I was just replying to the post in front of me, I haven’t read the whole thread. I think VAR is great and in the long run can only benefit City due to the ridiculous number of times we get shafted by refs. Just the 2/3 incidents that VAR fucked up that instantly sprang to mind were the ones I listed.
It was a bit tongue in cheek that comment, just there is a clamour of people who want to say it is far better. At the moment it isn't, and whilst I think KN is going a bit overboard with his anger (and paranoia), I think he has a point.Ive not read one post saying it's worked perfectly. Anyone who said so would be an idiot.
If there is one person in the refereeing community I would like to trust, its Collina, he's the best I've ever seen, though even he made mistakes occasionally.I do agree on your comments about needing to know what's going on. That needs to be improved for all involved. Collina has already said it needs to be more transparent, and that's really good to hear. expect mic'd up refs/var teams pretty quickly! The teams are putting the pressure on for this, along with the tv companies, so it most likely will come in. It's under his remit to continuously improve the system. Let's hope he's reliable...
Or just an idiot desperate to go against the grain.
VAR is proving to be a bigger success than anyone imagined , this World Cup has been brilliant and VAR has played a major part. It’s cutting the cheating bollocks out massively. Sure needs some tweaking but fuck me, after decades of a Ref guessing this is massive relief.
It was a bit tongue in cheek that comment, just there is a clamour of people who want to say it is far better. At the moment it isn't, and whilst I think KN is going a bit overboard with his anger (and paranoia), I think he has a point.
I would say it's a big improvement. Perfect, no. Obviously. But with the numbers in the reports/factoring in the few omissions, it's catching around 3 out of every 4 errors. I think that's a pretty good start personally... what else is out there that can deliver anything similar?
If there is one person in the refereeing community I would like to trust, its Collina, he's the best I've ever seen, though even he made mistakes occasionally.
Yeah, I was glad it was him... seems a pretty good guy whenever you hear him speak. I was amazed it wasn't Blatters or Platini's new job! ;)
I hope the TV companies are pushing for its transparency, but for me the real people who need that clarity, are the match going fans who fork out their hard earned money to be at the game. For instance, think of all those South and Central Americans at this world cup, who have created a brilliant atmosphere, and then think how much they must have spent to be part of it, they are the ones who deserve the transparency most, not us in our armchairs at home.
It was a bit tongue in cheek that comment, just there is a clamour of people who want to say it is far better. At the moment it isn't, and whilst I think KN is going a bit overboard with his anger (and paranoia), I think he has a point.
If there is one person in the refereeing community I would like to trust, its Collina, he's the best I've ever seen, though even he made mistakes occasionally.
I hope the TV companies are pushing for its transparency, but for me the real people who need that clarity, are the match going fans who fork out their hard earned money to be at the game. For instance, think of all those South and Central Americans at this world cup, who have created a brilliant atmosphere, and then think how much they must have spent to be part of it, they are the ones who deserve the transparency most, not us in our armchairs at home.
Thanks, yes some good points made, but obviously he's selling it to the world, so its bound to be exaggerated a bit.Good article here, he seems to be saying the right things. Let's hope he delivers...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-c...sions-2018-world-cup-close-perfection-thanks/
Thanks, yes some good points made, but obviously he's selling it to the world, so its bound to be exaggerated a bit.
You only need to remember how our panel of "experts" rule on retrospective reds to know how city will be treated with VAR.Fair enough. Just a few posters have called out the IFAB's reports numbers as being bullshit, but when pushed no one can give an example of which decisions where VAR intervened were incorrect, excluding the Iran/Portugal one as the IFAB report already states that was incorrect.
It's probably fucked up 5 or 6, which is not ideal. However, it's given us a load more correct decisions that we wouldnt of had otherwise without it...
Bingo.If there is one person in the refereeing community I would like to trust, its Collina,
Yep, and the needless 6 roles, and squeal to show how bad it was.I feel like VAR should be used to deal with the diving shit
Because "it has pretty clear and obvious flaws, but let's see how it goes" isn't a sensible approach to take.You may well be right.... but, as you have highlighted the old system is terrible. So why not give VAR A chance to see if it improves things. It may not and we may have to admit defeat. But sure worth a chance, having seen what we've seen with the old system, no?
I remember Howard Webb looking at a replay of a Navas penalty claim against Everton. He accepted it was a foul and inside the penalty area. But was still a good decision not to give the penalty as "he went down funny".No it doesn't.
They can look at it on replay (if told) & in most cases find a way of not giving it & be correct & have people back them up
Like tonight. Spain had a blatant pen. Ex FIFA ref Clattenburg came up with nonexistent rule on tv to say they didn't & everyone agrees.
Youve not read my point correctly. I said of the decisions where VAR has been utilised. There's no doubt it's missed some, although one of the Kane's incidents wouldn't have been A pen as Stones fouled someone before Kane got fouled. One defo was tho, I agree and VAR should have been used. FIFA have hung that ref and the VAR team out to dry.. quite rightly.
Anyway, IFAB already stated the Iran penalty was incorrect against portugal. We've already discussed that. What I was asking if people are not willing to accept VAR got 18 out of the 19 decisions correct, according to The IFAB report which specific ones of the 18 VAR challenges the IFAB said were correct, were actually incorrect. Despite asking multiple times now, no one can come up with a specific example, other then the Iran one already confirmed as incorrect.
The VAR has reviewed this post and decided it's the most pot-kettle-black moment in Bluemoon history.Or just an idiot desperate to go against the grain.
Like yesterdays new rule - Both holding; no penalty, even though the first offence was clearly the Russian defender holding the Spanish forward.I remember Howard Webb looking at a replay of a Navas penalty claim against Everton. He accepted it was a foul and inside the penalty area. But was still a good decision not to give the penalty as "he went down funny".
Expect plenty of new rules to be invented to justify decisions/non decisions.
If you make a clear attempt to play the ball, it's a yellow card. The decision was spot on as per the current laws of the game. Whether those laws are right or not is another matter entirely.VAR seems to be working well in yesterday's matches. Quick reviews, allowing the game to proceed. Perhaps helped by the fact that refs got on-field calls right, so no overturns were necessary.
The sole caveat to the above was the curious non-red for Denmark's clear last-man foul on Croatia's attacker in the box, denying a clear cut goal scoring opportunity (in fact, Croatia's attacker had rounded the keeper, was about 3 feet away from goal, and there was no defender nearby at all except the one behind the attacker who committed the foul).
IMO the defender did try to make a play on the ball - still, it was a foul, he was the last man, and Croatia would clearly have scored absent the penalty. I'm not a rules expert, but parity suggests that the defender has to be sent off. On the Fox broadcast, Dr. Joe said the same. If I'm correct, this is a huge VAR error.
Because "it has pretty clear and obvious flaws, but let's see how it goes" isn't a sensible approach to take.
There have been a number of examples where I've disagreed with a VAR decision and have said so on bluemoon at the time. I've seen dozens of posts from others along the same lines.
But as I've said, something that's referred to the ref who makes a decision that I disagree with isn't a flaw in VAR for me. A ref that makes loads of bad VAR decisions shows a flaw in the ref for me, not VAR itself. More of a problem is when the ref doesn't get that second look.
That's the big problem with this VAR.