Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General football forum' started by greasedupdeafguy, 21 Aug 2017.
Did I miss something?
I don't know how many of you are Rugby League fans, but the video ref has been used in that sport for at least 20 years (I can still recall a controversial call in the 1999 Grand Final). Probably 3 or 4 times every weekend, you look at the big screen in the stadium, or your tv screen at home, and wonder just how an experienced referee could possibly have come to a decision, and that is excluding the marginal decisions where it can go either way. Every weekend over the course of 6 games, there are 3 or 4 absolute howlers.
For VAR to work in football, it should only be used in black and white cases e.g. was the ball over the line, was it in the area, was the player standing in an offside position (using those blue and red lines across the screen) ? Anything which requires an opinion, such as judging a player's intent, should be left to the refs and asst refs on the field of play.
Rugby League has a huge issue in that games are often reffed not to the laws of the game but to whatever the ref on the day feels like reffing it to and thats why you scratch your head thinking wtf.
The NRL pisses all over the SL for standard of officials.
Rugby Union and its use of VAR is a shining example of how to do it right imo.
I've just read that there are 2 out of 20 grounds in the PL next year that do not have any screens for VAR playback, so punters will not be able to watch the decisions. And they are?....
Anfield and OT
It should be made a requirement Instead of cramming in a seat wherever there’s a view of the pitch, or half a view of the pitch in Liverpool’s case m. Not that it’s really essential for VAR but to not have a big screen in this day and age is obscene.
Apparently Liverpool have explored the option and the process has cost them £85m (which they can use to offset ffp) ;-)
I'm not sure about this. It could be a marker that officials are looking for reasons to disallow a last minute goal, for example, so the number of reviews could indicate certain clubs being under more scrutiny than others.
I suspect that you could review any goal scored from a corner and find a reason to disallow it, shirt-tugging or obstruction, for example, if you were so inclined.
On the other hand, remember the City v Stoke game where the ref (Dean was it ?) gave two very soft penalties for infringements from corners, the sort of shirt-tugging and jostling that goes on at every single corner. That particular directive was soon abandoned. The point being that you could find a reason to disallow a goal or award a penalty at every single corner and then no-one would argue that it was technically a wrong decision. But, if it isn't reviewed at all, then no-one is any the wiser.
I hope someone does keep the stats because I'd like to see them. I'd guarantee that City would have more reviews than anyone else in the top 6.
Nobody at any ground will be able to 'watch' the decision. Unless you mean stare at a screen that says VAR REVIEW for 5 minutes, waiting for the words to change to GOAL.
However, if you're sat at home or in a pub you will be able to watch the process from every angle including an 'over the ref's shoulder' one. Smart eh?
And the dippers
I think there has been mission creep with this,it was supposed to be clear and obvious error but now they are reviewing if a players big toe nail is offside,that is different to how it was intended to be used,it's that and endless booting at defenders arms that is going to spoil the game,i was for but now i am against