World Cup VAR

Today, we had one where it was probably still debatable after the VAR decision, and people act like that's a reason to throw the whole thing out. How many incorrect decisions would be have been talking about today if VAR wasn't there?

VAR doesn't have to be flawless to be worth having, it just has to be better than the alternative.
 
Love VAR. The correct decision will get made more often than not, how can you complain?
 
I still like the idea the manager or captain has 1 or 2 appeals in the whole match and the ref reviews on his advice. Probably some flaws in this though.
 
Armaan said:
Love VAR. The correct decision will get made more often than not, how can you complain?
Click to expand...

Those who criticise VAR are those who suggest it has to be perfect and get the decision correct every time. If it only gets one decision right in ten it would be an improvement on what we have now. I cannot understand those who would maintain the present system of a ref making decisions, some of which are guessed and some of which are blatantly wrong. Teams have been relegated on such decisions, and I suspect, present club excepted(!), teams have won titles and silverware!
 
Bluearmy said:
Totally disagree. The Sterling incident if it had gone to VAR, would have been given. It's Exactly the same as the Griezmann incident earlier. Ref missed it in real time, quick review and original decision would have been over turned, as it was today. Peru non pen exactly the same. Having seen VAR in action today specifically in the Griezmann /Peru case, how can you say it would be a waste of space in this type of situation? It's proved itself to work already in those type of instances.

As for the Argentina non pen, which it clearly was I agree. This wasn't VAR or the technology itself that was at fault. But the idiot operating it. How that wasn't reviewed was poor. But it's early stages, they will improve the process further as it becomes established. And it's helping get more correct decisions than the old system. What's not to like?

As for delays, it's been minimal... a fraction of the time lost for subs or throw ins, it's a total red herring. if anything it adds to the drama too...
Click to expand...


The point I am making us that all of these so called "correct" decisions made by VAR overturns are just a subjective matter of opinion like yours, whereas in my opinion you are wrong. The Griezman one was never a pen he just fell over and the defender clearly played the ball first with no intention to foul. As many pundits said VAR failed to reverse the Argentina pen when they failed to reverse the decision as Neville said it was never a pen and I agree .Also Argentina should have had a pen and VAR failed to give it, etc,etc. These are just a few incidents and in my opinion this happens all the time with around 80per cent of VAR decisions. The point being that we are replacing a subjective decision by a ref with a subjective decision by machines and adding totally unnecessary delays. As for the Sterling one I do not agree that it would have been given. Maybe it would but again it was subjective. VAR is already being shown to be making many mistakes in the opinion of many purely because it is subjective. Therefore it is a complete waste if time for anything other than offsides and where incidents take place.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
Those who criticise VAR are those who suggest it has to be perfect and get the decision correct every time. If it only gets one decision right in ten it would be an improvement on what we have now. I cannot understand those who would maintain the present system of a ref making decisions, some of which are guessed and some of which are blatantly wrong. Teams have been relegated on such decisions, and I suspect, present club excepted(!), teams have won titles and silverware!
Click to expand...


If it only gets one in ten right that means it is getting nine out of ten wrong and overturning correct decisions by the referees or failing to correct a mistake of the refs ! Farcical.
 
peter.evans said:
The point I am making us that all of these so called "correct" decisions made by VAR overturns are just a subjective matter of opinion like yours, whereas in my opinion you are wrong. The Griezman one was never a pen he just fell over and the defender clearly played the ball first with no intention to foul. As many pundits said VAR failed to reverse the Argentina pen when they failed to reverse the decision as Neville said it was never a pen and I agree .Also Argentina should have had a pen and VAR failed to give it, etc,etc. These are just a few incidents and in my opinion this happens all the time with around 80per cent of VAR decisions. The point being that we are replacing a subjective decision by a ref with a subjective decision by machines and adding totally unnecessary delays. As for the Sterling one I do not agree that it would have been given. Maybe it would but again it was subjective. VAR is already being shown to be making many mistakes in the opinion of many purely because it is subjective. Therefore it is a complete waste if time for anything other than offsides and where incidents take place.
Click to expand...

It gets 100% of the offside goals correctly ruled out so not really subjective is it. Unless you're suggesting we go back to having incorrect offside goals counted in games
 
the plasterer said:
We were discussing this the other night, 1 appeal each half, if correct, then still have 1 appeal remaining, if wrong, then accept any other decisions and get on with it
Click to expand...

Could managers abuse this as a time wasting tactic ?
Other than that I don’t see many downsides
 
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
✖
  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.