But where would the drop ball occur? I don't think they are awarded to attacking teams inside the penalty area and the lines are both inside and out.The Southampton number 3 is actually sitting on one of the blue lines. This has to be interference by VAR, and the goal should be disallowed. But what are the blue lines actually doing? In my mind, they shouldn't even be on the pitch, so this should be seen as interference by an outside agent, and a drop ball is the correct decision. Uncontested (by the defending team), of course, as the attacking team was in possession at the time of the incident.
The fact one even exists speaks volumes.As far as we know, Halsey is the only one to decline the none disclosure payment that ref’s receive when they retire.
More volumes than Encyclopaedia Britannica have ever published. It's a toss up whether they wish to hide incompetence or corruption or both. It's been clear ever since the PL formed that 'even-handedness' or impartiality have taken a back seat. I think I have never heard a peep from PiGMOL about the need for 'transparency'!The fact one even exists speaks volumes.
I read comments from people that are still "baffled" by decisions, despite the same teams being favoured every week and City being stiched up at almost every opportunity.i know someone at work who STILL says VAR is good for the game . fucking hell
Some people claim to be "baffled" by the constant unfair decisions against City, despite it happening practically every game. At the same time asking how can it be bent if once in a while a decision is made against a favoured team? That's exactly why it happens, to throw a little confusion in to the mix. Never mind the previous 99 decisions all in their favour, what about that one decision. Just like several seasons ago with Trafford against Newcastle. It gives them something to point at to claim it's all fair and decisions "even themselves out".The initials stand for Video Assistant Referee. I am not having a go at the technology, I am calling out the corrupt fuckers that do not even bother to use it AND the posters on here that defend them.
Surely the lines are in breach of health and safety, they could trip over them. In fact it reminds me of when I was a kid, me and a mate would go either side of the street and when a cyclist was just passing us we would pull an imaginary rope up. Oh how we laughed.But where would the drop ball occur? I don't think they are awarded to attacking teams inside the penalty area and the lines are both inside and out.
And do the lines help the attackers or defenders? You could also argue that as the game was at the Hawthorns they were West Brom's lines and therefore Saints should have the drop ball.
If we keep chatting enough shit we'll get jobs with VAR.
I read that in England the rugby authorities offered to help with it's implementation but the offer was declined? It would have helped with transparency and helped the officials make fair and correct decisions. It's almost as if the poor implementation has been deliberate?Watching France V Wales in the rugby and its chalk and cheese to how Var is used. Referee talks to both teams, you listen to the conversation between referee and video check official, clear communications thats respected by both teams. How can Var be so awful compared to this
Perhaps that's why Mane, Salah and a host of raggies fall over just after they've got in the box. They've tripped up over the lines. I know those aren't the VAR lines but is the same principle.Surely the lines are in breach of health and safety, they could trip over them. In fact it reminds me of when I was a kid, me and a mate would go either side of the street and when a cyclist was just passing us we would pull an imaginary rope up. Oh how we laughed.
The "right" decisions being those that are good for the " brand ". When City have all the money it's a sport. Trafford doing badly isn't good for the "brand" or business. It's interesting that the terminology is as flexible as the rules and decisions.Because that's exactly how they want it to be. Cricket and Rugby have embraced VAR to ensure the right decisions are reached; football has used it to ensure the "right" results are reached.
The "right" decisions being those that are good for the " brand ". When City have all the money it's a sport and used to justify F.F.P. Trafford doing badly isn't good for the "brand" or business though. It's interesting that the terminology is as flexible as the rules and decisions.
There has been a lot said recently about certain players not giving their all for the club they represent when they get on the pitch. And whilst this is true of many it is quite easy to understand just why a player, any player, might do this.It's almost as if the poor implementation has been deliberate?
It's already transparent what's going on. VAR has been good in this way because there are no excuses such as " human error " when the correct decisions could be achieved.More volumes than Encyclopaedia Britannica have ever published. It's a toss up whether they wish to hide incompetence or corruption or both. It's been clear ever since the PL formed that 'even-handedness' or impartiality have taken a back seat. I think I have never heard a peep from PiGMOL about the need for 'transparency'!
There are probably marginal offsides that the linos would have either let go or flagged that are now correctly called but I want the same verbal transparency as to WHY VAR has been roused from its slumber and what the ref and VAR wallah are looking at. Not too much to ask of current technology.It's already transparent what's going on. VAR has been good in this way because there are no excuses such as " human error " when the correct decisions could be achieved.
Just in the games between Brighton and Trafford, City and Leeds there was a six point swing in a week based on refereeing decisions. The possible sending off with the penalty for Brighton completely ignored, then penalties for City ignored against Leeds and the offside goal givenBoth mistakes by her if i recall ? It's always going to cause debate whichever side you follow. Between VAR and officiating we definitely get treated differently, whether its cards for fouling or VAR not getting multiple replays to see incidents to me it still stinks.
Exactly, people wonder why teams turn up against City but not for a certain team just outside of Manchester. These teams know they will be given every chance to get something from the game against City but might as well send the points in the mail where others are concerned. I read that after the game against Brighton when Brighton were not given a blatant penalty that swung the game the Brighton manager wasn't outraged but resigned to it. Understandable after the previous meeting when they were given a penalty after full time. Then the media make excuses or gloss over it during and after the match whilst talking about a " culture of cheating ". Most teams are probably resigned to getting beat by the favoured teams before stepping out on the pitch, if not decisions make sure they are resigned afterwards. "Twenty times" is just a sad indictment of how long this has been going on.There has been a lot said recently about certain players not giving their all for the club they represent when they get on the pitch. And whilst this is true of many it is quite easy to understand just why a player, any player, might do this.
