and yet again we are being given a stupid excuse to try and cover up why a disgraceful decision has been reached. We all accept VAR is not the problem (apart from offsides when the technology isn't good enough) the problem is the referees. After the Laporte 'handball' which can only have been guessed at to allow them to chalk off our goal we have a nailed on handball and the only thing they can say is they didn't see it. Utter clowns, corrupt but still clowns.
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 debate 2019/20
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
and yet again we are being given a stupid excuse to try and cover up why a disgraceful decision has been reached. We all accept VAR is not the problem (apart from offsides when the technology isn't good enough) the problem is the referees. After the Laporte 'handball' which can only have been guessed at to allow them to chalk off our goal we have a nailed on handball and the only thing they can say is they didn't see it. Utter clowns, corrupt but still clowns.
Bill the Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 2,794
- Location
- Here and There, mostly Here..
- Team supported
- The only football team to come from Manchester!
Interestingly the VAR referee for the LaPorte incident and denied the goal was Graham Scott. If I remember rightly he was relegated to board monitor, for being late for the Chelsea game I believe it was on the Sunday following his brain freeze. Strangely, as it happens, it appears he's not been seen since.
This!! Looks like"a new winner every six years"
Scudamore's Dream.
If you think about this it's basically cheating.. It won't be long before you will be able to vote to allow a goal or not on the red button whilst eating your Saturday night takeaway!Dermot Gllagher, ex referee on radio 5 Monday night club said that the Newcastle goal against watford should have been dis allowed for handball. He said the VAR would have gone through a check list to review the goal and would have checked off side?, no ok,checked foul in build up?, No ok. But forgot the check handball? Check hand ball? Don't know, forgot !
Bigg Bigg Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2010
- Messages
- 8,251
- Team supported
- Manchester City
This!! Looks like
If you think about this it's basically cheating.. It won't be long before you will be able to vote to allow a goal or not on the red button whilst eating your Saturday night takeaway!
Don't give the ****s ideas mate
Colin Bell (genuine name)
Well-Known Member
Just sent this one to Sky Sports, don't hold out much hope though, but you know what, I'm not giving up, I'm going to keep highlighting this until some c*nt ldecides it's worth looking into. We all have our suspicions that it's to prevent us winning titles but it can't be proven but if we keep asking questions, then surely to god someone with some influence is going to start asking the same questions.
I sent you a complaint yesterday regarding the lenient questioning of Dermot Gallagher during Ref Watch and the blatantly obvious cover up of poor refereeing decisions and use of VAR during the current season. In particular I asked that you reminded him of his statements in regards to the decisions made in relation to the disallowed Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs and why the Newcastle goal was allowed to stand against Watford this weekend.
I watched Ref Watch today and this was Dermot's verbatim reply in regards to the Newcastle goal. "It didn't get picked up, whether it's eh'm because they were trying to keep the game flowing, do it as quickly as possible, whether it be they didn't have that angle we've got here, I don't know. But what it will do again, I said, I've used this before , it's all about reflection. I think in going forward it will be...... Is it offside? No. Is there a foul in the build up? No. Is there a possible handball? Yes. Go through the checklist , if it takes another ten, fifteen seconds, so be it and we'll never have that situation again."
We have seen that every goal is subject to a VAR review. Why would Dermot even suggest that the officials were trying to keep the game flowing? It was a goal and automatically subject to a VAR review. Why would he suggest that VAR didn't have access to the angle that proved that a handball was used in the build up to the goal? They have access to every angle. The Newcastle goal was very quick to establish as a hand ball and according to the rules applied by PGMOL should have been disallowed but yet it wasn't.
The Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs on the other hand was subjected to absolute forensic examination and involved a zoom in, close up review to suggest that the ball may have deflected off Laporte's arm even although nobody including the referee or any opposing player saw any infringement. The Newcastle handball is visible to the naked eye and yet was allowed to stand.
Dermot knows that there is a cover up for failures in the implementation of VAR which explains the second part of his statement regarding getting the decision correct.
What I would also like to know is why Sky, being the major contributor to the Premier League is allowing PGMOL to implement their own interpretation of the official rules regarding handball in the penalty area.
According to IFAB the law in regards to handball in the attacking box litigates against three separate ways in which a goal can be scored.....
1. It is an offence if a player scores in an opponents' goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental (Wily Boly - Wolves v Man City, Sergio Aguero - Man City v Arsenal and Nathan Redmond for Southampton last season)
2. It is an offence if a player gains possession/control of the ball after it hits their hand/arm and then scores in the opponents' goal ( Llorente - Spurs v Man City champions league)
3. It is an offence if a player gains/possession control of the ball after it hits their hand/arm and then creates a goal scoring opportunity (Thierry Henry for France against Ireland handballed and then squared it to Wiltord who scored)
Note the difference between 1 and 2. If the offending player scores the goal he either has to do it DIRECTLY or alternatively he has to TAKE POSSESSION/CONTROL and THEN score.
