You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 6 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. OP is clueless!
I can't see the FA sticking with the current approach beyond this season. There was so much concern about slowing the game down that they took out one of the key factors that allow a ref to correct his own decisions. All too often, the people in the VAR room will be reluctant to overrule a ref. It has to be crystal clear for them to do it. It's much easier for a ref to correct himself once the evidence is put before him.
The successful implementation of VAR was always going to require everyone involved in the game to embrace the changes. The players and managers have no choice but to go with whatever's served up. The fans are begrudgingly being forced to put up with this current schidtty version of something that could be so much better. The refs are having to make do and have enough on their plates having to deal with the nonsensical rule changes that have been brought in alongside VAR. The media are the best off out of the lot - at makes for ready-made clickbait and they're having an absolute field day stoking the fire.
So who's left that isn't holding up their part of the deal?
Ah yes, the fecking authorities who were forced by public pressure to introduce technology despite their perennial fear of losing their sinister control of the game.
Miking the ref and the VAR room up would be absolutely ideal, but it would expose the game's governing bodies to way, waaaay more transparency than they have ever had to deal with, which is obviously something they're still extremely, extremely uncomfortable with.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
--
Cricket?!?? The whole thing is nothing happening for 452 years per test. Var would make no impact upon cricket. Christ the only thing that. Lasts longer than cricket matches are ice ages
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The comparisons to rugby drive me mad, it works in that because it’s a contact sport that has far less subjectivity involved in it, and those decisions that are mainly aren’t subject to var (like scrums).
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baz ta’rd (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
--
Cricket?!?? The whole thing is nothing happening for 452 years per test. Var would make no impact upon cricket. Christ the only thing that. Lasts longer than cricket matches are ice ages
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peasant!
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The comparisons to rugby drive me mad, it works in that because it’s a contact sport that has far less subjectivity involved in it, and those decisions that are mainly aren’t subject to var (like scrums).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but you demonstrate a lack of understanding rugby here.
Of course rugby is subjective rulings and down to interpretation of each ref.
Yes the refs only use the 4th official for certain things but so does football.
People who say football flows or use the rules are subjective excuse. Well they are just falling for the agendas of the mouth pieces in the media.
The fact is there's serious resistance to the tools not adoption going on.
Yes refs should be liked, yes the entire ground should be aware of what's happening. No we don't want 3 minute delays.
Yes we want the right decision. Just go use the tools.
It's pure common sense that if you cannot tell without a slide rule you are really just guessing. If the tv companies can show for umpteen years an offside call instantly why can't var??? Make the call on field, set a tolerance for uncertainty, flash up var check if the decision is outside the limit.
My god it is so simple to fix rationally but there's almost a work to rule blatant obstructionist bloodymindedness going on. 3 minutes.... 3! To draw lines.
Oh I'll take as long as I like effort.
Sack the lot imo.
This argument of the game was great for centuries before VAR is stupid.
Football must move with the times. You want it to stay the same as it was when only white males could vote?
I mean, its been great for centuries but we introduced the offside rule and it was still great. Eliminating back pass improved the game.
The game was great for centuries so why introduce offside and back pass?
Truth is most football fans are deeply in love with the game and its been part of their lives for as long as they can remember. There is therefore a phobia of losing the game and change will be resisted.
VAR is therefore seen as a huge threat to their enjoyment of the game.
It will have to be rammed down their throats.
It all went south the day some genius decided to put nets in the goals.
Having said that, they can do away with VAR. Either that or sack all the officials and start from scratch. I am pro VAR but they clearly can't use it effectively.
The current crop of refs either don't want to use VAR or are too stupid to use it. Either way the solution is to fack off either the refs or VAR.
Personally I'd sack the refs and keep VAR. Bring through a new group of officials who will be eager and happy to use VAR correctly.
Football does not have to move with the times, unless the clubs and fans want the change.
Altering the rules is not the same thing, and anyway was welcomed.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
It all went south the day some genius decided to put nets in the goals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah the game had been fine for centuries before that too.
Granted some of the time the ref was unable to tell on which side of the post the ball passed and mistakes were made but tough luck. Having three points or a trophy taken away from you because a slightly overweight guy's view was obstructed for a split second is what the game is all about.
That's what the game is about, don't you know? It will even out over the season anyway. We can't risk ruining the game by putting nets in the goals.
I pine for the days the winners were awarded the honour of having their throats slit on an altar.
All the refs should be suspended and given the option to undergo extensive VAR training or quit officiating and start flipping burgers instead.
As they undergo training we can have celebrity refs in the meantime who will be followed by cameras and every game can have a fly in the wall documentary.
