Bigga
Well-Known Member
Bingo.
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.
World Cup VAR
- Thread starter stonerblue
- Start date
Bingo.
peter.evans
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 1,512
Incorrect.
Especially now the the 'offside' position has changed as to how far a player is ahead of the defender to be called offside. 'Daylight' between the players is now the marker.
So... how much is 'daylight' now? Surely this is as subjective as it gets??
Can't understand how you don't see that?!
At least if that's your only argument, you're inclined to agree with the rest of what I've said!
I did not know the offside laws had changed to this daylight thing that's news to me but in any event offside is offside black and white no subjectivity at all whereas penalties are subjective so not sure what you mean. VAR should not be used for subjective decision is all I am saying and that should be easy to understand.
foggy1974
Well-Known Member
Im not objecting to VAR. As a rugby league fan, I have embraced it. What happens if like this season, Aguero gets crunch in the box by young. The ball then goes out and the ref gives a goal kick, there is now no way to review it. Why is it so secretive.And that's where the appeal system beats this current nonsense.
The ball was out of play and the incident could have been reviewed as of the appeal.
How can you object if the ref decides to crack on with an incorrect decision??
Like I have said before in rugby or cricket, if the official makes a mistake against your team, you just think he is incompetent where as in football he is bent/ biased.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
I did not know the offside laws had changed to this daylight thing that's news to me but in any event offside is offside black and white no subjectivity at all whereas penalties are subjective so not sure what you mean. VAR should not be used for subjective decision is all I am saying and that should be easy to understand.
I get the nuance of your argument, but both the 'offside' ruling and pen rulings (to some degree) are subjective.
The majority of the time both are stonewall decisions, BUT if the lino or ref are in disadvantageous positioning, then any decision given are 'subjective', surely?!!
For certain pens, although there might be contact, you have to weigh up whether a player was already 'going down' under contact or whether the contact would have been deemed enough to warrant a pen. This becomes 'subjective' under the eye or VAR.
This is why I state 1% as hard to decipher.
Nothing else really can come under scrutiny.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Im not objecting to VAR. As a rugby league fan, I have embraced it. What happens if like this season, Aguero gets crunch in the box by young. The ball then goes out and the ref gives a goal kick, there is now no way to review it. Why is it so secretive.
Like I have said before in rugby or cricket, if the official makes a mistake against your team, you just think he is incompetent where as in football he is bent/ biased.
100% agreed.
None of our City team tend to go in on rash challenges (or it's super rare), but the Red Scum still do.
This upcoming season will be their last year of that 'advantage'.
foggy1974
Well-Known Member
No you ar missing the point that it seems that there is are loopholes around var in which a ref can decide the decision by letting the game to be restarted, nullifying var.100% agreed.
None of our City team tend to go in on rash challenges (or it's super rare), but the Red Scum still do.
This upcoming season will be their last year of that 'advantage'.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
No you ar missing the point that it seems that there is are loopholes around var in which a ref can decide the decision by letting the game to be restarted, nullifying var.
In an earlier response, I mentioned that the CURRENT version of VAR is flawed!
This is where a challenge system would circumvent that potential nonsense as the ball is 'dead' and a cap/ manager could demand a review before play starts.
A ref can't ignore that request unless they regain complete control of the game.
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.
the defender did get the slightest touch and I have no doubt there was no intention to foul griezmann, but that doesn't matter one bit and shows the issue there is you not understanding the laws fully. Intent doesnt come into it. Unfortunately for him and you, the defender then fouls griezmann who didn't just fall over, ffs. The Australian defender took his leg, its crystal clear on all the replays. If you can watch that reply and come to the conclusion Griezmann just fell over then thank god your not a ref. Back in the real world most can see its a clear foul and penalty, just like the Peru incident and VAR corrected an error which had been made.Clattenburg has explained why it's a pen according to the law and the spirit of the law.
VAR has not being implemented perfectly ill give you that, but it has corrected multiple incorrect decisions already. It's a vast improvement over the old system. The delays you talk of are seconds per match, a fraction of time taken for throw ins or subs and it has added to the drama. It's a no brainer to introduce it.
the subjective thing is also a red herring. Refs decisions are always subjective anyway. so no difference there, plenty of times under the old system refs have guessed at decisions. At least now we can review these calls, and in the vast majority of cases tell if it's a deliberate handball or not or a foul. there will still be some it wont clear up but will do so for 90% of decisions, quickly and correctly. Just don't get what's not to like
Last edited:
Clattenburg has explained why it's a pen according to the law and the spirit of the law.
If I didn't have doubts on the decision before ...
For me the Griezman decision isn't the one that troubles me about this form of VAR. It's the Argentina one where due to the technicalities of the rules it seems as though VAR wasn't used.
I've seen it happen a lot in the A League where VAR isn't used for particular incidents, including the grand final where the winning goal was scored from an offside position and wasn't reviewed (I think it was equipment failure)
While those loopholes exist I'm betting we're all going to be incredibly frustrated with VAR when it does come in.
I've seen it happen a lot in the A League where VAR isn't used for particular incidents, including the grand final where the winning goal was scored from an offside position and wasn't reviewed (I think it was equipment failure)
While those loopholes exist I'm betting we're all going to be incredibly frustrated with VAR when it does come in.