The fact they held off using it for a season to get it in good order and make sure they we ready makes it even worse.
At least it's given us more to talk about if anything, when the fear was it would take away the talking points.
I think the Premier League bought VAR from
Wish, hence the problems.
Frankie
Am i correct in thinking the Mount offside against Pool was subject to opinion?
For example it sounds like it was based on somebody's opinion as to whether pool had time to get themselves together to defend the goal.
In my opinion they had enough players still in the box to suggest they had gotten themselves together.
The Liverpool one was worse. There was contact with the Watford one which made the decision at least debatable. I can see instantly from the paused image that Firmino was onside, so how could 3 people in a room with all the monitors not see that?
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 2 minutes ago
The Liverpool one was worse. There was contact with the Watford one which made the decision at least debatable. I can see instantly from the paused image that Firmino was onside, so how could 3 people in a room with all the monitors not see that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I'm not actually sure there was contact - two of the three angles suggest there wasn't. The Liverpool one is the only decision where they went back 2 stages of play in order to rule out a goal. How can they do that? And how about those goals scored from dodgy free kick decisions? They never seem to be reviewed. And the clear penalty on Deulofeu against Spurs not given - how can anybody justify that. VAR can't be used for every debatable decision so maybe we shouldn't use it at all.
Bearing in mind it was supposed to be bought in to spot 'Clear and Obvious' errors and not scrutinise every goal to see if if someones eyelashes are offside; a good way of resolving a lot of the controversy would be to have a time limit built into the technology that automatically times the review out after 30s.
I think 30s would be an appropriate time to give an official to spot if there had been a clear and obvious error, if it takes longer than that I'd suggest there is nothing clear and obvious going on.
For example, yesterdays decision took the best part of 2 minutes to arrive at, which says to me they weren't sure and had to replay the evidence a few times to come to a decision. A 30s automatic time out would have over ruled them, enforced the on field decision and have kept the game flowing a lot sooner.
Offside need to be shown from directly across the pitch not these ones at a angle.
Firmino and Son can’t be 100% certain when it’s that close. ( I’m sure there’s others )
I was against it from the start and still am against it atm ( and we’ve benefited from it hugely )
The incident yesterday was a lot like the CHO one in many ways. Just because contact is made doesn't mean the players' entitled to a foul nor that he didn't dive (in yesterday's case he clearly did).
The technologies' fine, what it's doing is exposing the lack of clarity in the rules which have been the case for years. If the referees don't know what to do with this aided assistance, how are the players or the fans supposed to know categorically?
I've been an advocate of making football a no contact sport for years. If you don't win the ball and touch the opposition player in the process it should be a foul - end of (meaning both the CHO & Jorginho incidents were pens). Same thing with the ball to hand rubbish, if the ball touches your arm it's a foul/penalty, if it was unavoidable tough - you're unlucky. That's just me, I know a lot of people disagree with me on that.
Am i right in thinking that VAR reviewed the Shirt Tug in the Newcastle/Wolves match last week and ruled 'no penalty'?
If so then somebody is saying that is it's acceptable to do so, because it was blatant and IMO was a penalty.
Same thing with the ball to hand rubbish, if the ball touches your arm it's a foul/penalty, if it was unavoidable tough - you're unlucky. That's just me, I know a lot of people disagree with me on that.
-----------------------------------------------------
I've always been in favour of that, in fact I can't remember if that's how it was in the 60s, 70s and beyond!
I wouldn't like to see it turned into a non contact sport though - were would that have left Chopper Harris!
There is room for improvement.
Brummie your 30 second timeout idea is a good one for clear and obvious reviews. As you say if it takes longer than 30 seconds to review then by definition it cannot possibly be clear and obvious.
D.A slightly off topic but probably worthy of it's own article but I want football to revert to being more of a contact sport as it was in previous eras. Many of the problems we have today are because you can barely touch a player anymore without a foul being given and it gives the ref too much work to do and a much increased margin for error.