The same criteria in gaining possession/control also apples to creating a goal scoring opportunity, an example of which I have highlighted with the Thierry Henry example.
The above are the rules and if applied correctly means that the Wolves goal from the Wily Boly handball in the first game of the season, the Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs and the Newcastle goal at the weekend are all legitimate as they do not meet the rules applied by IFAB.
Yet the Newcastle handball is the only one that stood.
I was a fan of VAR as I believed it would be implemented in a way that would correct obvious mistakes that officials on the field might have made. It appears that VAR is being used to defend refereeing decisions whether obviously wrong or debatable and nobody is answerable to the incompetence which is evident to everybody but them.
You people have the ability to threaten to withdraw your sponsorship of television rights unless the people in charge stop disguising their incompetence as excellence.
This needs to change and you people have the power to do it, so do something about it.
I sent you a complaint yesterday regarding the lenient questioning of Dermot Gallagher during Ref Watch and the blatantly obvious cover up of poor refereeing decisions and use of VAR during the current season. In particular I asked that you reminded him of his statements in regards to the decisions made in relation to the disallowed Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs and why the Newcastle goal was allowed to stand against Watford this weekend.
I watched Ref Watch today and this was Dermot's verbatim reply in regards to the Newcastle goal. "It didn't get picked up, whether it's eh'm because they were trying to keep the game flowing, do it as quickly as possible, whether it be they didn't have that angle we've got here, I don't know. But what it will do again, I said, I've used this before , it's all about reflection. I think in going forward it will be...... Is it offside? No. Is there a foul in the build up? No. Is there a possible handball? Yes. Go through the checklist , if it takes another ten, fifteen seconds, so be it and we'll never have that situation again."
We have seen that every goal is subject to a VAR review. Why would Dermot even suggest that the officials were trying to keep the game flowing? It was a goal and automatically subject to a VAR review. Why would he suggest that VAR didn't have access to the angle that proved that a handball was used in the build up to the goal? They have access to every angle. The Newcastle goal was very quick to establish as a hand ball and according to the rules applied by PGMOL should have been disallowed but yet it wasn't.
The Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs on the other hand was subjected to absolute forensic examination and involved a zoom in, close up review to suggest that the ball may have deflected off Laporte's arm even although nobody including the referee or any opposing player saw any infringement. The Newcastle handball is visible to the naked eye and yet was allowed to stand.
Dermot knows that there is a cover up for failures in the implementation of VAR which explains the second part of his statement regarding getting the decision correct.
What I would also like to know is why Sky, being the major contributor to the Premier League is allowing PGMOL to implement their own interpretation of the official rules regarding handball in the penalty area.
According to IFAB the law in regards to handball in the attacking box litigates against three separate ways in which a goal can be scored.....
1. It is an offence if a player scores in an opponents' goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental (Wily Boly - Wolves v Man City, Sergio Aguero - Man City v Arsenal and Nathan Redmond for Southampton last season)
2. It is an offence if a player gains possession/control of the ball after it hits their hand/arm and then scores in the opponents' goal ( Llorente - Spurs v Man City champions league)
3. It is an offence if a player gains/possession control of the ball after it hits their hand/arm and then creates a goal scoring opportunity (Thierry Henry for France against Ireland handballed and then squared it to Wiltord who scored)
Note the difference between 1 and 2. If the offending player scores the goal he either has to do it DIRECTLY or alternatively he has to TAKE POSSESSION/CONTROL and THEN score.
The same criteria in gaining possession/control also apples to creating a goal scoring opportunity, an example of which I have highlighted with the Thierry Henry example.
The above are the rules and if applied correctly means that the Wolves goal from the Wily Boly handball in the first game of the season, the Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs and the Newcastle goal at the weekend are all legitimate as they do not meet the rules applied by IFAB.
Yet the Newcastle handball is the only one that stood.
I was a fan of VAR as I believed it would be implemented in a way that would correct obvious mistakes that officials on the field might have made. It appears that VAR is being used to defend refereeing decisions whether obviously wrong or debatable and nobody is answerable to the incompetence which is evident to everybody but them.
You people have the ability to threaten to withdraw your sponsorship of television rights unless the people in charge stop disguising their incompetence as excellence.
This needs to change and you people have the power to do it, so do something about it.
