VAR thread 2022/23

[bluealf]

Bless, people aren’t allowed to have a differing opinion to you?

It must be spam…

Maybe the pair of you should take heed, the same two names prattling on right through the thread, arguing against people who have a different opinion than yourselves.

You act like a tag team attacking folk.

Tits indeed.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Maybe the pair of you should take heed, the same two names prattling on right through the thread, arguing against people who have a different opinion than yourselves.

You act like a tag team attacking folk.

Tits indeed.

Attacking? Lol

We have the decency to reply to people too.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I don't have an issue with the principal of VAR but in football there always needs to be a consistent application of the rules. We needed VAR because there were dubious offside decisions and blatant failures regarding penalty awards. The system hasn't changed that. I also thought united's goal at the weekend should have been ruled out. It hit the guys arm and went in. It looks like VAR determined that Brighton had enough opportunity to and as it came of Mac Allister and went in they allowed it - it didn't go straight in off the arm. But the fact is it hit the arm before the Brighton scramble which led to the OG.

The rules, for me, need to be completely clarified to cover these controversial situations. Personally, I think context is critical with giving a pen for handball. In the Dias case, it shouldn't be a pen as he was jumping and his arms were in a natural position - the ball was also going nowhere. The trouble is, things start to get very complicated and VAR will struggle to have consistency if you bring in caveats for rules.

Re the last bit, maybe you could pay a bloke to watch the game and give his view ;-)

The handball rule is silly now though and quite a lot of penalty box “offences” don’t need penalties as punishment IMHO

 

[supercity88]

It's impossible to be consistent. Every incident is different. And everyone's interpretation, including amongst refs, is different.

It's down to judgement fair judgement.

It's not impossible. Every offside incident differs but we know what the offside rule is. You're either offside or you're onside. If there were clear rules around handballs in the box either attacking or defending then there would be consistency. You'll always get the odd one that is marginal or very hard to decipher and so there will always be a talking point, but that's fine. The system would work efficiently and enable the majority of decisions to be correct.

In cricket the Umpire's Call rule is controversial. The umpire didn't give it out but the ball is shown to be clipping the stumps, it's not out. Surely that's the umpire getting it wrong then no? But the system has a margin of error and as the ball didn't actually hit the stumps, a computer programme tracking the ball is suggesting it will, then you have to accept it.

If the rules were clear and the the FA developed scenarios, even with supporting examples with images - wouldn't take too long to do, then it would speed up the way VAR works.

A lot of the issues people have aren't with VAR, they're with the rules themselves. We don't like the handball rule, and it needs resolving. But that's not for VAR to do.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

It's not impossible. Every offside incident differs but we know what the offside rule is. You're either offside or you're onside. If there were clear rules around handballs in the box either attacking or defending then there would be consistency. You'll always get the odd one that is marginal or very hard to decipher and so there will always be a talking point, but that's fine. The system would work efficiently and enable the majority of decisions to be correct.

In cricket the Umpire's Call rule is controversial. The umpire didn't give it out but the ball is shown to be clipping the stumps, it's not out. Surely that's the umpire getting it wrong then no? But the system has a margin of error and as the ball didn't actually hit the stumps, a computer programme tracking the ball is suggesting it will, then you have to accept it.

If the rules were clear and the the FA developed scenarios, even with supporting examples with images - wouldn't take too long to do, then it would speed up the way VAR works.

A lot of the issues people have aren't with VAR, they're with the rules themselves. We don't like the handball rule, and it needs resolving. But that's not for VAR to do.

Not talking about offside. That's a binary decision despite line thickness bollocks, I'm talking about handballs and fouls specifically in the penalty area (that are the minority or odd ones as you mentioned). It always comes down to judgement within whatever set of rules there are. For handballs "we're their hands actually by their side, how far away from their side". "Dias flying through the air to stop the ball (last week) "was that a natural position". And that's before we even get to fouls on which everyone has a different opinion for everything.

If you know what sort of thing would cover all handballs and penalty incidents please share because logically I think I am right but obviously we can all be wrong.

 

[Stephen230]

It's not impossible. Every offside incident differs but we know what the offside rule is. You're either offside or you're onside. If there were clear rules around handballs in the box either attacking or defending then there would be consistency. You'll always get the odd one that is marginal or very hard to decipher and so there will always be a talking point, but that's fine. The system would work efficiently and enable the majority of decisions to be correct.

In cricket the Umpire's Call rule is controversial. The umpire didn't give it out but the ball is shown to be clipping the stumps, it's not out. Surely that's the umpire getting it wrong then no? But the system has a margin of error and as the ball didn't actually hit the stumps, a computer programme tracking the ball is suggesting it will, then you have to accept it.

If the rules were clear and the the FA developed scenarios, even with supporting examples with images - wouldn't take too long to do, then it would speed up the way VAR works.

A lot of the issues people have aren't with VAR, they're with the rules themselves. We don't like the handball rule, and it needs resolving. But that's not for VAR to do.

The only way you are ever going to get total consistency with handball is if it is an offence for the ball to touch your hand and arm in all circumstances. And no sane person wants that.

If in certain circumstances it isn’t an offence for the ball to come in contact with your arm or hand, then it is subjective. Always has been and always will be. VAR or no VAR.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Why does it work in Rugby?

IMO, because it's not like for like. A lot more is codified rather than opinion of a specific incident.

Rugby is much slower, and rarely moves a long way in a short time - players are always behind the ball so the 50 yard pass doesn't happen, and the officials are usually closer. An obstructing player is really obvious.
Offsides are in line with the ball, not defenders running in the opposite direction. If the ball goes forward, that's enough.

There are less options for a foul challenge that isn't obvious immediately. Most things that would get play stopped are pretty obvious - there isn't the curious concept of the current handball law and whether it was shoulder or arm.

Also, sanctions are more standardised - start at yellow/red and look for why it should be varied. Also, the effect of a yellow card is usually very significant in rugby, and players will avoid them if they can - easier for the ref, and not a lot of playacting to work out.

 

[Blue Mist]

I said I was out, now I've had beer.
Fuck you spammers, I've read what you said about me and behind my back in your oh so cute love in. You think your so fucking clever well your not. VAR is shit because the people that use it are bent, self seving wankers.
Don't forget you are a guest on this forum, we welcome guests but not wumming wankers who are so far up their own self believing arse they annoy every fucker.

 

[Blue Mist]

I'll be banned now but it was worth it.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The only person saying stuff behind peoples’ backs is the person not using the reply function.

It‘s probably for the best though as a beer fuelled rant at 8pm on a Friday night isn’t what the forum or its moderators need.