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 7 minutes ago
There is room for improvement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As in Accrington Stanley have a bit of improving to do before they can win the Champions League.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 7 minutes ago
Brummie your 30 second timeout idea is a good one for clear and obvious reviews. As you say if it takes longer than 30 seconds to review then by definition it cannot possibly be clear and obvious.
D.A slightly off topic but probably worthy of it's own article but I want football to revert to being more of a contact sport as it was in previous eras. Many of the problems we have today are because you can barely touch a player anymore without a foul being given and it gives the ref too much work to do and a much increased margin for error.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest I'm suprised it hasn't been thought of before Superb - to me it's so blindingly obvious!
A bit like in Cricket were the captain has 10s to decide whether to review an umpiring decision and then the chance has gone!
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 7 minutes ago
Brummie your 30 second timeout idea is a good one for clear and obvious reviews. As you say if it takes longer than 30 seconds to review then by definition it cannot possibly be clear and obvious.
D.A slightly off topic but probably worthy of it's own article but I want football to revert to being more of a contact sport as it was in previous eras. Many of the problems we have today are because you can barely touch a player anymore without a foul being given and it gives the ref too much work to do and a much increased margin for error.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest I'm suprised it hasn't been thought of before Superb - to me it's so blindingly obvious!
A bit like in Cricket were the captain has 10s to decide whether to review an umpiring decision and then the chance has gone!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wouldn't work. Its impracticable. It sounds good but if you put it to practice even using a mental model it doesn't work.
When do you start the 30 second count? When the player hits the deck or will the VAR ref be giving a signal to indicate he's started the check? Furthermore, the thirty seconds could lapse for any insane or sane reason(s).
Hot coffee could be spilt. Imagine Martin Atkinson ignoring his back being scalded by hot coffee so he can finish a VAR check before 30 seconds is up. Then getting wheeled away to receive medical attention soon thereafter.
Someone could accidentally hit the shut down button on the computer. This has happened to me on a few occasions in my lifetime.
The computer or whatever system they have could hang (not responding) etc.
Furthermore, its likely to lead to crazy decisions as VAR officials race against the clock and are pretty much forced to make a random call. Allowing the 30 seconds to elapse would become a huge issue and allegations of corruption may arise. Etc etc.
I can confidently say that IMO such a rule will never be implemented.
It wouldn't be the same as the cricket at all.
They'll just have to avoid hot scalding coffee being passed around during the 90 minutes that the game is played. Can't be that difficult.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 1 minute ago
They'll just have to avoid hot scalding coffee being passed around during the 90 minutes that the game is played. Can't be that difficult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Devil D.A. (U6522)
posted 3 hours, 30 minutes ago
The incident yesterday was a lot like the CHO one in many ways. Just because contact is made doesn't mean the players' entitled to a foul nor that he didn't dive (in yesterday's case he clearly did).
The technologies' fine, what it's doing is exposing the lack of clarity in the rules which have been the case for years. If the referees don't know what to do with this aided assistance, how are the players or the fans supposed to know categorically?
I've been an advocate of making football a no contact sport for years. If you don't win the ball and touch the opposition player in the process it should be a foul - end of (meaning both the CHO & Jorginho incidents were pens). Same thing with the ball to hand rubbish, if the ball touches your arm it's a foul/penalty, if it was unavoidable tough - you're unlucky. That's just me, I know a lot of people disagree with me on that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am one of those for sure.............the idea that every time it hit your arm its a foul just does not sit right with me, not only for the professional game, but think about what it would do to the amateur game played on poor quality pitches, it would make football a farce as would it becoming a non contact sport. In what possible way would football becoming a non contact sport improve it as a spectacle............it would be like watching training sessions
Sorry DA, i think that idea is utter madness to be honest,
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 6 minutes ago
They'll just have to avoid hot scalding coffee being passed around during the 90 minutes that the game is played. Can't be that difficult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't listen to Klopptimus too much Superb. He has to be contrary about anything you say.
If you said grass was green he'd argue it was red - his way of feeling relevant perhaps!
I'm off to put the kettle on now!