Imagine, you've been working tirelessly on your game: your fitness is absolutely top-notch and you, your team mates and manager, have all worked hard in training in order to give 100% at your next game - and then var comes along and undoes all your good work because a player's thumb was in an offside position. You are going to feel pretty pissed off, understandably. And then a few moments later an opposition player throws himself theatrically to the ground in your penalty area with no contact from anyone and var says it's a penalty. You and your team walk away from a game knowing you didn't lose to a better team, with better players and superior tactics, no, you lost the match to either incompetence and/or corruption.
Then in the next days' media you are being ripped to shreds by people like Garth Crooks and Glenn Hoddle for not doing your best.
As with most people, I believe var in football should be used exactly the same way as at is in rugby: open and above board and ref's mic'd up so everyone knows exactly what is happening and why. And if those at pigmol or var say no they should have to come out and explain precisely why.
It usually awakens when there is a chance to penalise City but slumbers when City might benefit. City didn't play well against Leeds but critical decisions helped turn a win into a loss. Some people wonder how favoured teams cope when not playing well. In a similar game the decisions would have swung the match in their favour.There are probably marginal offsides that the linos would have either let go or flagged that are now correctly called but I want the same verbal transparency as to WHY VAR has been roused from its slumber and what the ref and VAR wallah are looking at. Not too much to ask of current technology.
Exactly! And people go on about un*t*d's "resilience" and their "desire" to be able to "fight" their way back into games when they're losing; it's all a load of bollocks. They're helped back into games with dubious decisions at important moments in matches they're struggling in which then gives the players the impetus to believe the match is there for the taking...It usually awakens when there is a chance to penalise City but slumbers when City might benefit. City didn't play well against Leeds but critical decisions helped turn a win into a loss. Some people wonder how favoured teams cope when not playing well. In a similar game the decisions would have swung the match in their favour.
I think I have seen enough of recent games to tell me that the application of VAR is variable. The Pogba elbow, the Cavani smack to the back of the Spurs fellah's head, and the Mctominmaoanaoananany flick to the face of Son. Three instances from the same match. Pogba? No sanction! Cavani? Yellow when it should have been a straight red! McHomily? Goal chalked off but no sanction. I would have thought that when technology was first mooted these were the incidents that it would pick up on and deliver a sanction according to the published LotG. Just didn't happen! And two Rags, who should have been sent forth to multiply escaped to play the next match. And I will never be convinced by any suggestion that had it been Laporte or Diaz instead of Pogba delivering the forearm to the back of someone's head the resulting decision would have been identical.It usually awakens when there is a chance to penalise City but slumbers when City might benefit. City didn't play well against Leeds but critical decisions helped turn a win into a loss. Some people wonder how favoured teams cope when not playing well. In a similar game the decisions would have swung the match in their favour.
The "mentality monsters" that would have won the league with one dubious decision after another but for City's superb run the previous season. Then VAR was brought in and people including myself thought it would lead to fairer results. VAR exposed how unfair the game is. One of the favoured teams was helped to the title last season, while the other was helped in to the top four. " Incredible " as Pep Guardiola said recently before adding City haven't been given anything. City win despite the officials others because of. The "usual suspects" are trotted out to defend decisions often contradicting themselves in their justifications.Exactly! And people go on about un*t*d's "resilience" and their "desire" to be able to "fight" their way back into games when they're losing; it's all a load of bollocks. They're helped back into games with dubious decisions at important moments in matches they're struggling in which then gives the players the impetus to believe the match is there for the taking...
Penalty after the final whistle.
Referee's instantly giving dodgy pens for minimal contact "fouls" that VAR then sees no reason to overturn.
Balls that obviously go out of play in the build-up to goals.
...etc...etc...etc...
the list is endless.
Just like the scousers last year.
Just like the previous week against Brighton with the penalty that was " missed". Then a spokesperson person tried to justify it by saying it wasn't "clear and obvious". Yet against Wolves last season the referee disallowed the goal for LiVARpool for handball that got overuled by VAR because it was " inconclusive ". The Wolves goal was disallowed for a marginal offside despite Andy Gray showing how frames per second can show a player as onside or offside depending on the frame selected. Another loss turned into a win for a favoured team. These decisions happen most weeks. That must add up to be very significant over a season.I think I have seen enough of recent games to tell me that the application of VAR is variable. The Pogba elbow, the Cavani smack to the back of the Spurs fellah's head, and the Mctominmaoanaoananany flick to the face of Son. Three instances from the same match. Pogba? No sanction! Cavani? Yellow when it should have been a straight red! McHomily? Goal chalked off but no sanction. I would have thought that when technology was first mooted these were the incidents that it would pick up on and deliver a sanction according to the published LotG. Just didn't happen! And two Rags, who should have been sent forth to multiply escaped to play the next match. And I will never be convinced by any suggestion that had it been Laporte or Diaz instead of Pogba delivering the forearm to the back of someone's head the resulting decision would have been identical.
This is the preferred PiGMOL option whenever we score!If I was commercially invested in a business within a multi-billion pound industry I would be crawling in forensic detail over Lisa Riley's bank accounts and broader finances. Because that can be the only answer to the inexplicable way in which VAR has been implemented. Plus he knows where the bodies are buried, because how else could he remain in his job after such a monumental shit-show. That and the heavy backing of the 2 cash-cows.