You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
VAR (PL introduction 2019)
- Thread starter greasedupdeafguy
- Start date
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
VAR - There will be a massive increase in players jumping to the floor at corners when this thing kicks in. Still can't get that Salah dive when he got touched on the shoulder out of my head.
In theory, he touched him, reality, Salah massive dive and should have been booked.
There will be carnage, with penalties galore in each match.
Practice your pen's lads, there's going to be lots
Except there won't be, because the v.a.r. will be used selectively, just like Mike Dean selectively books Raheem Sterling, so they will just pick & choose when they feel like awarding pens.
The same people who do this inconsistent shit week in week out, are the people who will be sat in a room, deciding who gets the benefit of their v.a.r decisions, in addition, to the other fucking numptys, on the pitch.
Would this debate have gone on if the dippers had won?
I'm sick of hearing scousers on the radio, and at work bemoaning being ironically robbed.
what i don't understand with that is 2 of the 3 decisions went their way??
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
what i don't understand with that is 2 of the 3 decisions went their way??
Liverpool.
If there was a similar incident but he was 'a toe' offside & was 'almost' interfering with play in our opinion, but 'definitely' in a Cardiff fan's opinion, and the TV pundits were '50/50' on either side, but the v.a.r ref had decided to go with 'offside', & disallowed a beautiful goal would you be happy to see 'justice' done, or would you prefer the goal to have stood, even though it was 'arguably' offside ?
Then in the next game, Ashley Young has an almost identical situation, but the v.a.r. ref goes with 'goal'. Still happy with v.a.r. ?
Fellaini elbows someone in the head a week later, v.ar. ref goes with using his arms for leverage, but sends Fernandinho off for similar a week later. Still happy ?
All are 'correct' decisions, as they were arrived at, by v.a.r.
Or perhaps this won't happen & suddenly we will get more 50/50 decisions going our way, than Utd, Liverpool do, over a season.
Must be a good chance of that.
that's the whole point with offside with VAR its black and white, you are either on or off there is no grey area, leading to your toe offside analogy in sane's case yesterday if he had of been then interference can come into play, as he wasn't it would become irrelevant
Liverpool.
yes liverpool
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
that's the whole point with offside with VAR its black and white, you are either on or off there is no grey area, leading to your toe offside analogy in sane's case yesterday if he had of been then interference can come into play, as he wasn't it would become irrelevant
Most refs would not disallow that goal, even if Sane was offside, & even if they thought he was 'maybe' interfering, as they would recon the keeper had no chance anyway. But the pundits, would argue about it after the game. Enter v.a.r.
With v.a.r. the ref can call for it & hand the decision to someone else, so it will almost always go to v.a.r .
If an attacker is marginally offside & 'arguably' interfering with play, then it will come down to one bloke, in a box, deciding each time. He will give one sometimes, & disallow another. Most will be disallowed, but every now & then, they will suddenly allow one. Fans will be going 'why the fuck did they allow that one, when they disallowed the others ?
BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THEY DO
There will be the same inconsistency, as they show, every week.
With v.a.r. blatant match fixing also becomes easy, & can be done legitimately in full view, they just work together to choose which kind of incidents to review. They could make it look fair by giving decisions against both sides during the game & then just favour one, a bit more, when they see the moment.
Most refs would not disallow that goal, even if Sane was offside, & even if they thought he was 'maybe' interfering, as they would recon the keeper had no chance anyway. But the pundits, would argue about it after the game. Enter v.a.r.
With v.a.r. the ref can call for it & hand the decision to someone else, so it will almost always go to v.a.r .
If an attacker is marginally offside & 'arguably' interfering with play, then it will come down to one bloke, in a box, deciding each time. He will give one sometimes, & disallow another. Most will be disallowed, but every now & then, they will suddenly allow one. Fans will be going 'why the fuck did they allow that one, when they disallowed the others ?
BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THEY DO
There will be the same inconsistency, as they show, every week.
With v.a.r. blatant match fixing also becomes easy, & can be done legitimately in full view, they just work together to choose which kind of incidents to review. They could make it look fair by giving decisions against both sides during the game & then just favour one, a bit more, when they see the moment.
you are missing the point, if VAR was in place yesterday(the ref/lino have to make a decision in the first instance) they would of double checked the decision as it was such a close call, bar in the stadium(another issue to be resolved) the whole world and his wife can see it wasn't, it would have been reversed no question, to not so would show gross incompetence and very career limiting
offside is not subjective when it comes to VAR its black or white, as was proved in the liverpool/wba game
you are missing the point, if VAR was in place yesterday(the ref/lino have to make a decision in the first instance) they would of double checked the decision as it was such a close call, bar in the stadium(another issue to be resolved) the whole world and his wife can see it wasn't, it would have been reversed no question, to not so would show gross incompetence and very career limiting
offside is not subjective when it comes to VAR its black or white, as was proved in the liverpool/wba game
It's not subjective? Really? OK, say Sane did have a knee offside - is he interfering with play or not? Every really tight offside decision has plenty of debate as to whether a toe is offside or onside, it's the nature of the game, and no matter how much they zoom in, it's impossible to tell - which is exactly why every week we have the was offside/wasn't offside debate about goals. The ones where the linesman has got it clearly wrong, yes absolutely, they can be corrected, but football isn't quite that simple a game.