Just make sure you don't throw your hot cuppa on your back Brum
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 1 minute ago
Just make sure you don't throw your hot cuppa on your back Brum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Devil D.A. (U6522)
posted 3 hours, 30 minutes ago
The incident yesterday was a lot like the CHO one in many ways. Just because contact is made doesn't mean the players' entitled to a foul nor that he didn't dive (in yesterday's case he clearly did).
The technologies' fine, what it's doing is exposing the lack of clarity in the rules which have been the case for years. If the referees don't know what to do with this aided assistance, how are the players or the fans supposed to know categorically?
I've been an advocate of making football a no contact sport for years. If you don't win the ball and touch the opposition player in the process it should be a foul - end of (meaning both the CHO & Jorginho incidents were pens). Same thing with the ball to hand rubbish, if the ball touches your arm it's a foul/penalty, if it was unavoidable tough - you're unlucky. That's just me, I know a lot of people disagree with me on that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am one of those for sure.............the idea that every time it hit your arm its a foul just does not sit right with me, not only for the professional game, but think about what it would do to the amateur game played on poor quality pitches, it would make football a farce as would it becoming a non contact sport. In what possible way would football becoming a non contact sport improve it as a spectacle............it would be like watching training sessions
Sorry DA, i think that idea is utter madness to be honest,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said before Biggish I want it to go the other way and return to an era when there was plenty of contact and physical nature allowed. Football is by definition a contact sport and a hard contact sport at that. Football in the modern era is anything but sadly and it's to the detriment of the spectacle.
Not sure about that Superb, if it becomes too physical then i fear it will kill off the Zola's and the Hazard's of this world and at the end of the day, that is who you want to see play, not Ron Harris. But no doubt there has to be an allowance for some contact
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR is utterly shambolic at present.
Page 1 of 2
posted on 3/11/19
The fact they held off using it for a season to get it in good order and make sure they we ready makes it even worse.
posted on 3/11/19
At least it's given us more to talk about if anything, when the fear was it would take away the talking points.
posted on 3/11/19
I think the Premier League bought VAR from
Wish, hence the problems.
posted on 3/11/19
Frankie
Am i correct in thinking the Mount offside against Pool was subject to opinion?
For example it sounds like it was based on somebody's opinion as to whether pool had time to get themselves together to defend the goal.
In my opinion they had enough players still in the box to suggest they had gotten themselves together.
posted on 3/11/19
The Liverpool one was worse. There was contact with the Watford one which made the decision at least debatable. I can see instantly from the paused image that Firmino was onside, so how could 3 people in a room with all the monitors not see that?
posted on 3/11/19
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 2 minutes ago
The Liverpool one was worse. There was contact with the Watford one which made the decision at least debatable. I can see instantly from the paused image that Firmino was onside, so how could 3 people in a room with all the monitors not see that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I'm not actually sure there was contact - two of the three angles suggest there wasn't. The Liverpool one is the only decision where they went back 2 stages of play in order to rule out a goal. How can they do that? And how about those goals scored from dodgy free kick decisions? They never seem to be reviewed. And the clear penalty on Deulofeu against Spurs not given - how can anybody justify that. VAR can't be used for every debatable decision so maybe we shouldn't use it at all.
posted on 3/11/19
Bearing in mind it was supposed to be bought in to spot 'Clear and Obvious' errors and not scrutinise every goal to see if if someones eyelashes are offside; a good way of resolving a lot of the controversy would be to have a time limit built into the technology that automatically times the review out after 30s.
I think 30s would be an appropriate time to give an official to spot if there had been a clear and obvious error, if it takes longer than that I'd suggest there is nothing clear and obvious going on.
For example, yesterdays decision took the best part of 2 minutes to arrive at, which says to me they weren't sure and had to replay the evidence a few times to come to a decision. A 30s automatic time out would have over ruled them, enforced the on field decision and have kept the game flowing a lot sooner.
posted on 3/11/19
Offside need to be shown from directly across the pitch not these ones at a angle.
