VAR (PL introduction 2019)

[BlueHammer85]

VAR finally used correctly:

F*cking good. He would of got away with a yellow normally. How would that have been fair ?!

Refs seen the footage. Off you go. No complaints.

 

[SebastianBlue]

And the linesman flagged for a goal kick even though the ball didn’t go out!

I still maintain there should be a documentary made of that match entitled ‘Something Stinks in the State of Primark’.

F*cking good. He would of got away with a yellow normally. How would that have been fair ?!

Refs seen the footage. Off you go. No complaints.

Yep, proper use of the system and a horrific tackle from Mbappe. Not sure if Sarr had been roughing him up prior to that in the match but that screams priors, doesn’t it?

 

[caseball]

I actually think the best way to keep everybody happy with this is to use it only when a challenge is made. Use it for anything but restrict the inevitable abuse by a certain type of manager by only giving the buggers one challenge. That way they won't appeal for a free kick or a throw on halfway and risk losing the challenge that might overturn a penalty they concede for a dive. It takes the decision to use it out of the hands of the officials so no suspicions of bias and it keeps the t***s on the touchline on the straight and narrow. It would also mean that the VAR intervenes mostly when play is stopped anyway. For other cases we could wait for the next stoppage and go back. The only real problem in this case would be the non-award of a penalty.

 

[Bluearmy]

Offside has factors they can't see, such as the exact fraction of a second the ball is kicked & I like the fact that most non fat cheating Mason **** refs give the advantage to the atracker, so more goals are given than chalked off. That will go. Some real beautys of ours would have been disallowed due to 3 inches.

Line calls are fine.

Cricket var is a fucking joke. Half the decisions are clearly wrong but allowed to stand & most perfectly good catches the camera can't see are given as drops.

Rugby does it right, but it takes too long & they still make errors anyhow.

Don't agree with the first part at all. They can tell in 99.9% of offside decisions very clearly. The ones that are that close, where they can't tell definitively, which will only be a tiny fraction anyway, still give the benefit to the attacker. Why will it have to go?

VAR in cricket has vastly improved the percentage of correct decisions... Not sure what your talking about there. Same in rugby.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Don't agree with the first part at all. They can tell in 99.9% of offside decisions very clearly. The ones that are that close, where they can't tell definitively, which will only be a tiny fraction anyway, still give the benefit to the attacker. Why will it have to go?

VAR in cricket has vastly improved the percentage of correct decisions... Not sure what your talking about there. Same in rugby.

I can only think that it is this that frightens the shit out of some opponents of VAR. Correct decisions are what most fans want, win lose or draw, we want the result of a game to reflect what has actually gone on during a game.

 

[Bluearmy]

I can only think that it is this that frightens the shit out of some opponents of VAR. Correct decisions are what most fans want, win lose or draw, we want the result of a game to reflect what has actually gone on during a game.

What doesn't make sense to me is why blues, who can see what's going on in the none VAR world, would not want to see if VAR improves the current dire refreeing levels were experiencing.

If City were to have a goal disallowed, due to a VAR decision, I'd be fine with it. Becuase it would be the correct decision!

 

[Neville Kneville]

Don't agree with the first part at all. They can tell in 99.9% of offside decisions very clearly. The ones that are that close, where they can't tell definitively, which will only be a tiny fraction anyway, still give the benefit to the attacker. Why will it have to go?

VAR in cricket has vastly improved the percentage of correct decisions... Not sure what your talking about there. Same in rugby.

Var in cricket, allows the umpire to be wrong & shows you on the screen that he was wrong, then sticks with his wrong decision. It only changes, if he is particularly wrong.

Before var, if a player caught the ball very close to the ground & claimed the catch, it was assumed (rightly) that in 999999 cases, the player was being honest, & normal tv replays would show no reason to doubt it.

