Var debate 2019/20

55yr old teenager said:
From where I was it was obvious to everyone in the stadium apart from that dick Oliver, and obviously the fuckers doing the VAR. May be should go to spec savers
Biased twats
Click to expand...
Oliver is a chicken. Always has been. Doesn’t ant the controversy that comes with a decision that someone (anyone!) might question.

There was a time when everyone considered him the next big thing in refs. Today?

Refs are going to play it safe with VAR, and the refs in the VAR HQ are not going to undermine their buddy in the field unless it is so obvious they would be pilloried.

IFAB have simply gone too far with the handball thing. Nobody wants anyone scoring with their hand, no matter how inadvertently, and everyone wants the game to be played fairly, but this “any arm contact leading to a goal” is beyond stupid, just as the “armpit was offside” by a millimeter was last week.

I’m sure that while no-one will admit to things changing using the season, s untenable that we continue as we have started with this technology. The game is suffering and the fans’ emotion is being reduced to a wait for VAR.

Next goal City score, no-one should celebrate and the players should just congregate by the VAR screen at that end of the field, arms folded, waiting for the goal be given (or not). If given, they should just politely clap the decision and walk back to our half of the field, no high fives, no backslapping, no nothing. If not, they should clap the scoreboard and then walk back to their positions. No emotion either way.

A silent protest that would be shown worldwide and highlight the VAR dilemma in the PL.
 
BlueMedic said:
I'm willing to give it a chance for a season - it just needs to be consistent. Currently I'm not surprised to see the hate for it, we're getting shafted left and right and only 2 games in.

So far we're the team being screwed by it; but the offside rule and the handball rule seem to be fairly clearly set out for VAR usage - they simply cannot justify now not giving these same decisions against Liverpool/United/whoever. (Although saying that it appears the Premier League are misusing the official IFAB rules on this new handball rule; and according to those written rules Laporte shouldn't have been penalised as he didn't control the ball after it hit his arm (!)).

It's the penalty decision that's the most frustrating, because they cannot be consistent with that; sometimes we'll see them call down and give a penalty, and other times we won't.

For me it should have been implemented slower; starting with the clear cut decisions (e.g. just goals where offside is in question, or where handball is in question), so that we can be eased in to how it will work. Rather than thrusting it into all aspects of the game at once, but hey.
Click to expand...

You can see us being screwed by it but youre willing to give it a chance, how does that work ??
 
VAR is useful for things that are objective. Like touches hand of player or offside or not. Laporte did touch it based on the laws of the game goal cannot be given.

Big problem is the faults as lots of the faults are totally down to the referee to give it or not.
 
I only heard about the new handball rule last week. What a stupid rule. As is the interpretation of offside these days.

I knew that VAR would only benefit united and liverpool but it's still sickening to watch.

That said all other teams will just have to get the ball in the net more often to counteract this nonsense.
 
Ric said:
I was broadly in favour of VAR initially, but having seen the way it’s being implemented, and the effect it has on the match going fan, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is indeed actually as shit as many said it would be.
Click to expand...

The issue is with the consistency of it’s use. The Rodri no-call cemented my fear that it will be down to the discretion of the operator whether they review something (+they decide the outcome on their subjective interpretation). They really should have formatted it into a tennis challenge system. It would keep the integrity of the game far better.
 
Anyone able to explain this:

When the penalty on Rodri wasn’t given, the defence was that VAR was there to prevent ‘clear and obvious’ errors. You’ve seen those given, you’ve seen them not given. ‘I trust Michael Oliver’s judgment’ said Martin Tyler.

Okay. If, like reviews in cricket, VAR is there not to re-referee marginal calls but to avoid real howlers, then the decision not to award a penalty can be argued to be fair enough.

Two things. First, the “handball” was barely discernible in real time. Oliver didn’t spot it, the spurs players didn’t appeal for it. The ball might have brushed Laporte’s arm, but in what way was the goal overturned as a result of a ‘clear and obvious’ error? It seems that the law was applied differently in the first instance than the second, and other than the fact that in the second case the team that stands to benefit from the rule plays in light blue, I can’t see any difference.

Secondly, perhaps it’s obvious to others, but it isn’t to me. Why did the sky sports commentators not point out that VAR is only there to correct clear and obvious errors? The justification for not awarding a penalty in the first half dictated that the goal should not have been disallowed in the second. So why was there no comment about the absence of that justification in the second?
 
Chris in London said:
Anyone able to explain this:

When the penalty on Rodri wasn’t given, the defence was that VAR was there to prevent ‘clear and obvious’ errors. You’ve seen those given, you’ve seen them not given. ‘I trust Michael Oliver’s judgment’ said Martin Tyler.

Okay. If, like reviews in cricket, VAR is there not to re-referee marginal calls but to avoid real howlers, then the decision not to award a penalty can be argued to be fair enough.