Firmino and Son can’t be 100% certain when it’s that close. ( I’m sure there’s others )
I was against it from the start and still am against it atm ( and we’ve benefited from it hugely )
posted on 3/11/19
The incident yesterday was a lot like the CHO one in many ways. Just because contact is made doesn't mean the players' entitled to a foul nor that he didn't dive (in yesterday's case he clearly did).
The technologies' fine, what it's doing is exposing the lack of clarity in the rules which have been the case for years. If the referees don't know what to do with this aided assistance, how are the players or the fans supposed to know categorically?
I've been an advocate of making football a no contact sport for years. If you don't win the ball and touch the opposition player in the process it should be a foul - end of (meaning both the CHO & Jorginho incidents were pens). Same thing with the ball to hand rubbish, if the ball touches your arm it's a foul/penalty, if it was unavoidable tough - you're unlucky. That's just me, I know a lot of people disagree with me on that.
posted on 3/11/19
Am i right in thinking that VAR reviewed the Shirt Tug in the Newcastle/Wolves match last week and ruled 'no penalty'?
If so then somebody is saying that is it's acceptable to do so, because it was blatant and IMO was a penalty.
posted on 3/11/19
Same thing with the ball to hand rubbish, if the ball touches your arm it's a foul/penalty, if it was unavoidable tough - you're unlucky. That's just me, I know a lot of people disagree with me on that.
-----------------------------------------------------
I've always been in favour of that, in fact I can't remember if that's how it was in the 60s, 70s and beyond!
I wouldn't like to see it turned into a non contact sport though - were would that have left Chopper Harris!
posted on 3/11/19
There is room for improvement.
posted on 3/11/19
Brummie your 30 second timeout idea is a good one for clear and obvious reviews. As you say if it takes longer than 30 seconds to review then by definition it cannot possibly be clear and obvious.
D.A slightly off topic but probably worthy of it's own article but I want football to revert to being more of a contact sport as it was in previous eras. Many of the problems we have today are because you can barely touch a player anymore without a foul being given and it gives the ref too much work to do and a much increased margin for error.
posted on 3/11/19
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 7 minutes ago
There is room for improvement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As in Accrington Stanley have a bit of improving to do before they can win the Champions League.
posted on 3/11/19
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 7 minutes ago
Brummie your 30 second timeout idea is a good one for clear and obvious reviews. As you say if it takes longer than 30 seconds to review then by definition it cannot possibly be clear and obvious.
D.A slightly off topic but probably worthy of it's own article but I want football to revert to being more of a contact sport as it was in previous eras. Many of the problems we have today are because you can barely touch a player anymore without a foul being given and it gives the ref too much work to do and a much increased margin for error.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest I'm suprised it hasn't been thought of before Superb - to me it's so blindingly obvious!
A bit like in Cricket were the captain has 10s to decide whether to review an umpiring decision and then the chance has gone!
posted on 3/11/19
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 7 minutes ago
Brummie your 30 second timeout idea is a good one for clear and obvious reviews. As you say if it takes longer than 30 seconds to review then by definition it cannot possibly be clear and obvious.
D.A slightly off topic but probably worthy of it's own article but I want football to revert to being more of a contact sport as it was in previous eras. Many of the problems we have today are because you can barely touch a player anymore without a foul being given and it gives the ref too much work to do and a much increased margin for error.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest I'm suprised it hasn't been thought of before Superb - to me it's so blindingly obvious!
A bit like in Cricket were the captain has 10s to decide whether to review an umpiring decision and then the chance has gone!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wouldn't work. Its impracticable. It sounds good but if you put it to practice even using a mental model it doesn't work.
When do you start the 30 second count? When the player hits the deck or will the VAR ref be giving a signal to indicate he's started the check? Furthermore, the thirty seconds could lapse for any insane or sane reason(s).
Hot coffee could be spilt. Imagine Martin Atkinson ignoring his back being scalded by hot coffee so he can finish a VAR check before 30 seconds is up. Then getting wheeled away to receive medical attention soon thereafter.
Someone could accidentally hit the shut down button on the computer. This has happened to me on a few occasions in my lifetime.
The computer or whatever system they have could hang (not responding) etc.