Le Bron, Beckham, Michael Jordan, Simon Pegg, Ali G etc This will allow the regular armchair fan to see what the ref sees and would be great for marketing.
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 5 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The comparisons to rugby drive me mad, it works in that because it’s a contact sport that has far less subjectivity involved in it, and those decisions that are mainly aren’t subject to var (like scrums).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but you demonstrate a lack of understanding rugby here.
Of course rugby is subjective rulings and down to interpretation of each ref.
Yes the refs only use the 4th official for certain things but so does football.
People who say football flows or use the rules are subjective excuse. Well they are just falling for the agendas of the mouth pieces in the media.
The fact is there's serious resistance to the tools not adoption going on.
Yes refs should be liked, yes the entire ground should be aware of what's happening. No we don't want 3 minute delays.
Yes we want the right decision. Just go use the tools.
It's pure common sense that if you cannot tell without a slide rule you are really just guessing. If the tv companies can show for umpteen years an offside call instantly why can't var??? Make the call on field, set a tolerance for uncertainty, flash up var check if the decision is outside the limit.
My god it is so simple to fix rationally but there's almost a work to rule blatant obstructionist bloodymindedness going on. 3 minutes.... 3! To draw lines.
Oh I'll take as long as I like effort.
Sack the lot imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can’t work out if you’re trying to be ironic there or not?
Just in case you’re not though, I didn’t say rugby wasn’t, I said that there were far less. Var in rugby doesn’t have the equivalent of a contentious penalty decision in football. It’s interventions are far more clear cut.
Your example of an offside call is non subjective, so not really sure why it was brought up anyway in the context of what I said. I agree with your suggestion on how to deal with them though.
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 11 hours, 41 minutes ago
All the refs should be suspended and given the option to undergo extensive VAR training or quit officiating and start flipping burgers instead.
As they undergo training we can have celebrity refs in the meantime who will be followed by cameras and every game can have a fly in the wall documentary.
Le Bron, Beckham, Michael Jordan, Simon Pegg, Ali G etc This will allow the regular armchair fan to see what the ref sees and would be great for marketing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or take less drastic measures. Keep the refs, change how VAR is implemented and have independent VAR's trained. In the meantime until they are at the required level, have retired referees in the studio.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 hours, 42 minutes ago
Just in case you’re not though, I didn’t say rugby wasn’t, I said that there were far less. Var in rugby doesn’t have the equivalent of a contentious penalty decision in football. It’s interventions are far more clear cut.
Your example of an offside call is non subjective, so not really sure why it was brought up anyway in the context of what I said. I agree with your suggestion on how to deal with them though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
offside is subjective when Martin Atkinson goes out of his way to make an on side off side by moving the line to back the lino.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 5 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The comparisons to rugby drive me mad, it works in that because it’s a contact sport that has far less subjectivity involved in it, and those decisions that are mainly aren’t subject to var (like scrums).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but you demonstrate a lack of understanding rugby here.
Of course rugby is subjective rulings and down to interpretation of each ref.
Yes the refs only use the 4th official for certain things but so does football.
People who say football flows or use the rules are subjective excuse. Well they are just falling for the agendas of the mouth pieces in the media.
The fact is there's serious resistance to the tools not adoption going on.
Yes refs should be liked, yes the entire ground should be aware of what's happening. No we don't want 3 minute delays.
Yes we want the right decision. Just go use the tools.
It's pure common sense that if you cannot tell without a slide rule you are really just guessing. If the tv companies can show for umpteen years an offside call instantly why can't var??? Make the call on field, set a tolerance for uncertainty, flash up var check if the decision is outside the limit.
My god it is so simple to fix rationally but there's almost a work to rule blatant obstructionist bloodymindedness going on. 3 minutes.... 3! To draw lines.
Oh I'll take as long as I like effort.
Sack the lot imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can’t work out if you’re trying to be ironic there or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
every decision at every tackle, ruck, mall and scrum is subjective.
how fast you you have to release.
how close to the line can you get to shoot up
is ball out or not.
is the guy on his feet pawing all over the ball or lying on the ruck.
it's all about understanding the ref and painting the right picture.
look at south Africa. there was no way on half the pens they got that they were able to keep the scrum up. they were second to the ground though and showing ref what he wanted to see. they cleaned up.
all sports are subjective.