Stick at it pal, I used to be the dog with a bone but as I’ve got older I’ve lost my tenacity, however you and others are clearly committed. Don’t give up, nail the fuckers to the mast, love your posts on VAR.Just sent this one to Sky Sports, don't hold out much hope though, but you know what, I'm not giving up, I'm going to keep highlighting this until some c*nt ldecides it's worth looking into. We all have our suspicions that it's to prevent us winning titles but it can't be proven but if we keep asking questions, then surely to god someone with some influence is going to start asking the same questions.
I sent you a complaint yesterday regarding the lenient questioning of Dermot Gallagher during Ref Watch and the blatantly obvious cover up of poor refereeing decisions and use of VAR during the current season. In particular I asked that you reminded him of his statements in regards to the decisions made in relation to the disallowed Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs and why the Newcastle goal was allowed to stand against Watford this weekend.
I watched Ref Watch today and this was Dermot's verbatim reply in regards to the Newcastle goal. "It didn't get picked up, whether it's eh'm because they were trying to keep the game flowing, do it as quickly as possible, whether it be they didn't have that angle we've got here, I don't know. But what it will do again, I said, I've used this before , it's all about reflection. I think in going forward it will be...... Is it offside? No. Is there a foul in the build up? No. Is there a possible handball? Yes. Go through the checklist , if it takes another ten, fifteen seconds, so be it and we'll never have that situation again."
We have seen that every goal is subject to a VAR review. Why would Dermot even suggest that the officials were trying to keep the game flowing? It was a goal and automatically subject to a VAR review. Why would he suggest that VAR didn't have access to the angle that proved that a handball was used in the build up to the goal? They have access to every angle. The Newcastle goal was very quick to establish as a hand ball and according to the rules applied by PGMOL should have been disallowed but yet it wasn't.
The Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs on the other hand was subjected to absolute forensic examination and involved a zoom in, close up review to suggest that the ball may have deflected off Laporte's arm even although nobody including the referee or any opposing player saw any infringement. The Newcastle handball is visible to the naked eye and yet was allowed to stand.
Dermot knows that there is a cover up for failures in the implementation of VAR which explains the second part of his statement regarding getting the decision correct.
What I would also like to know is why Sky, being the major contributor to the Premier League is allowing PGMOL to implement their own interpretation of the official rules regarding handball in the penalty area.
According to IFAB the law in regards to handball in the attacking box litigates against three separate ways in which a goal can be scored.....
1. It is an offence if a player scores in an opponents' goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental (Wily Boly - Wolves v Man City, Sergio Aguero - Man City v Arsenal and Nathan Redmond for Southampton last season)
2. It is an offence if a player gains possession/control of the ball after it hits their hand/arm and then scores in the opponents' goal ( Llorente - Spurs v Man City champions league)
3. It is an offence if a player gains/possession control of the ball after it hits their hand/arm and then creates a goal scoring opportunity (Thierry Henry for France against Ireland handballed and then squared it to Wiltord who scored)
Note the difference between 1 and 2. If the offending player scores the goal he either has to do it DIRECTLY or alternatively he has to TAKE POSSESSION/CONTROL and THEN score.
The same criteria in gaining possession/control also apples to creating a goal scoring opportunity, an example of which I have highlighted with the Thierry Henry example.
The above are the rules and if applied correctly means that the Wolves goal from the Wily Boly handball in the first game of the season, the Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs and the Newcastle goal at the weekend are all legitimate as they do not meet the rules applied by IFAB.
Yet the Newcastle handball is the only one that stood.
I was a fan of VAR as I believed it would be implemented in a way that would correct obvious mistakes that officials on the field might have made. It appears that VAR is being used to defend refereeing decisions whether obviously wrong or debatable and nobody is answerable to the incompetence which is evident to everybody but them.
You people have the ability to threaten to withdraw your sponsorship of television rights unless the people in charge stop disguising their incompetence as excellence.
This needs to change and you people have the power to do it, so do something about it.
Bandofblues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2019
- Messages
- 697
- Team supported
- City
Just sent this one to Sky Sports, don't hold out much hope though, but you know what, I'm not giving up, I'm going to keep highlighting this until some c*nt ldecides it's worth looking into. We all have our suspicions that it's to prevent us winning titles but it can't be proven but if we keep asking questions, then surely to god someone with some influence is going to start asking the same questions.
I sent you a complaint yesterday regarding the lenient questioning of Dermot Gallagher during Ref Watch and the blatantly obvious cover up of poor refereeing decisions and use of VAR during the current season. In particular I asked that you reminded him of his statements in regards to the decisions made in relation to the disallowed Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs and why the Newcastle goal was allowed to stand against Watford this weekend.
I watched Ref Watch today and this was Dermot's verbatim reply in regards to the Newcastle goal. "It didn't get picked up, whether it's eh'm because they were trying to keep the game flowing, do it as quickly as possible, whether it be they didn't have that angle we've got here, I don't know. But what it will do again, I said, I've used this before , it's all about reflection. I think in going forward it will be...... Is it offside? No. Is there a foul in the build up? No. Is there a possible handball? Yes. Go through the checklist , if it takes another ten, fifteen seconds, so be it and we'll never have that situation again."
