2020 10:07:06 GMT
For the TV audience abroad its part of the viewing experience. Its added a new dimension whilst hoards of shit fans have to view Oles latest excuse for a team. Otherwise fans in attendance its total fuck up and destroys anything the game had.
|
|
|
Post by redwhitesingfight on Jan 12, 2020 10:23:14 GMT
Does anybody else fancy not going back to the prem until it’s gone? Totally agree. Treat the Championship as if it was the top league. Once we get promoted best endure a season of VAR torture, drop down again and collect the parachute payment.
|
|
|
Post by harlequin on Jan 12, 2020 10:24:58 GMT
Had me thinking how VAR would have viewed some of the ridiculous decisions that went against us during our time in the premiership. In particular the joke, borderline corrupt decisions to disallow the Shawcross goal against Man City and Antony Taylor's very bent decision to chalk off the Bojan one v Arsenal. I know we benefited at times ourselves but no where near the times we got shafted especially in the first 2 or 3 years. We were constantly shafted.
• Altidores dive for sunderland when whelan barely touched him • Jack Corks pantomime antics • Crouch hand balling our shot off the line. • Westham forward (Piquionne?) plucking the ball out of the air with his arm then going on to score. These still stick in the craw for me.
|
|
|
Post by FbrgVaStkFan on Jan 13, 2020 22:58:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Jan 14, 2020 1:37:49 GMT
I've been opineing for months now that VAR should only be used for pens, fouls and goals, where a "fourth" ref watches a single (or at a push) two cameras in real time during the game, without the benefit of replays. They can choose to dispute a refs decision or make them aware of something but only in real time where they feel an injustice has occured. None of this millimetres of difference only live additional reffing support with the same almost instant decisions. It would mostly eradicate diving and cheating which is really the ambition of the technology for football without removing the flowing aspect of the game.
|
|
|
Post by marylandstoke on Jan 14, 2020 3:32:49 GMT
For the TV audience abroad its part of the viewing experience. Its added a new dimension whilst hoards of shit fans have to view Oles latest excuse for a team. Otherwise fans in attendance its total fuck up and destroys anything the game had. Oh really? Where is this “abroad” you speak of exactly?
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Jan 14, 2020 9:34:21 GMT
Cricket rugby and tennis all have a stop start element in the play Where as football tends to be more free flowing if allowed to be which makes the stops for var less palatable This, this and this. My personal take is it should only be used on penalty decisions when the ref has given it (natural break in play) and when a red card has been issued (again a natural break in play) Let's the linesman do their job and the ref to referee the game.
|
|
|
Post by bossthemidfield on Jan 14, 2020 11:08:08 GMT
Offside rule.... as it stands is total crap... players coming back to then be ONSIDE should not be called offside when they go for the ball... total bollocks.
Handball rule.... where do you start except to say HAND/ARM to BALL deliberately... NOT whether the ball is kicked at your arm etc etc
But when you start looking at whether the attackers toe is offside then the game is dead for me... OFFSIDE is when the whole of the body is off side.
I could go on but.... haven’t got the time.
|
|
|
Post by scarlet on Jan 17, 2020 19:38:02 GMT
I can think of three incidents where VAR could have benefited us, probably because I am still bitter about all of them. Lee Catermole's goal line ball juggling at Sunderland a few years ago. Martin Atkinson had a clear view of this and gave a corner! Liverpool's keeper bringing down Diouf to stop him scoring into an empty net in our latter premier league days. Martin Atkinson (you see a trend developing here) only gave him a yellow card. The Boxing Day defeat to Martin At...I mean Newcastle, at Sid James Park a few years back where Martin Atkinson refereed a completely different game to the one everyone else was watching, even making the usually mild mannered gentlemen Terry Conroy almost explode in his role as radio co-commentator. As I'm in favour of anything that shows Atkinson to be a biased dick head, I look forward to our first VAR encounter with him.
|
|
|
Post by adi on Jan 17, 2020 20:22:43 GMT
Hard to know how to work this question without seeming ageist so apologies if you're offended VAR is very clearly not working, its an absolute farce which works against the so called smaller teams 9 times out of 10. I don't think I'm exaggerating there either My question is was it this embaressing when new in rugby, tennis and cricket or is it just football where its utterly inept? What do we do about it? It is ageist by the way... well done
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 18, 2020 8:27:58 GMT
Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle and we are going to have to live with it. Football is gradually evolving into a sport that is totally orientated around TV like American football. The young generation may like it, but as a 40+ I just suffer it. I hadn't thought about it like that but that is indeed the reason we have, and will now always have, VAR at televised levels. To address the mis-match between decisions and what the TV audience can clearly see. The live audience is minuscule compared to the TV audience and now really part of the 'show' as much as anything.
