They aren't correct though if they miss that penalty that's what fucks me off.
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.
Var debate 2019/20
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
It would just mean EVERYTHING is challenged!
You limit the challenges, ala Cricket or Tennis, and have a short timeframe in which they can raise it. You also restrict the challenging authority to the captain or coach only.
Again, I don't think that's great. But it removes a lot of the perceived bias and ambiguity of it
Barcon
Well-Known Member
I always expect us to get fucked over when the spineless maggot has the whistle. I would love him to explain the non pen and yellow to Sterling decisions. These tests should be interviewed after the match.
cucumberman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 5,083
I don’t have anything against VAR but the humans that decide when to use and not use them.
Why did VAR not highlight the intentional rugby tackle that should have been penalised in the first half but focused on the unintentional brush of the hand in the second half? Both are penalised in the new rule book yet one has been glossed over.
Because it is still a subjective system dictated by humans. Until VAR is dictated by artificial intelligence that algorithmically detect events to penalise, VAR is shit if the refs behind them cherrypick the events to focus on.
Looks like how VAR benefits a team depends largely on the panel of refs behind the system.
Why did VAR not highlight the intentional rugby tackle that should have been penalised in the first half but focused on the unintentional brush of the hand in the second half? Both are penalised in the new rule book yet one has been glossed over.
Because it is still a subjective system dictated by humans. Until VAR is dictated by artificial intelligence that algorithmically detect events to penalise, VAR is shit if the refs behind them cherrypick the events to focus on.
Looks like how VAR benefits a team depends largely on the panel of refs behind the system.
Hart of the Matter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 5,180
How? We would have challenged the pen to no affect. Get real.You limit the challenges, ala Cricket or Tennis, and have a short timeframe in which they can raise it. You also restrict the challenging authority to the captain or coach only.
Again, I don't think that's great. But it removes a lot of the perceived bias and ambiguity of it
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,444
I don’t think it is, is it? Do you have the rule change for the defender?If it hits the spurs player on the arm or even grazes his arm it’s a stonewall pen according to these new rules,but don’t think it did ..
The ball changed direction after it hit his arm.
Yes I'm sure you could tell that from the low, blurry, back of the body footage which they based their decision on.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
It would just mean EVERYTHING is challenged!
No, the original idea was a 2 challenge system per half. If you're challenging a tackle, that would be fooking stupid, especially if it's shown as the oppo got the ball.
You use them in potential game changing situations.
We'd have challenged the non pen and I absolutely guarantee nobody would have challenged Jesus' goal.
Nobody had their hands up or hounded the ref.
It's a no brainer.
As gutting as it maybe it was the right decision rules are rules. I’m more fuming over the penalty not been givenThe ball changed direction after it hit his arm.