VAR thread 2022/23

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Don’t disagree with most of that.

We don’t know what the VAR ref said to the on field ref though. Stating he’s been told he is wrong may well be unfair.

Unfair is an understatement. More like bang out of order ir that's the case.

 

[blueinsa]

Dermot the apologist defends it by saying he doesn’t put his studs into his knee so it’s not dangerous, it’s a yellow lol.

So as long as you use the front of your foot go in as high as you like with a tackle then eh?

Fucking bullshit from the cunts as they try to excuse yet another bullshit VAR decision.

 

[mat]

Darren Dipper England will be ready tonight

 

[RiversideBlue]

Personally, i thought it was a yellow card however, it sure as hell wasnt a clear and obvious error, so VAR should have stayed out of it and the red card should have stood.

 

[Barcon]

Personally, i thought it was a yellow card however, it sure as hell wasnt a clear and obvious error, so VAR should have stayed out of it and the red card should have stood.

Agreed.

 

[jaiguruKun]

If we must have it I'd rather see a system like they have in cricket where each team captain gets a number of review requests, rather than VAR checking every single thing. The offside thing, where a shirt sleeve or something like that puts a player offside is ridiculous, and not in the spirit of the game.

That would never work, football is totally different to cricket. It would be impossible for a captain/manager to decide in the heat of the moment whether it's worth a review or not. It would be a complete lottery. I do agree the offside law needs changing to favour the attacker more, how exactly I'm not entirely sure.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I think players know that a HIGH tackle (as in over the ball in a 50-50 or above the ankle on a supposed tackle) is dangerous and a strong candidate for a red card!

What is happening now is a joke! Red cards are being rescinded because the “studs weren’t up, even though he was tacked at the knee” from behind, while executing a professional foul!

As I said earlier, I can only assume the VAR official asked the Ref WHY he gave the red card, so he could check that in super slo-mo that was exactly what happened.

The tackle was a professional foul, on the knee, from behind, both feet off the ground, but NOT studs up! So, the VAR Official must have said, “I think you should have a look in super slo-mo, because I don’t see studs up, only studs to the side, even though your view of ALL the other aspects of the challenge was spot on.”

Whether he said, “Are you sure you want to send him off with the score at 3-3 late in the game?!”…who knows?!

Yet another reason we should be able to HEAR THE DISCUSSION, and WHY THE VAR OFFICIAL BELIEVES THE REF MAY HAVE MADE A CLEAR & OBVIOUS ERROR, even if it is after the match!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

That would never work, football is totally different to cricket. It would be impossible for a captain/manager to decide in the heat of the moment whether it's worth a review or not. It would be a complete lottery. I do agree the offside law needs changing to favour the attacker more, how exactly I'm not entirely sure.

They manage it in American Football.

 

[mat]

Personally, i thought it was a yellow card however, it sure as hell wasnt a clear and obvious error, so VAR should have stayed out of it and the red card should have stood.

So VAR manipulated the result?

We'd have won with them down to 10 I'm certain of it.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Unfair is an understatement. More like bang out of order ir that's the case.

Absolutely, but it is hypothetical at the moment.