Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Football died a little bit yesterday (VAR)
Comments
-
As said by Neville / Carragher though
Why isnt the Referee being advised to go look at the screen and make the decision themselves
0 -
For all we know the VAR guy looked the replay, thought Origi made a meal of the challenge and told the ref there wasn't much in it so you can give the goalForeverAddickted said:As said by Neville / Carragher though
Why isnt the Referee being advised to go look at the screen and make the decision themselves2 -
Football is not a non contact sport. That wasn’t a foul for me.1
-
Because the PL bods had the “it slows the game down too much” moaners in their ear so refs are only meant to go over to the screen in certain situations.ForeverAddickted said:As said by Neville / Carragher though
Why isnt the Referee being advised to go look at the screen and make the decision themselves
1 -
I think this is how it will evolve. Refs will go and lookForeverAddickted said:As said by Neville / Carragher though
Why isnt the Referee being advised to go look at the screen and make the decision themselves1 -
You could argue that Mane had an arm on him, if only slightly, before he handled so it should have been a penalty.0
-
I thought the biggest argument against VAR was that it would mean the footie fan down the pub, would have nothing to talk about, if it stopped all the dodgy decisions
Another success for VAR. There's now twice as much to discuss.5 -
VAR is there to make sure refs are always right. Goals are hardly ever given when a ref has blow for a foul & it's the shown ir wasnt. How many of you think that if that was the other way round & the ball had touched the Man U defender's hand (it was ball TO hand & not HAND to ball remembrr) that it would have been a pen. Not many I bet.0
-
Do you understand how the rules changed this year?golfaddick said:VAR is there to make sure refs are always right. Goals are hardly ever given when a ref has blow for a foul & it's the shown ir wasnt. How many of you think that if that was the other way round & the ball had touched the Man U defender's hand (it was ball TO hand & not HAND to ball remembrr) that it would have been a pen. Not many I bet.5 -
But that's because they changed the law on handball. If it hits an attackers hand/arm in the build-up to a goal then it's automatically a free kick.golfaddick said:VAR is there to make sure refs are always right. Goals are hardly ever given when a ref has blow for a foul & it's the shown ir wasnt. How many of you think that if that was the other way round & the ball had touched the Man U defender's hand (it was ball TO hand & not HAND to ball remembrr) that it would have been a pen. Not many I bet.
Keep up.
Anyway, I think the Marne one gets given as handball almost every time if the ref actually sees it.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Not me. I never wanted it and I never will. Rather than settling arguments, its existence simply creates the conditions whereby the arguments take place over increasingly trivial matters. It also encourages more indiscipline from the players who sense that it has become more worthwhile arguing with the ref, because there's now a chance of decisions being overturned. And, crucially, it's not definitively correct anyway, it's still down to interpretation as can be seen by differing opinions here.Off_it said:So, has anyone changed their minds on VAR these past few weeks?
Get shot of it and give refs the power (indeed the responsibility) to punish cheating Belgians like Origi0 -
Obviously he dont. But i see what he is saying that VAR should help the refStu_of_Kunming said:
Do you understand how the rules changed this year?golfaddick said:VAR is there to make sure refs are always right. Goals are hardly ever given when a ref has blow for a foul & it's the shown ir wasnt. How many of you think that if that was the other way round & the ball had touched the Man U defender's hand (it was ball TO hand & not HAND to ball remembrr) that it would have been a pen. Not many I bet.0 -
Did they look at Lallana for offside?0
-
Yup... Would have liked to have seen the actual lines drawn though to confirm itharveys_gardener said:Did they look at Lallana for offside?0 -
Another game spoiled. Decisions about who wins made randomly from above.
I prefer a game decided by a mistake than a committee deciding who they would prefer to win.
1 -
I'm no fan of VAR either but todays match they got everything rightstevexreeve said:Another game spoiled. Decisions about who wins made randomly from above.
I prefer a game decided by a mistake than a committee deciding who they would prefer to win.
My only gripe is the fact VAR looked at the Origi foul, it had nothing to do with the goal so they shouldn't even bother those decisions0 -
Lol.snowinberlin said:
I'm no fan of VAR either but todays match they got everything rightstevexreeve said:Another game spoiled. Decisions about who wins made randomly from above.
I prefer a game decided by a mistake than a committee deciding who they would prefer to win.
My only gripe is the fact VAR looked at the Origi foul, it had nothing to do with the goal so they shouldn't even bother those decisions
"Everything right"?
"Nothing to do with the goal?"
Just goes to show that it's all about opinions. Which is what it has always been about.
The problem is that all these reviews are spoiling the flow and spectacle of the game and for no real benefit - people are still arguing about different views. (In my view.)2 -
I know they are different sports and people often say about spoiling the flow, however why can footie not look at the rugby model?0
-
what did you think they got wrong then?Off_it said:
Lol.snowinberlin said:
I'm no fan of VAR either but todays match they got everything rightstevexreeve said:Another game spoiled. Decisions about who wins made randomly from above.