Two things. First, the “handball” was barely discernible in real time. Oliver didn’t spot it, the spurs players didn’t appeal for it. The ball might have brushed Laporte’s arm, but in what way was the goal overturned as a result of a ‘clear and obvious’ error? It seems that the law was applied differently in the first instance than the second, and other than the fact that in the second case the team that stands to benefit from the rule plays in light blue, I can’t see any difference.

Secondly, perhaps it’s obvious to others, but it isn’t to me. Why did the sky sports commentators not point out that VAR is only there to correct clear and obvious errors? The justification for not awarding a penalty in the first half dictated that the goal should not have been disallowed in the second. So why was there no comment about the absence of that justification in the second?
Click to expand...

Define clear and obvious error
 
worsleyweb said:
We have seen West Ham penalised for a goaly moving off his line and then the Liverpool keeper not penalised for the same thing this week. It’s shite.
Click to expand...
Agree with the sentiment, and clearly Pep noticed, but different circumstances in a way; not premier league and a shoot-out rather than in-play penalty.

I'll be watching and judging on PL matches.

Seems ridiculous to even have different rules/laws in different competitions to me in the first place given as it's an international sport, but not my decision..
 
Maybe I'll begin to believe in VAR when someone scores a last minute winner against us that is disallowed because his toenail was 1.2mm offside or Liverpool concede a penalty when the ball fleetingly brushes the defenders arm skin for a nanosecond. Until then, its an absolute disgrace of a system designed purely to enable the authorities to manage the results of games.
 
Chris in London said:
Anyone able to explain this:

When the penalty on Rodri wasn’t given, the defence was that VAR was there to prevent ‘clear and obvious’ errors. You’ve seen those given, you’ve seen them not given. ‘I trust Michael Oliver’s judgment’ said Martin Tyler.

Okay. If, like reviews in cricket, VAR is there not to re-referee marginal calls but to avoid real howlers, then the decision not to award a penalty can be argued to be fair enough.

Two things. First, the “handball” was barely discernible in real time. Oliver didn’t spot it, the spurs players didn’t appeal for it. The ball might have brushed Laporte’s arm, but in what way was the goal overturned as a result of a ‘clear and obvious’ error? It seems that the law was applied differently in the first instance than the second, and other than the fact that in the second case the team that stands to benefit from the rule plays in light blue, I can’t see any difference.

Secondly, perhaps it’s obvious to others, but it isn’t to me. Why did the sky sports commentators not point out that VAR is only there to correct clear and obvious errors? The justification for not awarding a penalty in the first half dictated that the goal should not have been disallowed in the second. So why was there no comment about the absence of that justification in the second?
Click to expand...
Think you know the answer already mate. This shit is making WWE look unpredictable in comparison
 
gavvo said:
You can see us being screwed by it but youre willing to give it a chance, how does that work ??
Click to expand...
No, you've misread.

I personally don't buy the agenda idea. So I don't expect we'll "get screwed by it". But clearly so far we've been the team that's come off worst after 2 games of the season.

If come the end of the season Liverpool & United & Spurs have had similar goals disallowed for seemingly very harsh reasons, but because of these new offside/handball strictness rules - then so be it, at least it will have been consistent.

Will I end up liking its impact in a years time? Not sure, it felt like we've been screwed over a lot in recent years by decisions that VAR could absolutely have helped us with - so hopefully we'll get our fair share of decisions go our way also. If it then feels like the game is "fairer", and it hasn't totally ruined how the game flows, then I may well like it.
 
Fordyboy46 said:
I'm finished with football very soon if these decisions continue to fuck us up game after game. I honestly think there will be controversy in every game we play this season, yet other teams will just sail through it all. It fucking stinks.
Click to expand...
It certainly has that feeling alright.
 
Chris in London said:
Anyone able to explain this:

When the penalty on Rodri wasn’t given, the defence was that VAR was there to prevent ‘clear and obvious’ errors. You’ve seen those given, you’ve seen them not given. ‘I trust Michael Oliver’s judgment’ said Martin Tyler.

Okay. If, like reviews in cricket, VAR is there not to re-referee marginal calls but to avoid real howlers, then the decision not to award a penalty can be argued to be fair enough.

Two things. First, the “handball” was barely discernible in real time. Oliver didn’t spot it, the spurs players didn’t appeal for it. The ball might have brushed Laporte’s arm, but in what way was the goal overturned as a result of a ‘clear and obvious’ error? It seems that the law was applied differently in the first instance than the second, and other than the fact that in the second case the team that stands to benefit from the rule plays in light blue, I can’t see any difference.

Secondly, perhaps it’s obvious to others, but it isn’t to me. Why did the sky sports commentators not point out that VAR is only there to correct clear and obvious errors? The justification for not awarding a penalty in the first half dictated that the goal should not have been disallowed in the second. So why was there no comment about the absence of that justification in the second?
Click to expand...

If Laporte's arm had diverted/deflected the ball away from the Spurs players into the path of Jesus to score, then you can say fair enough, but it didn't. Without VAR, not one person would have questioned if the goal should have stood, it would not have been a footnote in the match report, let alone the games defining moment.
 
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