So as well as calling me an idiot I am now being willfully stupid.You are just being willfully stupid now.
Firstly, the rules are the same for all teams at all times. VAR doesn't change the rules.
Secondly, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER AS LONG AS BOTH TEAMS ARE OFFICIATED THE SAME. VAR at home isn't an advantage to Liverpool, it's just as likely to help Shrewsbury as Liverpool.
Shrewsbury might have gotten a goal at Anfield with VAR, but they could also have conceded an offside goal with no VAR to protect them. Neither team is getting an advantage.
A child should be able to understand this.
Excuse me for butting in but would you be happy if only some teams in the premiership used VAR and some didnt ? As going by what you are saying it doesn't matter because as we play home and away it's fine. City v utd with VAR, utd v City NO VAR.
No they aren't. You are going to be blocked as I can't waste any more of my valuable time on someone like you.They are.
That's a fact, no matter how much you disagree.
No they aren't. You are going to be blocked as I can't waste any more of my valuable time on someone like you.
It is part of the var system,just a couple of days ago the head of the prem said the communication of var reviews and decisions on the screens is a big part of var now,well he still hasn't commented on the2 history clubs not having themWhat difference does a screen make? It makes no difference to what occurs, does it?
Ha your last line,have you been in a cave? at anfield they are getting all the decisionsAre you an idiot? Both teams have VAR equally.
The equivalent to your analogy is we go to a restaurant and both get the menu, then next week we go to another restaurant and neither of us get a menu.
There is no point where Liverpool and Shrewsbury were not being refereed equally.
It is part of the var system,just a couple of days ago the head of the prem said the communication of var reviews and decisions on the screens is a big part of var now,well he still hasn't commented on the2 history clubs not having them
I think the replay was for an england game only but i might be wrong,i don't think they would dare show the replays to the crowd for 2 reasons,inciting the crowd and not being able to give the desired outcome,the control they have is what is making people suspiciousOh, I'm not arguing that they should have one according to the rules, or that it's, um, peculiar that there has been no pushback on the absence. I don't understand that.
I just don't see what the screen actually adds to things, besides telling the crowd why nothing's happening. It certainly doesn't make the VAR decisionmaking any better or worse.
Didn't they say that replays of overturned decisions would be shown? Do you know if this has actually been happening (I don't know)?
Reason is clear. Dippers getting whatever helps them. Rags cant afford a screen due to size of dividends, fees, loans to directors. Besides, the water coming thru the roof will damage screen. Oh, and they are twats.I think the replay was for an england game only but i might be wrong,i don't think they would dare show the replays to the crowd for 2 reasons,inciting the crowd and not being able to give the desired outcome,the control they have is what is making people suspicious
My problem is he can't say screens are being used is a good thing but no reason why those 2 don't have them