The fact is that rugby is the closest thing to football as unlike the other sports the play is in random areas. tennis looks for clear issues along the lines and those can be set up on cameras predictably. cricket is the same.
the clear difference between rugby and football is that there are potentially far more video calls in rugby. 4/5 trys a game and any incident with a high tackle now.
in theory in a football game you should only do a var when a goal.is scored and on red cards.
the difference is you are not taking a conversion in football so the car is "not natural" so we feel it.
the reality is however people are just not reviewing together on a screen and getting it done using the tool.
offside is entirely.subjective if you want to mess about finding a body part to convert a marginal to suit the on field.
my point is accept the uncertain. use the simple.solution cricket created with ball tracking. half clipping stumps is umpires call.
Just create a line with two zones around it then if the player is within the zone stick with onfield.
“Every decision at every tackle, ruck, mall and scrum is subjective.”
Exactly and as I said VAR in rugby isn’t used for the vast majority of those.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 15 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 5 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The comparisons to rugby drive me mad, it works in that because it’s a contact sport that has far less subjectivity involved in it, and those decisions that are mainly aren’t subject to var (like scrums).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but you demonstrate a lack of understanding rugby here.
Of course rugby is subjective rulings and down to interpretation of each ref.
Yes the refs only use the 4th official for certain things but so does football.
People who say football flows or use the rules are subjective excuse. Well they are just falling for the agendas of the mouth pieces in the media.
The fact is there's serious resistance to the tools not adoption going on.
Yes refs should be liked, yes the entire ground should be aware of what's happening. No we don't want 3 minute delays.
Yes we want the right decision. Just go use the tools.
It's pure common sense that if you cannot tell without a slide rule you are really just guessing. If the tv companies can show for umpteen years an offside call instantly why can't var??? Make the call on field, set a tolerance for uncertainty, flash up var check if the decision is outside the limit.
My god it is so simple to fix rationally but there's almost a work to rule blatant obstructionist bloodymindedness going on. 3 minutes.... 3! To draw lines.
Oh I'll take as long as I like effort.
Sack the lot imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can’t work out if you’re trying to be ironic there or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He makes some valid points. The TV companies are better than VAR by quite some distance. They are embarrassing VAR. In some instances there's enough time for me to call the ref from home and tell him the decision.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR...My take.
Page 1 of 1
posted on 9/11/19
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
posted on 9/11/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 6 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. OP is clueless!
posted on 9/11/19
I can't see the FA sticking with the current approach beyond this season. There was so much concern about slowing the game down that they took out one of the key factors that allow a ref to correct his own decisions. All too often, the people in the VAR room will be reluctant to overrule a ref. It has to be crystal clear for them to do it. It's much easier for a ref to correct himself once the evidence is put before him.
The successful implementation of VAR was always going to require everyone involved in the game to embrace the changes. The players and managers have no choice but to go with whatever's served up. The fans are begrudgingly being forced to put up with this current schidtty version of something that could be so much better. The refs are having to make do and have enough on their plates having to deal with the nonsensical rule changes that have been brought in alongside VAR. The media are the best off out of the lot - at makes for ready-made clickbait and they're having an absolute field day stoking the fire.
So who's left that isn't holding up their part of the deal?
Ah yes, the fecking authorities who were forced by public pressure to introduce technology despite their perennial fear of losing their sinister control of the game.
Miking the ref and the VAR room up would be absolutely ideal, but it would expose the game's governing bodies to way, waaaay more transparency than they have ever had to deal with, which is obviously something they're still extremely, extremely uncomfortable with.
posted on 9/11/19
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
--
Cricket?!?? The whole thing is nothing happening for 452 years per test. Var would make no impact upon cricket. Christ the only thing that. Lasts longer than cricket matches are ice ages
posted on 9/11/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The comparisons to rugby drive me mad, it works in that because it’s a contact sport that has far less subjectivity involved in it, and those decisions that are mainly aren’t subject to var (like scrums).
posted on 9/11/19
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baz ta’rd (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
--
Cricket?!?? The whole thing is nothing happening for 452 years per test. Var would make no impact upon cricket. Christ the only thing that. Lasts longer than cricket matches are ice ages
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peasant!
posted on 9/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The comparisons to rugby drive me mad, it works in that because it’s a contact sport that has far less subjectivity involved in it, and those decisions that are mainly aren’t subject to var (like scrums).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but you demonstrate a lack of understanding rugby here.
Of course rugby is subjective rulings and down to interpretation of each ref.
Yes the refs only use the 4th official for certain things but so does football.
People who say football flows or use the rules are subjective excuse. Well they are just falling for the agendas of the mouth pieces in the media.
The fact is there's serious resistance to the tools not adoption going on.
Yes refs should be liked, yes the entire ground should be aware of what's happening. No we don't want 3 minute delays.
Yes we want the right decision. Just go use the tools.