I prefer a game decided by a mistake than a committee deciding who they would prefer to win.
My only gripe is the fact VAR looked at the Origi foul, it had nothing to do with the goal so they shouldn't even bother those decisions
"Everything right"?
"Nothing to do with the goal?"
Just goes to show that it's all about opinions. Which is what it has always been about.
The problem is that all these reviews are spoiling the flow and spectacle of the game and for no real benefit - people are still arguing about different views. (In my view.)
I'm kind of agreeing with you, they shouldn't spoil the flow, hence they shouldn't disallow a goal because of some innocuous foul that happened at the other end of the pitch0 -
But sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't....snowinberlin said:
what did you think they got wrong then?Off_it said:
Lol.snowinberlin said:
I'm no fan of VAR either but todays match they got everything rightstevexreeve said:Another game spoiled. Decisions about who wins made randomly from above.
I prefer a game decided by a mistake than a committee deciding who they would prefer to win.
My only gripe is the fact VAR looked at the Origi foul, it had nothing to do with the goal so they shouldn't even bother those decisions
"Everything right"?
"Nothing to do with the goal?"
Just goes to show that it's all about opinions. Which is what it has always been about.
The problem is that all these reviews are spoiling the flow and spectacle of the game and for no real benefit - people are still arguing about different views. (In my view.)
I'm kind of agreeing with you, they shouldn't spoil the flow, hence they shouldn't disallow a goal because of some innocuous foul that happened at the other end of the pitch
0 - Sponsored links:
-
as I said i'm not a fan, just pointing out that in this instance they got it right.stevexreeve said:
But sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't....snowinberlin said:
what did you think they got wrong then?Off_it said:
Lol.snowinberlin said:
I'm no fan of VAR either but todays match they got everything rightstevexreeve said:Another game spoiled. Decisions about who wins made randomly from above.
I prefer a game decided by a mistake than a committee deciding who they would prefer to win.
My only gripe is the fact VAR looked at the Origi foul, it had nothing to do with the goal so they shouldn't even bother those decisions
"Everything right"?
"Nothing to do with the goal?"
Just goes to show that it's all about opinions. Which is what it has always been about.
The problem is that all these reviews are spoiling the flow and spectacle of the game and for no real benefit - people are still arguing about different views. (In my view.)
I'm kind of agreeing with you, they shouldn't spoil the flow, hence they shouldn't disallow a goal because of some innocuous foul that happened at the other end of the pitch
The ref said no foul and waved play on , VAR can only overrule if it's a clear and obvious mistake, it wasn't.0 -
The fact this is still being discussed shows that it's a farce.... Same old lines every week with no end to it.0
-
I have highlighted the answer to your question oR…orpingtonRED said:I know they are different sports and people often say about spoiling the flow, however why can footie not look at the rugby model?
0 -
Yeh i walked into that one. Just meant the whole video refereeing and communication between the ref on the pitch seems to work well whenever i watch rugby. And it doesnt seem to slow the game down that much. Some of the VAR delays in football are unbelievableAlgarveaddick said:
I have highlighted the answer to your question oR…orpingtonRED said:I know they are different sports and people often say about spoiling the flow, however why can footie not look at the rugby model?0 -
I seem to recall that there was a disputed corner near the end of the game - or a possible foul followed by a corner being awarded - I can't remember. If MU had scored from that corner, would VAR have been used to wipe out the goal if the corner had been shown to be a wrong decision? I assume not. I do wonder whether VAR should be restricted to offsides, whether a ball crossed the line and not much else.0
-
How bizarre.
So what wouldve happened if it was the opposing teams sub that touched the ball? Or a ballboy? Or a fan running onto the pitch?0 -
Just obeying orders....1
-
So in the Man City game, the panel awarded the goal to Silva but VAR allowed the goal on the basis it didn't touch anyone after de Bruyne hit it? hmmm1
-
7. EXTRA PERSONS ON THE FIELD OF PLAY
The coach and other officials named on the team list (with the exception of players or substitutes) are team officials. Anyone not named on the team list as a player, substitute or team official is an outside agent.
If a team official, substitute, substituted or sent-off player or outside agent enters the field of play, the referee must:
only stop play if there is interference with play
have the person removed when play stops
take appropriate disciplinary action
If play is stopped and the interference was by:
a team official, substitute, substituted or sent-off player, play restarts with a direct free kick or penalty kick
an outside agent, play restarts with a dropped ball
If a ball is going into the goal and the interference does not prevent a defending player playing the ball, the goal is awarded if the ball enters the goal (even if contact was made with the ball) unless the interference was by the attacking team.
0