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Jan 18, 2020 8:56:56 GMT
Offside rule.... as it stands is total crap... players coming back to then be ONSIDE should not be called offside when they go for the ball... total bollocks. Handball rule.... where do you start except to say HAND/ARM to BALL deliberately... NOT whether the ball is kicked at your arm etc etc But when you start looking at whether the attackers toe is offside then the game is dead for me... OFFSIDE is when the whole of the body is off side. I could go on but.... haven’t got the time. There is a simple solution. Follow what Hockey did quite a few years ago now. Get rid of offside all together. I've played the game all my life and was sceptical at first but it makes not one jot of difference to the game in real time. I also umpire as well and it's fantastic not having to worry about it. You can concentrate on the technical stuff instead. Very very easy, no need for VAR whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Jan 18, 2020 9:27:23 GMT
Hard to know how to work this question without seeming ageist so apologies if you're offended VAR is very clearly not working, its an absolute farce which works against the so called smaller teams 9 times out of 10. I don't think I'm exaggerating there either My question is was it this embaressing when new in rugby, tennis and cricket or is it just football where its utterly inept? What do we do about it? Just a minute, I’ll get my glasses...
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jan 18, 2020 12:53:51 GMT
Offside rule.... as it stands is total crap... players coming back to then be ONSIDE should not be called offside when they go for the ball... total bollocks. Handball rule.... where do you start except to say HAND/ARM to BALL deliberately... NOT whether the ball is kicked at your arm etc etc But when you start looking at whether the attackers toe is offside then the game is dead for me... OFFSIDE is when the whole of the body is off side. I could go on but.... haven’t got the time. There is a simple solution. Follow what Hockey did quite a few years ago now. Get rid of offside all together. I've played the game all my life and was sceptical at first but it makes not one jot of difference to the game in real time. I also umpire as well and it's fantastic not having to worry about it. You can concentrate on the technical stuff instead. Very very easy, no need for VAR whatsoever. Only problem with your plan is that hockey is a non-contact sport whereas theoretically at least football isn't. Back when football was cheap to watch I used to regularly go and watch Stafford Rangers if there were no other games being played locally. I therefore had the (mis)fortune to watch the 1987/88 Conference season when they experimented with no offside at free kicks. I think the fact that 99% of posters on here are probably unaware that such an experiment took place, or that it has never been repeated, says all you need to know about how successful it was. Free kicks from anywhere within 60 yards of the goal were like something from WWE, every team found a basketball player or two whose sole role seemed to be to stand on the goalkeeper at every set piece (or mark the opposition basketball player who was standing on your keeper). I went to one match where both keepers left the game on stretchers! The completely unexpected side effect of this was that it proved almost impossible to score from direct free kicks. Teams would automatically put their 6ft 6+ players on each post to stop free kicks being curled over or around the wall.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 19, 2020 7:27:08 GMT
Hard to know how to work this question without seeming ageist so apologies if you're offended VAR is very clearly not working, its an absolute farce which works against the so called smaller teams 9 times out of 10. I don't think I'm exaggerating there either My question is was it this embaressing when new in rugby, tennis and cricket or is it just football where its utterly inept? What do we do about it? In rugby tennis and cricket The refs are miked up so you have crowd engagement Also the officials in that sport are not embarrassed to get it wrong and have the var equivalent correct them they just move on.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 19, 2020 7:59:41 GMT
Offside rule.... as it stands is total crap... players coming back to then be ONSIDE should not be called offside when they go for the ball... total bollocks. Handball rule.... where do you start except to say HAND/ARM to BALL deliberately... NOT whether the ball is kicked at your arm etc etc But when you start looking at whether the attackers toe is offside then the game is dead for me... OFFSIDE is when the whole of the body is off side. I could go on but.... haven’t got the time. There is a simple solution. Follow what Hockey did quite a few years ago now. Get rid of offside all together. I've played the game all my life and was sceptical at first but it makes not one jot of difference to the game in real time. I also umpire as well and it's fantastic not having to worry about it. You can concentrate on the technical stuff instead. Very very easy, no need for VAR whatsoever. Said this years ago Chuffed but it got slated on here as ridiculous. It could be trialled in one of the minor competitions to see how it pans out and not just at free kicks as AlliG states.. Agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 19, 2020 8:17:08 GMT
There is a simple solution. Follow what Hockey did quite a few years ago now. Get rid of offside all together. I've played the game all my life and was sceptical at first but it makes not one jot of difference to the game in real time. I also umpire as well and it's fantastic not having to worry about it. You can concentrate on the technical stuff instead. Very very easy, no need for VAR whatsoever. Only problem with your plan is that hockey is a non-contact sport whereas theoretically at least football isn't. Back when football was cheap to watch I used to regularly go and watch Stafford Rangers if there were no other games being played locally. I therefore had the (mis)fortune to watch the 1987/88 Conference season when they experimented with no offside at free kicks. I think the fact that 99% of posters on here are probably unaware that such an experiment took place, or that it has never been repeated, says all you need to know about how successful it was. Free kicks from anywhere within 60 yards of the goal were like something from WWE, every team found a basketball player or two whose sole role seemed to be to stand on the goalkeeper at every set piece (or mark the opposition basketball player who was standing on your keeper). I went to one match where both keepers left the game on stretchers! The completely unexpected side effect of this was that it proved almost impossible to score from direct free kicks. Teams would automatically put their 6ft 6+ players on each post to stop free kicks being curled over or around the wall. I don’t understand some of your argument AlliG. Why should it make a difference that hockey is a non-contact sport and your last argument regarding players on the goal line at free kicks makes no sense. The crowding of goalies by tall attacking players happens now so what would be the difference? Your "argument" is based on free kicks only. The pace of today’s game is much faster than 30 years ago and I agree with Chuffed that off side should be scrapped completely. If an attacking team decide to position a striker high up the pitch then defending team puts a defender there to cover him. I honestly think it’s worth a try.