Furthermore, its likely to lead to crazy decisions as VAR officials race against the clock and are pretty much forced to make a random call. Allowing the 30 seconds to elapse would become a huge issue and allegations of corruption may arise. Etc etc.
I can confidently say that IMO such a rule will never be implemented.
posted on 3/11/19
It wouldn't be the same as the cricket at all.
posted on 3/11/19
They'll just have to avoid hot scalding coffee being passed around during the 90 minutes that the game is played. Can't be that difficult.
posted on 3/11/19
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 1 minute ago
They'll just have to avoid hot scalding coffee being passed around during the 90 minutes that the game is played. Can't be that difficult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 3/11/19
comment by Devil D.A. (U6522)
posted 3 hours, 30 minutes ago
The incident yesterday was a lot like the CHO one in many ways. Just because contact is made doesn't mean the players' entitled to a foul nor that he didn't dive (in yesterday's case he clearly did).
The technologies' fine, what it's doing is exposing the lack of clarity in the rules which have been the case for years. If the referees don't know what to do with this aided assistance, how are the players or the fans supposed to know categorically?
I've been an advocate of making football a no contact sport for years. If you don't win the ball and touch the opposition player in the process it should be a foul - end of (meaning both the CHO & Jorginho incidents were pens). Same thing with the ball to hand rubbish, if the ball touches your arm it's a foul/penalty, if it was unavoidable tough - you're unlucky. That's just me, I know a lot of people disagree with me on that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am one of those for sure.............the idea that every time it hit your arm its a foul just does not sit right with me, not only for the professional game, but think about what it would do to the amateur game played on poor quality pitches, it would make football a farce as would it becoming a non contact sport. In what possible way would football becoming a non contact sport improve it as a spectacle............it would be like watching training sessions
Sorry DA, i think that idea is utter madness to be honest,
posted on 3/11/19
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 6 minutes ago
They'll just have to avoid hot scalding coffee being passed around during the 90 minutes that the game is played. Can't be that difficult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't listen to Klopptimus too much Superb. He has to be contrary about anything you say.
If you said grass was green he'd argue it was red - his way of feeling relevant perhaps!
I'm off to put the kettle on now!
posted on 3/11/19
Just make sure you don't throw your hot cuppa on your back Brum
posted on 3/11/19
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 1 minute ago
Just make sure you don't throw your hot cuppa on your back Brum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 3/11/19
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Devil D.A. (U6522)
posted 3 hours, 30 minutes ago
The incident yesterday was a lot like the CHO one in many ways. Just because contact is made doesn't mean the players' entitled to a foul nor that he didn't dive (in yesterday's case he clearly did).
The technologies' fine, what it's doing is exposing the lack of clarity in the rules which have been the case for years. If the referees don't know what to do with this aided assistance, how are the players or the fans supposed to know categorically?
I've been an advocate of making football a no contact sport for years. If you don't win the ball and touch the opposition player in the process it should be a foul - end of (meaning both the CHO & Jorginho incidents were pens). Same thing with the ball to hand rubbish, if the ball touches your arm it's a foul/penalty, if it was unavoidable tough - you're unlucky. That's just me, I know a lot of people disagree with me on that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am one of those for sure.............the idea that every time it hit your arm its a foul just does not sit right with me, not only for the professional game, but think about what it would do to the amateur game played on poor quality pitches, it would make football a farce as would it becoming a non contact sport. In what possible way would football becoming a non contact sport improve it as a spectacle............it would be like watching training sessions
Sorry DA, i think that idea is utter madness to be honest,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said before Biggish I want it to go the other way and return to an era when there was plenty of contact and physical nature allowed. Football is by definition a contact sport and a hard contact sport at that. Football in the modern era is anything but sadly and it's to the detriment of the spectacle.
posted on 3/11/19
Not sure about that Superb, if it becomes too physical then i fear it will kill off the Zola's and the Hazard's of this world and at the end of the day, that is who you want to see play, not Ron Harris. But no doubt there has to be an allowance for some contact
Page 1 of 2