Which stamp ? Gis a clue
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
VAR thread 2022/23
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
NZBlue
Well-Known Member
Not quite the same meaning- commissioned implies money changing hands which wouldn't surprise me with some of the decisionsDifferent words but the same meaning, the powers that be get to decide the outcome not the players on the pitch
Gorton_Tubster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 16,358
- Location
- Riding the blue tidal wave.
- Team supported
- Manchester City
LOL at the freedom to decide who gets the decisions and who doesnt.
LOL at the freedom to decide who gets the decisions and who doesnt.
Amazing they took like 5 secs to look at Rashford's to decide it's on. I have zero clue why that's onside and fairly certain the refs don't either.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 60,300
LOL at the freedom to decide who gets the decisions and who doesnt.
Two tight decisions that we can’t see if they are 100% correct because we don’t have decent angles to see them.
Because one was for the rags, it reaffirms our bias that VAR is only there to help them.
Looking at the stills, we naturally look where the feet and then legs are and the one deemed offside looks offside and the one deemed on seems off.
What we can’t calibrate well is where the top of the arms are. If they weren’t involved in the decision, no football fan would mourn about it.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
The media is a big part of the problem. They get information from the VAR officials which they don't share with the viewers. The broadcasters focus only on selected incidents. The Rashford one was bizarre because they glossed over it so quickly. It was suspicious. Fans and viewers will never trust the sytem until it is fully transparent (as it is with other sports) The paying customers are shut out of the loop. And it stinks. Why have TV cameras never shown us the inside of the VAR room, not even during trial matches? The decision-making process is still a secret.Amazing they took like 5 secs to look at Rashford's to decide it's on. I have zero clue why that's onside and fairly certain the refs don't either.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 60,300
A lot of people won’t trust it however transparent it is.The media is a big part of the problem. They get information from the VAR officials which they don't share with the viewers. The broadcasters focus only on selected incidents. The Rashford one was bizarre because they glossed over it so quickly. It was suspicious. Fans and viewers will never trust the sytem until it is fully transparent (as it is with other sports) The paying customers are shut out of the loop. And it stinks.
They believe the system is biased against them, whoever they support.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
That's true but the authorities have made no serious attempt to explain the full decision-making process to fans. We are the paying customers (TV and matchgoers). Why can't they be open and transparent? The poor communications process just fuels the conspiracy theories.A lot of people won’t trust it however transparent it is.
They believe the system is biased against them, whoever they support.
And yet against Liverpool - I'm surprised a few heads haven't exploded on here already!Two tight decisions that we can’t see if they are 100% correct because we don’t have decent angles to see them.
Because one was for the rags, it reaffirms our bias that VAR is only there to help them.
Looking at the stills, we naturally look where the feet and then legs are and the one deemed offside looks offside and the one deemed on seems off.
What we can’t calibrate well is where the top of the arms are. If they weren’t involved in the decision, no football fan would mourn about it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.