World Cup VAR

lazerblue said:
it doesnt matter how much of a foul it is, wether he gets kicked up in the air or gets a tug on the shirt a foul is a foul and that was a foul on jesus
Click to expand...

Only if it's enough to be given as a foul.
Otherwise every touch is a foul, which it isn't.

I couldn't tell if there was enough to knock him to the floor or stop him getting away.
 
its an absolute joke its an obvious foul and perfect for var to get involved. what the hell are they smoking
 
if the full kit wankers in the booth cant tell what a foul is with the aid of slow mo replays it just shows what an incompetent set of twats they are, i was never in favour of VAR but thought it would maybe change some of the obvious wrong decisions on the pitch but after some the things ive seen in the last couple of days it seems not, the penalty not given in the argentina game was baffling to say the least
 
Bigga said:
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.
Click to expand...
You were IMPLYING that I only want City to get the correct decisions, which wasnt the case. It was an example.
How many seconds did it take from the ref deciding it wasnt a penalty and the ball being given as a goal kick, dont think there is enough time for a manager to see its not a penalty and then review it. Its not like American football or cricket, where there are breaks in play to review it.
What happens if the ball doesnt go out of play, do you just stop the game which opens another can of worms
 
I thought Brazil were unlucky with decisions arms around Jesus is a foul as it did impede him. Switzerland's goal could have been ruled out for use of the hands in the back to make room for his header, force is not actually part of the rules when it comes to deliberate use of hands and arms to gain an advantage. The way I look at it is as outfield players you're not supposed to use forearms or hands but sometimes it's unavoidable so the only grey area should be the intent.

So kind of like the handball rule, the question to be asked is the motion natural or did he mean to do it? With the goal they scored I guess putting your hands out to brace against them as they back into you is a natural movement but he does appear to push him forward as he gets into position before it arrives. It's not quite clear cut as I don't think the defender was favourite for it to begin with but it could have easily been ruled out without much opposition. The penalty claim I think should have been given, he was impeded, favourite for the ball and the use of hands was clearly deliberate so it's quite clear cut and as I explained I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing up the force used. It's the action which is not allowed, do we ask how much force was in it if a player punches the ball into the net?
 
Last edited:
We bring you 93:20 plus 30 seconds to review the goal before you can truely go ape shit ( but a bit less so..) I dont think so. VAR is for armchair critics who watch at home. It will kill the live spectacle and being 'in the moment'. I am also sure that the choice of what is reviewed and what isnt will be highly dubious as we have already seen in WC. Those who believe it will iron out inconsistency and beat corruption are living in cuckoo land.
 
lazerblue said:
if the full kit wankers in the booth cant tell what a foul is with the aid of slow mo replays it just shows what an incompetent set of twats they are, i was never in favour of VAR but thought it would maybe change some of the obvious wrong decisions on the pitch but after some the things ive seen in the last couple of days it seems not, the penalty not given in the argentina game was baffling to say the least
Click to expand...

There are some incidents where even after a 100 replays and different angles it can still be debated whether it was a foul or not.
 
Hart of the Matter said:
We bring you 93:20 plus 30 seconds to review the goal before you can truely go ape shit ( but a bit less so..) I dont think so. VAR is for armchair critics who watch at home. It will kill the live spectacle and being 'in the moment'. I am also sure that the choice of what is reviewed and what isnt will be highly dubious as we have already seen in WC. Those who believe it will iron out inconsistency and beat corruption are living in cuckoo land.
Click to expand...

So keep things as they are ? Where a Ref guesses with little help from the 4th officials and we keep fans crying over inconsistencies and ‘corruption’
 
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.