It's pure common sense that if you cannot tell without a slide rule you are really just guessing. If the tv companies can show for umpteen years an offside call instantly why can't var??? Make the call on field, set a tolerance for uncertainty, flash up var check if the decision is outside the limit.
My god it is so simple to fix rationally but there's almost a work to rule blatant obstructionist bloodymindedness going on. 3 minutes.... 3! To draw lines.
Oh I'll take as long as I like effort.
Sack the lot imo.
posted on 9/11/19
This argument of the game was great for centuries before VAR is stupid.
Football must move with the times. You want it to stay the same as it was when only white males could vote?
I mean, its been great for centuries but we introduced the offside rule and it was still great. Eliminating back pass improved the game.
The game was great for centuries so why introduce offside and back pass?
Truth is most football fans are deeply in love with the game and its been part of their lives for as long as they can remember. There is therefore a phobia of losing the game and change will be resisted.
VAR is therefore seen as a huge threat to their enjoyment of the game.
It will have to be rammed down their throats.
posted on 9/11/19
It all went south the day some genius decided to put nets in the goals.
posted on 9/11/19
Having said that, they can do away with VAR. Either that or sack all the officials and start from scratch. I am pro VAR but they clearly can't use it effectively.
The current crop of refs either don't want to use VAR or are too stupid to use it. Either way the solution is to fack off either the refs or VAR.
Personally I'd sack the refs and keep VAR. Bring through a new group of officials who will be eager and happy to use VAR correctly.
posted on 9/11/19
Football does not have to move with the times, unless the clubs and fans want the change.
Altering the rules is not the same thing, and anyway was welcomed.
posted on 9/11/19
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
It all went south the day some genius decided to put nets in the goals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah the game had been fine for centuries before that too.
Granted some of the time the ref was unable to tell on which side of the post the ball passed and mistakes were made but tough luck. Having three points or a trophy taken away from you because a slightly overweight guy's view was obstructed for a split second is what the game is all about.
That's what the game is about, don't you know? It will even out over the season anyway. We can't risk ruining the game by putting nets in the goals.
posted on 9/11/19
I pine for the days the winners were awarded the honour of having their throats slit on an altar.
posted on 9/11/19
All the refs should be suspended and given the option to undergo extensive VAR training or quit officiating and start flipping burgers instead.
As they undergo training we can have celebrity refs in the meantime who will be followed by cameras and every game can have a fly in the wall documentary.
Le Bron, Beckham, Michael Jordan, Simon Pegg, Ali G etc This will allow the regular armchair fan to see what the ref sees and would be great for marketing.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 5 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The comparisons to rugby drive me mad, it works in that because it’s a contact sport that has far less subjectivity involved in it, and those decisions that are mainly aren’t subject to var (like scrums).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but you demonstrate a lack of understanding rugby here.
Of course rugby is subjective rulings and down to interpretation of each ref.
Yes the refs only use the 4th official for certain things but so does football.
People who say football flows or use the rules are subjective excuse. Well they are just falling for the agendas of the mouth pieces in the media.
The fact is there's serious resistance to the tools not adoption going on.
Yes refs should be liked, yes the entire ground should be aware of what's happening. No we don't want 3 minute delays.
Yes we want the right decision. Just go use the tools.
It's pure common sense that if you cannot tell without a slide rule you are really just guessing. If the tv companies can show for umpteen years an offside call instantly why can't var??? Make the call on field, set a tolerance for uncertainty, flash up var check if the decision is outside the limit.
My god it is so simple to fix rationally but there's almost a work to rule blatant obstructionist bloodymindedness going on. 3 minutes.... 3! To draw lines.
Oh I'll take as long as I like effort.
Sack the lot imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can’t work out if you’re trying to be ironic there or not?
posted on 10/11/19
Just in case you’re not though, I didn’t say rugby wasn’t, I said that there were far less. Var in rugby doesn’t have the equivalent of a contentious penalty decision in football. It’s interventions are far more clear cut.
Your example of an offside call is non subjective, so not really sure why it was brought up anyway in the context of what I said. I agree with your suggestion on how to deal with them though.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 11 hours, 41 minutes ago
All the refs should be suspended and given the option to undergo extensive VAR training or quit officiating and start flipping burgers instead.
As they undergo training we can have celebrity refs in the meantime who will be followed by cameras and every game can have a fly in the wall documentary.
Le Bron, Beckham, Michael Jordan, Simon Pegg, Ali G etc This will allow the regular armchair fan to see what the ref sees and would be great for marketing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or take less drastic measures. Keep the refs, change how VAR is implemented and have independent VAR's trained. In the meantime until they are at the required level, have retired referees in the studio.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 hours, 42 minutes ago
Just in case you’re not though, I didn’t say rugby wasn’t, I said that there were far less. Var in rugby doesn’t have the equivalent of a contentious penalty decision in football. It’s interventions are far more clear cut.
