World Cup VAR

[crazyg]

Huh?
Just because a *ref* is from MLS doesn't automatically mean he or she is bad.

As the refereeing supremo over in the USA is none other than Peter Walton, I'd say that it was a valid comment!
;-)

 

[SWP's back]

Plus he should have booked Henderson for simulation.

Hahahaha.

England doing well is really pissing you off.

 

[SWP's back]

Huh?
Just because a *ref* is from MLS doesn't automatically mean he or she is bad.

Weren’t you and your American pundits upset that someone wasn’t send off for a professional foul in the box a few days ago?

It’s that sort of thing that leads people to think Americans don’t know the rules.

Edit, yes, here it is:

Spoiler: Your post

“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.”

 

[pudge]

Hahahaha.

England doing well is really pissing you off.

Not overly. I want the City lads to do well so invariably England will do well too. If they get knocked out, yes I'd laugh but it has no great effect either way.

It's the same as Liverpool winning the CL though, even just beating us, the hyperbole. Especially given the undoubtedly average performances to date from England.

As for that comment, Neymar should have been punished for his theatrics and same for Henderson. It's deceiving the officials. Same for anyone. Simple really.

Do you like to see that from players?

 

[Hollywood Blue]

Huh?
Just because a *ref* is from MLS doesn't automatically mean he or she is bad.

I’ve been watching the MLS since 1996 and had Galaxy season tickets for twelve years, MLS referees are shocking.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Except that head of VAR in this world cup, Collina has said in recent days, that this is one of the improvements he is in favour of, he wants transparency, and if its brought in, then there will be no excuses.

They can be transparently dishonest. Or transparently gutless/biased.

So long as a bloke in a box can decide which incidents the referee should look at, it's a cheats charter.

 

[cleavers]

They can be transparently dishonest. Or transparently gutless/biased.

So long as a bloke in a box can decide which incidents the referee should look at, it's a cheats charter.

Not if its viewable to the public, and that was what Collina said he hoped for.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Not if its viewable to the public, and that was what Collina said he hoped for.

It was viewable to the public, just not the ref.

The best system would be a referral system & the discussions on the decision on mic.

But even that still won't stop possible corruption or incompetence, until the rules are written clearly & refs prevented from wriggling out of decisions.

The pens Spain should have had, being an example. The rules for a typical pen don't include a get out clause, for if the victim fouls back, after being fouled himself. Yet suddenly we have Clsttenburg on tv telling us the foul on Piquet wasn't 'enough' of a foul (utter bollocks) & that Ramos, after being fouled, did the same, so that doesn't count either.

Whatever his agenda, neither pundits or v.a.r. operators or match refs, should be allowed to ignore someone initiating a foul in the penalty area. Because the next day, they will give the opposite decision, even against the same team & v.a.r. allows them to do even more of that, rather than less.

All of this should have been done, over many years, before unleashing it on the World Cup.

 

[blueinsa]

It was viewable to the public, just not the ref.

The best system would be a referral system & the discussions on the decision on mic.

But even that still won't stop possible corruption or incompetence, until the rules are written clearly & refs prevented from wriggling out of decisions.

The pens Spain should have had, being an example. The rules for a typical pen don't include a get out clause, for if the victim fouls back, after being fouled himself. Yet suddenly we have Clsttenburg on tv telling us the foul on Piquet wasn't 'enough' of a foul (utter bollocks) & that Ramos, after being fouled, did the same, so that doesn't count either.

Whatever his agenda, neither pundits or v.a.r. operators or match refs, should be allowed to ignore someone initiating a foul in the penalty area. Because the next day, they will give the opposite decision, even against the same team & v.a.r. allows them to do even more of that, rather than less.

All of this should have been done, over many years, before unleashing it on the World Cup.

Absolutely correct mate.

 

[cleavers]

It was viewable to the public, just not the ref.

The best system would be a referral system & the discussions on the decision on mic.

Yes, which is exactly what I've been saying all through this thread, and its what Collina appears to want.

 

[Bigga]

Me too, there have been several decisions I've disagreed with but they don't exist if we can't remember exactly when.

Last night for a start.

I've tried to avoid posting on this thread due to the repeated viewpoints with barely a concession on the improvement of the game and lack of disruption that VAR has caused, in reality. However, I have to ask at this point, when you disagreed when there was no VAR, what did you do...? 'Nothing'.

What could anyone do as the ref's decision was final?

Now, there's at least a sort of forced review that keeps the ref guessing if the original was correct!

So, if 'nothing' was the starting point, why complain if there's 'something' in place of 'nothing'...??

 

[Neville Kneville]

Yes, which is exactly what I've been saying all through this thread, and its what Collina appears to want.

If he wants a referral system then fair enough. If it's just a mic, it's window dressing.

 

[Neville Kneville]

I've tried to avoid posting on this thread due to the repeated viewpoints with barely a concession on the improvement of the game and lack of disruption that VAR has caused, in reality. However, I have to ask at this point, when you disagreed when there was no VAR, what did you do...? 'Nothing'.

What could anyone do as the ref's decision was final?

