That’s a personal opinion. Opponents to that would probably say that the VAR giving free kicks that the referee has missed is getting away from correcting mistakes on major issues and veering into ‘re-refereeing the game ‘ territory.
It appears you would have no objection to a World Cup semi final being distorted by a player wrongly dismissed for a foul he didn't commit (2nd booking)That’s a personal opinion. Opponents to that would probably say that the VAR giving free kicks that the referee has missed is getting away from correcting mistakes on major issues and veering into ‘re-refereeing the game ‘ territory.
It appears you would have no objection to a World Cup semi final being distorted by a player wrongly dismissed for a foul he didn't commit (2nd booking)
You don't want Var to intervene in that.
So why have it ? If it can allow that scenario to happen you may as well just leave it to the incompetent fuckwit referee in the first place. Funnily enough, most of us have being saying that for years.
Well, possibly, but it wasn't a question around the number and type of incidents that VAR could or should review or "re-refereeing the game" on a continuous basis. It was a question of whether VAR should get the correct outcome for each of the incidents it is authorised to look at.
This is dragging on too long, but can you at least accept, without resorting to platitudes (don't want to re-referee the game, not expecting to get everything right, decisions are subjective, etc ..), that VAR protocol COULD be to give the referee the opportunity to get decisions right in all the incidents it looks at. Not all incidents on the pitch in the 90 minutes, just those the protocol says it can look at. What benefit to the game is there in a protocol that actually validates a bad decision (such as not awarding a free-kick to Kane in the non-penalty incident, or the yellow card in the FRA-MAR game). Both could have been reviewed by the referee as part of the incident review and the correct outcome could have been applied.The purpose of VAR was to increase the number of correct decisions. Nobody worth listening to has ever claimed it will correct all incorrect decisions. So many decisions in football are based on an opinion not facts. So one man’s correct decision is another man’s mistake anyway.
The purpose of VAR was to increase the number of correct decisions. Nobody worth listening to has ever claimed it will correct all incorrect decisions. So many decisions in football are based on an opinion not facts. So one man’s correct decision is another man’s mistake anyway.
This is dragging on too long, but can you at least accept, without resorting to platitudes (don't want to re-referee the game, not expecting to get everything right, decisions are subjective, etc ..), that VAR protocol COULD be to give the referee the opportunity to get decisions right in all the incidents it looks at. Not all incidents on the pitch in the 90 minutes, just those the protocol says it can look at. What benefit to the game is there in a protocol that actually validates a bad decision (such as not awarding a free-kick to Kane in the non-penalty incident, or the yellow card in the FRA-MAR game). Both could have been reviewed by the referee as part of the incident review and the correct outcome could have been applied.
I know it's not the protocol, but I can't think of one reason why it shouldn't be.
What? It was 2 clear errors (foul and penalty) which the referee got wrong and then VAR clearly got wrong also. In both cases. They may have some crap rule about not resinding the yellow which is laughable in itself. However the main point is they all got the foul wrong and missed a clear penalty. If that isnt correctable then both the refs and VAR need to be removed from the game as they are pointless with that train of thought….I didn’t say it wasn’t an error. The VAR has no jurisdiction to advise overturning the yellow card once he’s decided not to recommend a review of the penalty.
What? It was 2 clear errors (foul and penalty) which the referee got wrong and then VAR clearly got wrong also. In both cases. They may have some crap rule about not resinding the yellow which is laughable in itself. However the main point is they all got the foul wrong and missed a clear penalty. If that isnt correctable then both the refs and VAR need to be removed from the game as they are pointless with that train of thought….
What? It was 2 clear errors (foul and penalty) which the referee got wrong and then VAR clearly got wrong also. In both cases. They may have some crap rule about not resinding the yellow which is laughable in itself. However the main point is they all got the foul wrong and missed a clear penalty. If that isnt correctable then both the refs and VAR need to be removed from the game as they are pointless with that train of thought….