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Jan 19, 2020 9:58:05 GMT
Only problem with your plan is that hockey is a non-contact sport whereas theoretically at least football isn't. Back when football was cheap to watch I used to regularly go and watch Stafford Rangers if there were no other games being played locally. I therefore had the (mis)fortune to watch the 1987/88 Conference season when they experimented with no offside at free kicks. I think the fact that 99% of posters on here are probably unaware that such an experiment took place, or that it has never been repeated, says all you need to know about how successful it was. Free kicks from anywhere within 60 yards of the goal were like something from WWE, every team found a basketball player or two whose sole role seemed to be to stand on the goalkeeper at every set piece (or mark the opposition basketball player who was standing on your keeper). I went to one match where both keepers left the game on stretchers! The completely unexpected side effect of this was that it proved almost impossible to score from direct free kicks. Teams would automatically put their 6ft 6+ players on each post to stop free kicks being curled over or around the wall. I don’t understand some of your argument AlliG. Why should it make a difference that hockey is a non-contact sport and your last argument regarding players on the goal line at free kicks makes no sense. The crowding of goalies by tall attacking players happens now so what would be the difference? Your "argument" is based on free kicks only. The pace of today’s game is much faster than 30 years ago and I agree with Chuffed that off side should be scrapped completely. If an attacking team decide to position a striker high up the pitch then defending team puts a defender there to cover him. I honestly think it’s worth a try. Points well made lawrie and I can personally vouch for the fact that hockey is definitely a 'contact' sport and doubtless many thousands of participants would agree. It only put me in hospital twice. As for posting a lone player in the opposition half on his/her lonesome and belting the ball up to them never happened and still doesn't. I appreciate that not everyone might be up to speed with the game but with two umpires working well together and no offside to worry about the games flow very well. Almost too quickly for the TV broadcasts it occasionally gets.
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jan 19, 2020 12:14:23 GMT
Only problem with your plan is that hockey is a non-contact sport whereas theoretically at least football isn't. Back when football was cheap to watch I used to regularly go and watch Stafford Rangers if there were no other games being played locally. I therefore had the (mis)fortune to watch the 1987/88 Conference season when they experimented with no offside at free kicks. I think the fact that 99% of posters on here are probably unaware that such an experiment took place, or that it has never been repeated, says all you need to know about how successful it was. Free kicks from anywhere within 60 yards of the goal were like something from WWE, every team found a basketball player or two whose sole role seemed to be to stand on the goalkeeper at every set piece (or mark the opposition basketball player who was standing on your keeper). I went to one match where both keepers left the game on stretchers! The completely unexpected side effect of this was that it proved almost impossible to score from direct free kicks. Teams would automatically put their 6ft 6+ players on each post to stop free kicks being curled over or around the wall. I don’t understand some of your argument AlliG. Why should it make a difference that hockey is a non-contact sport and your last argument regarding players on the goal line at free kicks makes no sense. The crowding of goalies by tall attacking players happens now so what would be the difference? Your "argument" is based on free kicks only. The pace of today’s game is much faster than 30 years ago and I agree with Chuffed that off side should be scrapped completely. If an attacking team decide to position a striker high up the pitch then defending team puts a defender there to cover him. I honestly think it’s worth a try. I was just explaining exactly what happened and not what might or might not happen. If you had 3 players (or more) the size of Peter Crouch (including) the goalkeeper on the goal line it is basically impossible to chip the ball over the wall and score. One or other of the players just heads the ball away. At the time Stafford Rangers had Gordon Hill (the ex Man Utd & Derby winger) in their team who was still one of the best free kick takers in English football but whereas the previous season he scored from 5 or 6 free kicks, in that season every one was cleared off the line. I will ask again. If there had been any merit in that experiment, why has it not been repeated (or even seriously discussed) in any form in any of the 30+ seasons since? It would be interesting to hear the views of Mark Harrison as the Stafford Rangers keeper that year what he felt about being on the receiving end of this experiment. It was one of those experiments that looked worthwhile on paper but in reality created more problems than it solved. I suspect TP would have loved a go without offside. 5 Shawcrosses / Huths launching the ball 80 yards to 5 Sidibies and missing out the middle men altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Jan 19, 2020 16:35:21 GMT
Scrap it. It’s not welcome in football imho. Part of football has always the contentious decisions that have gone for and against you, and passionate, frustrated, rueful, relieved or even despondent discussions about dodgy goals, penalties, fouls, red cards, diving, etc. are all part of the rich fabric that makes us love the game and stay so invested in it. Now all we can talk about is how crap VAR is.
|
|