Var debate 2019/20

Anyone able to explain this:

When the penalty on Rodri wasn’t given, the defence was that VAR was there to prevent ‘clear and obvious’ errors. You’ve seen those given, you’ve seen them not given. ‘I trust Michael Oliver’s judgment’ said Martin Tyler.

Okay. If, like reviews in cricket, VAR is there not to re-referee marginal calls but to avoid real howlers, then the decision not to award a penalty can be argued to be fair enough.

Two things. First, the “handball” was barely discernible in real time. Oliver didn’t spot it, the spurs players didn’t appeal for it. The ball might have brushed Laporte’s arm, but in what way was the goal overturned as a result of a ‘clear and obvious’ error? It seems that the law was applied differently in the first instance than the second, and other than the fact that in the second case the team that stands to benefit from the rule plays in light blue, I can’t see any difference.

Secondly, perhaps it’s obvious to others, but it isn’t to me. Why did the sky sports commentators not point out that VAR is only there to correct clear and obvious errors? The justification for not awarding a penalty in the first half dictated that the goal should not have been disallowed in the second. So why was there no comment about the absence of that justification in the second?

Define clear and obvious error
 
We have seen West Ham penalised for a goaly moving off his line and then the Liverpool keeper not penalised for the same thing this week. It’s shite.
Agree with the sentiment, and clearly Pep noticed, but different circumstances in a way; not premier league and a shoot-out rather than in-play penalty.

I'll be watching and judging on PL matches.

Seems ridiculous to even have different rules/laws in different competitions to me in the first place given as it's an international sport, but not my decision..
 
Maybe I'll begin to believe in VAR when someone scores a last minute winner against us that is disallowed because his toenail was 1.2mm offside or Liverpool concede a penalty when the ball fleetingly brushes the defenders arm skin for a nanosecond. Until then, its an absolute disgrace of a system designed purely to enable the authorities to manage the results of games.
 
Anyone able to explain this:

When the penalty on Rodri wasn’t given, the defence was that VAR was there to prevent ‘clear and obvious’ errors. You’ve seen those given, you’ve seen them not given. ‘I trust Michael Oliver’s judgment’ said Martin Tyler.

Okay. If, like reviews in cricket, VAR is there not to re-referee marginal calls but to avoid real howlers, then the decision not to award a penalty can be argued to be fair enough.

Two things. First, the “handball” was barely discernible in real time. Oliver didn’t spot it, the spurs players didn’t appeal for it. The ball might have brushed Laporte’s arm, but in what way was the goal overturned as a result of a ‘clear and obvious’ error? It seems that the law was applied differently in the first instance than the second, and other than the fact that in the second case the team that stands to benefit from the rule plays in light blue, I can’t see any difference.

Secondly, perhaps it’s obvious to others, but it isn’t to me. Why did the sky sports commentators not point out that VAR is only there to correct clear and obvious errors? The justification for not awarding a penalty in the first half dictated that the goal should not have been disallowed in the second. So why was there no comment about the absence of that justification in the second?
Think you know the answer already mate. This shit is making WWE look unpredictable in comparison
 
You can see us being screwed by it but youre willing to give it a chance, how does that work ??
No, you've misread.

I personally don't buy the agenda idea. So I don't expect we'll "get screwed by it". But clearly so far we've been the team that's come off worst after 2 games of the season.

If come the end of the season Liverpool & United & Spurs have had similar goals disallowed for seemingly very harsh reasons, but because of these new offside/handball strictness rules - then so be it, at least it will have been consistent.

Will I end up liking its impact in a years time? Not sure, it felt like we've been screwed over a lot in recent years by decisions that VAR could absolutely have helped us with - so hopefully we'll get our fair share of decisions go our way also. If it then feels like the game is "fairer", and it hasn't totally ruined how the game flows, then I may well like it.
 
I'm finished with football very soon if these decisions continue to fuck us up game after game. I honestly think there will be controversy in every game we play this season, yet other teams will just sail through it all. It fucking stinks.
It certainly has that feeling alright.
 
Anyone able to explain this:

When the penalty on Rodri wasn’t given, the defence was that VAR was there to prevent ‘clear and obvious’ errors. You’ve seen those given, you’ve seen them not given. ‘I trust Michael Oliver’s judgment’ said Martin Tyler.

Okay. If, like reviews in cricket, VAR is there not to re-referee marginal calls but to avoid real howlers, then the decision not to award a penalty can be argued to be fair enough.

Two things. First, the “handball” was barely discernible in real time. Oliver didn’t spot it, the spurs players didn’t appeal for it. The ball might have brushed Laporte’s arm, but in what way was the goal overturned as a result of a ‘clear and obvious’ error? It seems that the law was applied differently in the first instance than the second, and other than the fact that in the second case the team that stands to benefit from the rule plays in light blue, I can’t see any difference.

Secondly, perhaps it’s obvious to others, but it isn’t to me. Why did the sky sports commentators not point out that VAR is only there to correct clear and obvious errors? The justification for not awarding a penalty in the first half dictated that the goal should not have been disallowed in the second. So why was there no comment about the absence of that justification in the second?

If Laporte's arm had diverted/deflected the ball away from the Spurs players into the path of Jesus to score, then you can say fair enough, but it didn't. Without VAR, not one person would have questioned if the goal should have stood, it would not have been a footnote in the match report, let alone the games defining moment.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.