Bigga
Well-Known Member
He’s own fault for trying to time waste
Bingo.
He’s own fault for trying to time waste
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!
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??
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
Clattenburg has explained why it's a pen according to the law and the spirit of the law.