VAR (PL introduction 2019)

BJL_City said:
well you either go with "Benefit of the Doubt" as a standard or for decisions where it's very tight, you decide that there isn't conclusive evidence so you stick with the onfield decision. Happens in rugby and cricket plenty of times. What it will solve is incidents like Kelechi and Sane which were clearly and demonstrably wrong. You can debate the merits of every decision to death, but technology is there to remove clear and obvious errors. If it is misused, then that is a problem of application by humans and not with the technology.
Click to expand...

Which is why my argument throughout the thread, & before the thread existed, has been about the fucking bent clowns who can decide who gets the 'benefit of the doubt' & which incidents get reviewed & not the tecnology.

Their record using video reviews so far, having a week to get it right, is fucking appalling.

Now they have a minute. Good luck with that.
 
Dubai Blue said:
If you genuinely believe the first bolded statement, I don't see how you can also believe the second one. It's the exact same "corrupt" people who are monitoring the videos and deciding when it should be used. This current version of VAR is every bit as open to corruption as the traditional non-VAR system of officiating games.

Personally, I think VAR has a place in the game, but the version currently being used is farcical and will have to become far more coherent and streamlined if it is to gain wider acceptance.
Click to expand...

Because it will be impossible to review situations, with the public able to see the replays and still get the incorrect decisions time after time. it levels the playing field massively. Can't understand how any blue wouldn't want it after witnessing how the corrupt current system treats our club
 
Neville Kneville said:
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.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with the first bit of your statement. Most refs wouldn't have disallowed it. Funny they did when it was us, no? No way would that be disallowed for the Rags/Liverpool in the first place. So VAR would have corrected the decision and levels the playing field from its current state massively. That's just one example. Many more will come up, over the coming weeks! Mark my words
 
Neville Kneville said:
Which is why my argument throughout the thread, & before the thread existed, has been about the fucking bent clowns who can decide who gets the 'benefit of the doubt' & which incidents get reviewed & not the tecnology.

Their record using video reviews so far, having a week to get it right, is fucking appalling.

Now they have a minute. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

since the trial started what decisions have been demonstrably wrong after going to review?
 
Neville Kneville said:
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.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with the first bit of your statement. Most refs wouldn't have disallowed it. Funny they did when it was us, no? No way would that be disallowed for the Rags/Liverpool in the first place. So VAR would have corrected the decision and levels the playing field from its current state massively. That's just one example. Many more will come up, over the coming weeks! Mark my words
 
Bluearmy said:
I actually agree with the first bit of your statement. Most refs wouldn't have disallowed it. Funny they did when it was us, no? No way would that be disallowed for the Rags/Liverpool in the first place. So VAR would have corrected the decision and levels the playing field from its current state massively. That's just one example. Many more will come up, over the coming weeks! Mark my words
Click to expand...

whether you agree or not that we wouldn't get the original decision and utd would is moot now because in tight situations they will use VAR to check, which as you say will level the playing field
 
Neville Kneville said:
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.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with the first bit of your statement. Most refs wouldn't have disallowed it. Funny they did when it was us no? No way would that be disallowed for the Rags/Liverpool in the first place. So VAR would have corrected the decision and levels the playing field from its current state.
Henkeman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll give you the silva one, for,the point of discussion. So 1 or 2 a season will be controversial. That's still miles better than the current situation. No ones ever said it will be 100% perfect, but VAR would drastically improve the number of correct calls significantly.... what's not to like?
 
Bluearmy said:
I actually agree with the first bit of your statement. Most refs wouldn't have disallowed it. Funny they did when it was us no? No way would that be disallowed for the Rags/Liverpool in the first place. So VAR would have corrected the decision and levels the playing field from its current state.


I'll give you the silva one, for,the point of discussion. So 1 or 2 a season will be controversial. That's still miles better than the current situation. No ones ever said it will be 100% perfect, but VAR would drastically improve the number of correct calls significantly.... what's not to like?
Click to expand...

i actually think you would now be able to see the silva one to be on or offside
 
Neville Kneville said:
TELEMMGLPICT000151485433_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqmLgJNm7MhjXZ7o6So8nVqYiWwtef9-us00sirsgLwog.jpeg


This instance here with Iheanacho we can see that the ball has been played, but we have all seen similar ones, with a player in that position or a small distance either way, when the ball is on the foot of the player passing the ball & we don't see whether it's been kicked yet or not.

You have seen them, I have seen them.

In that instance, it can be interpreted either way.

If it's City & Gary Neville, & the oppo have scored, it's 'on the cusp of being offside'.

That position now, but with the ball on the toe of the passer, crops up every week somewhere.

Then once again, it will be decided by the bloke in the box, how he feels.
Click to expand...


You are aware this was originally called offside, incorrectly I may add and VAR got the decision correct? Not sure this helps your argument... just another example of VAR getting a call right. Where officials couldn't. What's not to like?
 
tonea2003 said:
since the trial started what decisions have been demonstrably wrong after going to review?
Click to expand...

It would be quicker for you to look it up yourself, rather than me do it & report back. It's not just 'wrong' decisions I am talking about either, it's also which incidents are ignored or chosen for review & I have given a clear penalty erview on Barry, as an example. That is a pen. There is no rule exemption which allows the keeper to push a player, standing still, in the back. Just because refs let it go, so often doesn't mean they are right. It's a pen.

But nobody gives a fuck about that, because it isn't the designated talking point. Even West Brom haven't spotted it, yet it's plain & obvious.

The game is run by simplistic idiots & this gives them more power.
 
tonea2003 said:
whether you agree or not that we wouldn't get the original decision and utd would is moot now because in tight situations they will use VAR to check, which as you say will level the playing field
Click to expand...

No.

They will then adjudicate whether any player who (unlike sane) IS in an offside position is interfering. There is an argument for either case.

So if Sane had been offside, one day it would be a goal, the next not. And the same bloke wiill give both decisions on different days, because that is what they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top