Now, there's at least a sort of forced review that keeps the ref guessing if the original was correct!

So, if 'nothing' was the starting point, why complain if there's 'something' in place of 'nothing'...??

It's simple.

V.a.r. gives pen: fine.

V.a.r. fails to give pen or even consult ref for similar: bent & asking for trouble.

That's what is currently happening.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

The review system and mic'ing up the refs is the only way to go.

Using last night as an example. In regards to the head but, our lads were adamant it was a red and we spent minutes arguing. If the review system was in place, we could have appealed, the replays could go up on the screens inside the stadium, the ref then makes a decision and explains it on the Mic to everyone concerned.

Then there was our penalty. The Colombians spent 4 minutes arguing with the ref. They could have appealed, it goes up on the big screen and then the Colombians could have seen that their appeal was futile and was clearly a penalty.

It is really not that difficult to implement and I really can't understand how they came to the conclusion that this current edition of VAR is preferable.

 

[Neville Kneville]

The review system and mic'ing up the refs is the only way to go.

Using last night as an example. In regards to the head but, our lads were adamant it was a red and we spent minutes arguing. If the review system was in place, we could have appealed, the replays could go up on the screens inside the stadium, the ref then makes a decision and explains it on the Mic to everyone concerned.

Then there was our penalty. The Colombians spent 4 minutes arguing with the ref. They could have appealed, it goes up on the big screen and then the Colombians could have seen that their appeal was futile and was clearly a penalty.

It is really not that difficult to implement and I really can't understand how they came to the conclusion that this current edition of VAR is preferable.

And with both, the rules should be clearly defined of what constitutes a pen & red card etc, & stop giving these wankers the opportunity to cheat or bottle out.

 

[Bigga]

The most obvious thing about this game, is that a ref from the MLS has no business overseeing a World Cup quarter final.
He had no control and was clearly out of his depth.
Having said that, the VAR was equally inept.

I don't understand this point that "...VAR was equally inept"...?

Well, that's an almost illogical viewpoint to start off with!

Are you talking about the video replay or video assisted refereeing??

By definition, the video replay cannot be 'inept' as it will show only the facts of what happened.

Any interpretation of the said 'facts' is subjective.

 

[Neville Kneville]

I don't understand this point that "...VAR was equally inept"...?

Well, that's an almost illogical viewpoint to start off with!

Are you talking about the video replay or video assisted refereeing??

By definition, the video replay cannot be 'inept' as it will show only the facts of what happened.

Any interpretation of the said 'facts' is subjective.

You can't have a pen given one day by the ref, then a similar incident the day after & some **** in the v.a.r. box doesn't even bother to ask the ref to review it.

That means the system is failling as the system involves a bunch of ****s in a box deciding what the match ref should look at.

 

[Bigga]

It was viewable to the public, just not the ref.

The best system would be a referral system & the discussions on the decision on mic.

But even that still won't stop possible corruption or incompetence, until the rules are written clearly & refs prevented from wriggling out of decisions.

The pens Spain should have had, being an example. The rules for a typical pen don't include a get out clause, for if the victim fouls back, after being fouled himself. Yet suddenly we have Clsttenburg on tv telling us the foul on Piquet wasn't 'enough' of a foul (utter bollocks) & that Ramos, after being fouled, did the same, so that doesn't count either.

Whatever his agenda, neither pundits or v.a.r. operators or match refs, should be allowed to ignore someone initiating a foul in the penalty area. Because the next day, they will give the opposite decision, even against the same team & v.a.r. allows them to do even more of that, rather than less.

All of this should have been done, over many years, before unleashing it on the World Cup.

I think, at this point, we're converging to a point of agreement.

The point I will disagree at, is the notion that any 'contact' means a foul, which is the extreme of what you're talking about.

So, make your mind up; contact or not?

But it does bother me that the governing bodies have decided they would go their own way, rather than standing on the shoulders of their predecessors in other sports.

Makes not one bit of sense.

However, some of the shambles seen with this sytem will make IFAB sort out the laws that will be more defined come the Euros, but we should hope FIFA bring it in better before then.

 

[Bigga]

Load of penalties in this world cup. Looks shit and not a good game anymore.

Again, this is strange!!

You would only go home and complain should you be cheated of a pen the normal way, so now pens are correctly given, cos the refs are helped to see it, you complain anyway...??

*smh*

 

[Bigga]

You can't have a pen given one day by the ref, then a similar incident the day after & some **** in the v.a.r. box doesn't even bother to ask the ref to review it.

That means the system is failling as the system involves a bunch of ****s in a box deciding what the match ref should look at.

Yes, so it's not 'the system' meaning the video replay.

It's the inconsistent interpretation.

But, even if there was a 'consistent interpretation', there would STILL be nuances of action that lead to a decision given.

We are Human Being, not robots otherwise all hand balls should be defined as such regardless of intention.

It's why there's a 'ball to hand' rule.

But, even that is contentious with a ref on a given day deciding that a 'ball to hand' was enough to stop a clear advantageous position of attack (like a goal scoring opportunity).

In my opinion.