We have seen that every goal is subject to a VAR review. Why would Dermot even suggest that the officials were trying to keep the game flowing? It was a goal and automatically subject to a VAR review. Why would he suggest that VAR didn't have access to the angle that proved that a handball was used in the build up to the goal? They have access to every angle. The Newcastle goal was very quick to establish as a hand ball and according to the rules applied by PGMOL should have been disallowed but yet it wasn't.
The Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs on the other hand was subjected to absolute forensic examination and involved a zoom in, close up review to suggest that the ball may have deflected off Laporte's arm even although nobody including the referee or any opposing player saw any infringement. The Newcastle handball is visible to the naked eye and yet was allowed to stand.
Dermot knows that there is a cover up for failures in the implementation of VAR which explains the second part of his statement regarding getting the decision correct.
What I would also like to know is why Sky, being the major contributor to the Premier League is allowing PGMOL to implement their own interpretation of the official rules regarding handball in the penalty area.
According to IFAB the law in regards to handball in the attacking box litigates against three separate ways in which a goal can be scored.....
1. It is an offence if a player scores in an opponents' goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental (Wily Boly - Wolves v Man City, Sergio Aguero - Man City v Arsenal and Nathan Redmond for Southampton last season)
2. It is an offence if a player gains possession/control of the ball after it hits their hand/arm and then scores in the opponents' goal ( Llorente - Spurs v Man City champions league)
3. It is an offence if a player gains/possession control of the ball after it hits their hand/arm and then creates a goal scoring opportunity (Thierry Henry for France against Ireland handballed and then squared it to Wiltord who scored)
Note the difference between 1 and 2. If the offending player scores the goal he either has to do it DIRECTLY or alternatively he has to TAKE POSSESSION/CONTROL and THEN score.
The same criteria in gaining possession/control also apples to creating a goal scoring opportunity, an example of which I have highlighted with the Thierry Henry example.
The above are the rules and if applied correctly means that the Wolves goal from the Wily Boly handball in the first game of the season, the Gabriel Jesus goal against Spurs and the Newcastle goal at the weekend are all legitimate as they do not meet the rules applied by IFAB.
Yet the Newcastle handball is the only one that stood.
I was a fan of VAR as I believed it would be implemented in a way that would correct obvious mistakes that officials on the field might have made. It appears that VAR is being used to defend refereeing decisions whether obviously wrong or debatable and nobody is answerable to the incompetence which is evident to everybody but them.
You people have the ability to threaten to withdraw your sponsorship of television rights unless the people in charge stop disguising their incompetence as excellence.
This needs to change and you people have the power to do it, so do something about it.
Good luck mate but I suspect the brick wall you are smacking your head against will do nothing more than give you a headache.
Colin Bell (genuine name)
Well-Known Member
Don't get headaches Bob. Lol. I can go for ages. And as far as VAR and the the reasons for its implementation and the contradictory way it's being implemented I will have an everlasting reason not to question VAR but the corrupt way its being applied.Good luck mate but I suspect the brick wall you are smacking your head against will do nothing more than give you a headache.
It's blatantly obvious it's not being implemented to ensure that the correct decisions are being made but IT IS blatantly obvious that VAR is being used to support refereeing decisions whether correct or completely wrong.
The Stockport Iniesta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,845
The ref and var official need to be 100% transparent, every word uttered between the pair should be broadcast live.
The official's in the var room need to also be recorded during a game, and how they did/did not come to a decision, available through the media afterwards.
The only way we will move forward is with openness and honesty, won't hold my breath though.
The official's in the var room need to also be recorded during a game, and how they did/did not come to a decision, available through the media afterwards.
The only way we will move forward is with openness and honesty, won't hold my breath though.
crazyg
Well-Known Member
I think this (often seen) video sums up Riley's ability as the GPC's go-to referee. And this clown is now the head of PiGMOL.Who can actually sacks this wanker? He is a soft touch and easily influenced by the history clubs fergie had him in his back pocket.
Listen also to the sycophantic ramblings of Tyler - some things never change,
citymad
Well-Known Member
I think it's time to call it a day with VAR. Its clearly not appropriate for football. Goal line technology has been a god send and clearly works but this VAR business is completely confusing the hell out of the refs. Its putting them under tremendous pressure and they don't know whether they're coming or going, They don't seem to know when to blow the fucking whistle at the right time, when to ignore VAR and when to call upon it. It's ruining the game as a spectacle and creating more anger and resentment amongst the fans.