Your example of an offside call is non subjective, so not really sure why it was brought up anyway in the context of what I said. I agree with your suggestion on how to deal with them though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
offside is subjective when Martin Atkinson goes out of his way to make an on side off side by moving the line to back the lino.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 5 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The comparisons to rugby drive me mad, it works in that because it’s a contact sport that has far less subjectivity involved in it, and those decisions that are mainly aren’t subject to var (like scrums).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but you demonstrate a lack of understanding rugby here.
Of course rugby is subjective rulings and down to interpretation of each ref.
Yes the refs only use the 4th official for certain things but so does football.
People who say football flows or use the rules are subjective excuse. Well they are just falling for the agendas of the mouth pieces in the media.
The fact is there's serious resistance to the tools not adoption going on.
Yes refs should be liked, yes the entire ground should be aware of what's happening. No we don't want 3 minute delays.
Yes we want the right decision. Just go use the tools.
It's pure common sense that if you cannot tell without a slide rule you are really just guessing. If the tv companies can show for umpteen years an offside call instantly why can't var??? Make the call on field, set a tolerance for uncertainty, flash up var check if the decision is outside the limit.
My god it is so simple to fix rationally but there's almost a work to rule blatant obstructionist bloodymindedness going on. 3 minutes.... 3! To draw lines.
Oh I'll take as long as I like effort.
Sack the lot imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can’t work out if you’re trying to be ironic there or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
every decision at every tackle, ruck, mall and scrum is subjective.
how fast you you have to release.
how close to the line can you get to shoot up
is ball out or not.
is the guy on his feet pawing all over the ball or lying on the ruck.
it's all about understanding the ref and painting the right picture.
look at south Africa. there was no way on half the pens they got that they were able to keep the scrum up. they were second to the ground though and showing ref what he wanted to see. they cleaned up.
all sports are subjective.
The fact is that rugby is the closest thing to football as unlike the other sports the play is in random areas. tennis looks for clear issues along the lines and those can be set up on cameras predictably. cricket is the same.
the clear difference between rugby and football is that there are potentially far more video calls in rugby. 4/5 trys a game and any incident with a high tackle now.
in theory in a football game you should only do a var when a goal.is scored and on red cards.
the difference is you are not taking a conversion in football so the car is "not natural" so we feel it.
the reality is however people are just not reviewing together on a screen and getting it done using the tool.
offside is entirely.subjective if you want to mess about finding a body part to convert a marginal to suit the on field.
my point is accept the uncertain. use the simple.solution cricket created with ball tracking. half clipping stumps is umpires call.
Just create a line with two zones around it then if the player is within the zone stick with onfield.
posted on 10/11/19
“Every decision at every tackle, ruck, mall and scrum is subjective.”
Exactly and as I said VAR in rugby isn’t used for the vast majority of those.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 15 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 5 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
You tell us but your wrong. VAR is not brillant, football is, and was for a century or more before VAR.
Rugby is a different game, loads of natural stoppages. Like cricket where its also good.
The difference also is that the players in the main are honest , most seem not to be in football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The comparisons to rugby drive me mad, it works in that because it’s a contact sport that has far less subjectivity involved in it, and those decisions that are mainly aren’t subject to var (like scrums).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but you demonstrate a lack of understanding rugby here.
Of course rugby is subjective rulings and down to interpretation of each ref.
Yes the refs only use the 4th official for certain things but so does football.
People who say football flows or use the rules are subjective excuse. Well they are just falling for the agendas of the mouth pieces in the media.
The fact is there's serious resistance to the tools not adoption going on.
Yes refs should be liked, yes the entire ground should be aware of what's happening. No we don't want 3 minute delays.
Yes we want the right decision. Just go use the tools.
It's pure common sense that if you cannot tell without a slide rule you are really just guessing. If the tv companies can show for umpteen years an offside call instantly why can't var??? Make the call on field, set a tolerance for uncertainty, flash up var check if the decision is outside the limit.
My god it is so simple to fix rationally but there's almost a work to rule blatant obstructionist bloodymindedness going on. 3 minutes.... 3! To draw lines.
Oh I'll take as long as I like effort.
Sack the lot imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can’t work out if you’re trying to be ironic there or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He makes some valid points. The TV companies are better than VAR by quite some distance. They are embarrassing VAR. In some instances there's enough time for me to call the ref from home and tell him the decision.
Page 1 of 1