They're different as there much less free flowing than football. You can have 10 minutes in football where the play is completely active.
This is the type of nonsense you end up with the introduction of VAR
You said the ref should have stopped the game for the Vitesse penalty. In this case it was penalty but lets imagine it wasn't and the ref stopped to review the decision that would have stopped Feyenoord from scoring. I just don't how that is fair. Would put even more pressure on referees imoAnd if he gives the penalty decision and its the wrong one they still don't score. You wouldn't be randomly stopping the game as it is a genuine goal scoring opportunity. Randomly stopping the game would be like Mike Jones at Saints a few years when he stopped us attacking to give us a free kick for offside
True however the game just becomes a bit of a mess and as a match going fan constantly being worried about whether a goal counts would diminish the enjoyment of a goal imo.As great as that doesn't look, at least the correct decision was given in the end. I think that is at the extreme end of what could happen, and in any case he shouldn't then be making the decision, someone else should do that in real time, not him the next time play stops.
For me that is badly implemented technology.
Haha, I've been doing that for about 4 years now with City, just wondering if they've concocted a reason between the four not to give it, especially late winners.as a match going fan constantly being worried about whether a goal counts would diminish the enjoyment of a goal imo
So what you are saying it is a farce because he gave the right decision and disallowed the wrong one. So you don't want a penalty decision made to get the right decision so hypothetically a team can go up the other end and score a immoral goal. Imagine that was Kun who was fouled in the box and we were screaming a penalty, then the other team go and score, we would scream blue murder. Now I know that if it would be completely different if it was the other way round.You said the ref should have stopped the game for the Vitesse penalty. In this case it was penalty but lets imagine it wasn't and the ref stopped to review the decision that would have stopped Feyenoord from scoring. I just don't how that is fair. Would put even more pressure on referees imo
So yesterday when Kev is hacked and the ref plays on (because I dont believe he saw it and only gave the decision on the severity of Kev) you wouldn't want the ref to go back and review it. Also as with Sideshow pulling Sergio back last season, we all believe the fourth official gave that decision. What is to stop the fourth official sitting in a booth/stands with a video feed and he could then assist the ref with obvious red card decisions.
Is that any different to the goalkeeper keeping hold of the ball or time wasting at a goal kickHaha, I've been doing that for about 4 years now with City, just wondering if they've concocted a reason between the four not to give it, especially late winners.
I think we have to find a way for it to work, and it needs to be someone with instant replay, to minimise the chances of the video you posted, in that case I'd like to know how much time was added on, because it must be t least 90 seconds between the penalty not being given, and being scored, and that time is effectively lost to the game, and that is also wrong.
Problem is that that the FA is still an old boys club and it feels as though they are hanging on to their last bit of power.Completely agree. If VAR was set up to be watched by the 4th official it could stop any snidy elbows, nasty challenges and kick outs without any effect on the flow of the game. Young, Alli, Kane, puncheon, murphy would have all been off giving the team the in match advantage of the extra man rather than the possibility of helping out opponents during the ban period. It's a simple decision to run it like this but I doubt the FA have thought about it too much.
My argument was more in relation to you saying the ref should be able to stop the game at any point to review decisions. I was just using the above video as a hypothetical situation, if Vitesse actually shouldn't have had a penalty which could have easily been the case, your just stopping a feyenoord counter attack to review a decision. Really dont see how VAR could be used in that way. So many decision are subjective as well, just look at the handball in the united game on Saturday.So what you are saying it is a farce because he gave the right decision and disallowed the wrong one. So you don't want a penalty decision made to get the right decision so hypothetically a team can go up the other end and score a immoral goal. Imagine that was Kun who was fouled in the box and we were screaming a penalty, then the other team go and score, we would scream blue murder. Now I know that if it would be completely different if it was the other way round.
At no point was I inferring that the game should be stopped at any point, I was inferring that a goal scoring opportunity (i.e. a penalty decision, foul in the box or offside). You seem to be really focusing on a counter attack that shouldn't happen as the referee should give the decision. Regarding the handball, I would of shouted for that and believe there isn't much difference between that and West Brom's.My argument was more in relation to you saying the ref should be able to stop the game at any point to review decisions. I was just using the above video as a hypothetical situation, if Vitesse actually shouldn't have had a penalty which could have easily been the case, your just stopping a feyenoord counter attack to review a decision. Really dont see how VAR could be used in that way. So many decision are subjective as well, just look at the handball in the united game on Saturday.