VAR Discussion Thread - 2023/24 | PL clubs to vote on whether to scrap VAR (pg413)

[Stephen230]

That's what they said before it was introduced.

I mean it’s ok repeating that ‘they’ said it. But who exactly are they?

It’s not something I recall being promised. There’s an old rule that well predates VAR that clubs mustn’t show anything that might be considered controversial on their big screens. I assume that rule is still in place. And it would preclude showing questionable VAR decisions for sure.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Webb tells Forest they should have had one penalty.

 

[stonerblue]

They do it in American football and it’s good, everyone knows what’s going on and why.

Have you seen American football? They could read out the bible and it wouldn't affect playing time..

 

[bluenova]

I mean it’s ok repeating that ‘they’ said it. But who exactly are they?

It’s not something I recall being promised. There’s an old rule that well predates VAR that clubs mustn’t show anything that might be considered controversial on their big screens. I assume that rule is still in place. And it would preclude showing questionable VAR decisions for sure.

I was thinking of that on Sunday, because Forest had the match playing live on their screens, so everything would be shown.

 

[kaz7]

You can't seriously believe there's a concerted plan to make decisions unfairly against City? That's bonkers if true, although every fan forum seems to think their side is being victimised.

Funny that fans always remember the decisions that go against them but never the ones in their favour.

Absolutely no way are there any signs that City are being singled out for harsh treatment. There have been some poor decisions for sure (Dippers at Etihad for one) but also some that went the other way (Dippers at Anfield), pretty much the whole Brighton match. I reckon it evens out for the top sides as they create so many chances and maybe doesn't even out for the bottom sides as they create much fewer chances so poor decisions may unduly skew the numbers.

If City are being victimised then so are Forest, Wolves, Dippers, Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton.

What would be the point anyway of doing it?

Bollocks , dont preach to us , we have lived with pigmol for long enough to form an opinion

 

[halfcenturyup]

:D IFAB is against it so they can't do it.

IFAB are against micro-analysing offsides. The IFAB protocol even talks about clear and obvious for offsides yet here we are with mm calls ruining the game and a multi-million pound investment in the micro-technology to micro-do it.

Let's be honest. PGMOL don't want to do broadcast the conversations, and we all know why.

 

[Stephen230]

I was thinking of that on Sunday, because Forest had the match playing live on their screens, so everything would be shown.

Quite a few teams show live pictures. I’m assuming they don’t show any replays if it’s possibly a controversial incident. Although I’m that observant I can’t pretend that I’ve ever actually noticed.

 

[bridgeno1]

Bollocks , dont preach to us , we have lived with pigmol for long enough to form an opinion

Ok, so PGMOL are against City as well as being simultaneously against the other PL teams at the same time.

Schrodingers corruption.

 

[Kamaro011]

Ok, so PGMOL are against City as well as being simultaneously against the other PL teams at the same time.

Schrodingers corruption.

PGMOL are just imcompetent in general regardless the club.

 

[bluenova]

Quite a few teams show live pictures. I’m assuming they don’t show any replays if it’s possibly a controversial incident. Although I’m that observant I can’t pretend that I’ve ever actually noticed.

I wouldn't be surprised if the replay rule is still true. I think I noticed Forest's screen as it's really low down, so it was often visible on TV.