You can be in favour of VAR or against it, and personally I'm somewhat ambivalent (this is why it's being tested after all), but the idea it's going to clear up all debate and discussion is complete fantasy - it's simply going to transfer it.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
you are missing the point, if VAR was in place yesterday(the ref/lino have to make a decision in the first instance) they would of double checked the decision as it was such a close call, bar in the stadium(another issue to be resolved) the whole world and his wife can see it wasn't, it would have been reversed no question, to not so would show gross incompetence and very career limiting
offside is not subjective when it comes to VAR its black or white, as was proved in the liverpool/wba game
No, I'm making te point that, although yesterday's decision would have worked in our favour with var (as Sane wasn't offside) most referees wouldn't have disallowed it anyway, even if they thought Sane was offside, they would give the benefit to the attack, it's just that Mason is a ****.
In future, referees, rather than letting a goal like that stand, as most would, will refer it to v.ar.
Then, if a player in Sanes position happens to be one toe offside, the whole thing comes down to if the video ref thinks he is interfering.
We have had quite a few goals in recent years given, where a video ref 'could' choose to disallow them. Imo, sometimes they will, sometimes they won't & there will be little difference between either.
It's not subjective? Really? OK, say Sane did have a knee offside - is he interfering with play or not? Every really tight offside decision has plenty of debate as to whether a toe is offside or onside, it's the nature of the game, and no matter how much they zoom in, it's impossible to tell - which is exactly why every week we have the was offside/wasn't offside debate about goals. The ones where the linesman has got it clearly wrong, yes absolutely, they can be corrected, but football isn't quite that simple a game.
You can be in favour of VAR or against it, and personally I'm somewhat ambivalent (this is why it's being tested after all), but the idea it's going to clear up all debate and discussion is complete fantasy - it's simply going to transfer it.
again you are mixing the two things offside is black and white, interference is, as sane wasn't offside the goal would of stood using VAR
again you are mixing the two things offside is black and white, interference is, as sane wasn't offside the goal would of stood using VAR
I'm not mixing up anything, I'm pointing out that saying it's not subjective is simplistic. Offside is anything but black and white - you have players active and inactive, and even with a "normal" offside, tight ones are still subject to debate as to whether or not it was the right decision. Are you seriously claiming that when a tight offside is shown everyone agrees with what it is showing?
I'm not mixing up anything, I'm pointing out that saying it's not subjective is simplistic. Offside is anything but black and white - you have players active and inactive, and even with a "normal" offside, tight ones are still subject to debate as to whether or not it was the right decision. Are you seriously claiming that when a tight offside is shown everyone agrees with what it is showing?
absolutely, do you agree sane was onside? it was as tight a call as you could get, the tech is there and has been for seasons as sky replays show testament to
again you are putting two to together to make one, with active/inactive that only becomes relevant once a player is deemed offside.
if sane would have been sat on the corner flag the goal would of stood
they have to make a decision in the first instance and why wouldn't they check it to make sure one way or another, that was such a close call it would of been negligent not to check it if the technology was there. you really can't slag mason off in this instance, he was relying on his lino who to be fair put his flag up immediately.No, I'm making te point that, although yesterday's decision would have worked in our favour with var (as Sane wasn't offside) most referees wouldn't have disallowed it anyway, even if they thought Sane was offside, they would give the benefit to the attack, it's just that Mason is a ****.
In future, referees, rather than letting a goal like that stand, as most would, will refer it to v.ar.
Then, if a player in Sanes position happens to be one toe offside, the whole thing comes down to if the video ref thinks he is interfering.
We have had quite a few goals in recent years given, where a video ref 'could' choose to disallow them. Imo, sometimes they will, sometimes they won't & there will be little difference between either.
as far as i know there is no rule that says give the benefit to the attack in close calls.
absolutely, do you agree sane was onside? it was as tight a call as you could get, the tech is there and has been for seasons as sky replays show testament to
again you are putting two to together to make one, with active/inactive that only becomes relevant once a player is deemed offside.
if sane would have been sat on the corner flag the goal would of stood
He was onside - are you seriously trying to say that it's always that easy? It isn't. You can''t use one example and assume it will always work that way. Many offsides are just arguable.
i disagree, with today's technology you can, give me an instance where its arguable where the appropriate tech is in placeHe was onside - are you seriously trying to say that it's always that easy? It isn't. You can''t use one example and assume it will always work that way. Many offsides are just arguable.
i disagree, with today's technology you can, give me an instance where its arguable where the appropriate tech is in place
David Silva v Arsenal. Plenty said onside, plenty said offside. I'm sure you'll have your opinion, but your opinion (or mine) is just that. It was arguable, as many of them are.
geoff clipp
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 1,389
i disagree, with today's technology you can, give me an instance where its arguable where the appropriate tech is in place
I'm all for giving VAR a chance but i do think there are still instances where offsides are questionable even with the technology. Video can confirm if somebody is in an offside position, but it would still be a matter of opinion in instances where you have to decide whether or not they're interfering with play. If Sane had been in an offside position yesterday there would probably have been more debate on whether the flag should have gone up.
David Silva v Arsenal. Plenty said onside, plenty said offside. I'm sure you'll have your opinion, but your opinion (or mine) is just that. It was arguable, as many of them are.
without the appropriate tech of course it becomes a matter of opinion
i am certain if you apply today's technology you would be able to see if offside or not(still frames,lines across the pitch etc) as they did with sane yesterday, no difference
without the appropriate tech of course it becomes a matter of opinion
i am certain if you apply today's technology you would be able to see if offside or not(still frames,lines across the pitch etc) as they did with sane yesterday, no difference
It's the same technology as the broadcasters - that's where they take the feed from for things like that.