Now, if it goes to var, unless the camera can clearly see the players fingers between the ball & the grass, the catch is not given, irrespective of the fact tha reveryone knows, it's almost certainly a fair catch. So now, we have players appealing for catches, saying they're 'not sure' if they caught it, just in case the var makes it look as if they did, when actually they didn't.

A guy can throw the stumps down with the batsman halfway down the pitch, but the umpire calls for var, to 'check' he's out, when the batsman himself, has already walked off the pitch & is nearly on his way up the steps, because he's obviously out.

It's a fucking joke.

Rugby reviews every aspect, so Spurs' goal last night would have been disallowed as Kane encroached at kickoff. It would have taken ages to do it.

Poll last night saw a clear pen on replay, & decided it was a 'good challenge'.

By half time, he had changed his mind.

 

[Bluearmy]

Var in cricket, allows the umpire to be wrong & shows you on the screen that he was wrong, then sticks with his wrong decision. It only changes, if he is particularly wrong.

Before var, if a player caught the ball very close to the ground & claimed the catch, it was assumed (rightly) that in 999999 cases, the player was being honest, & normal tv replays would show no reason to doubt it.

Now, if it goes to var, unless the camera can clearly see the players fingers between the ball & the grass, the catch is not given, irrespective of the fact tha reveryone knows, it's almost certainly a fair catch. So now, we have players appealing for catches, saying they're 'not sure' if they caught it, just in case the var makes it look as if they did, when actually they didn't.

A guy can throw the stumps down with the batsman halfway down the pitch, but the umpire calls for var, to 'check' he's out, when the batsman himself, has already walked off the pitch & is nearly on his way up the steps, because he's obviously out.

It's a fucking joke.

Rugby reviews every aspect, so Spurs' goal last night would have been disallowed as Kane encroached at kickoff. It would have taken ages to do it.

Poll last night saw a clear pen on replay, & decided it was a 'good challenge'.

By half time, he had changed his mind.

Your missing the point. That's not a VAR issue. The VAR clearly shows if the ball would go on to hit the stumps or not in a lbw decision... it's the governing body that decides to stick with the onfield umpires decision in some instances, for reasons I'm not sure of to be honest.

There were multiple instances of players seen to be cheating claiming catches, hence why it was introduced in the first place.

Kane's goal shouldn't of stood.... it took 1 second of the first replay to see he was in the wrong half, not sure why you thought it would take ages to resolve. It clearly wouldn't.

What penalty incident are you talking about with Poll?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Your missing the point. That's not a VAR issue. The VAR clearly shows if the ball would go on to hit the stumps or not in a lbw decision... it's the governing body that decides to stick with the onfield umpires decision in some instances, for reasons I'm not sure of to be honest.

There were multiple instances of players seen to be cheating claiming catches, hence why it was introduced in the first place.

Kane's goal shouldn't of stood.... it took 1 second of the first replay to see he was in the wrong half, not sure why you thought it would take ages to resolve. It clearly wouldn't.

What penalty incident are you talking about with Poll?

yes, Neville being over-dramatic over cricket. "Umpire's call" is there for instances where the technology says the ball may have clipped the stumps, but given the margin for error in the technology it's not 100% conclusive it would definitely hit the stumps so the umpire's decision stands. If more than half the ball is shown to be hitting the stumps then that is seen as sufficient to overrule it. Works perfectly fine, it has a defined set of parameters which are consistently upheld.

 

[Bluearmy]

yes, Neville being over-dramatic over cricket. "Umpire's call" is there for instances where the technology says the ball may have clipped the stumps, but given the margin for error in the technology it's not 100% conclusive it would definitely hit the stumps so the umpire's decision stands. If more than half the ball is shown to be hitting the stumps then that is seen as sufficient to overrule it. Works perfectly fine, it has a defined set of parameters which are consistently upheld.

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense in that regard then... my impression is (not the biggest cricket fan) that the technology has been good for the sport, as it has in tennis/rugby etc.... not 100% perfect, but a significant improvement over where it was in terms of making correct decisions, more often..