Any team that plays a high line against us at OT deserves to get beaten, end off.
It was a foul and Eriksen was well on. Stop making excuses.
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because refs are arrogant t*ssers and he was trying to find a reason to stick by his initial decision. The fact he overruled himself in the end means that it was clear in his head he was wrong and he had to swallow his pride.
Because, you know, it was a foul. Not even debatable
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because refs are arrogant t*ssers and he was trying to find a reason to stick by his initial decision. The fact he overruled himself in the end means that it was clear in his head he was wrong and he had to swallow his pride.
Because, you know, it was a foul. Not even debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
It’s a shame VAR let Arsenal concede 3 goals
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because refs are arrogant t*ssers and he was trying to find a reason to stick by his initial decision. The fact he overruled himself in the end means that it was clear in his head he was wrong and he had to swallow his pride.
Because, you know, it was a foul. Not even debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it took 8 replays it means its probably debatable
comment by The Logical One™ - destroying the souls of trolls 😏 (U20872)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because refs are arrogant t*ssers and he was trying to find a reason to stick by his initial decision. The fact he overruled himself in the end means that it was clear in his head he was wrong and he had to swallow his pride.
Because, you know, it was a foul. Not even debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it took 8 replays it means its probably debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wouldn't have overturned it if it was debatable. Did it take you 8 replays to see it was a foul? Be honest. Cry, cry, cry. You faced a decent team and you lost. It's what Arsenal do. Should be used to it by now
Aye arsenal did well with var today. Could've been two reds but they let you off.
3-1 was a good result for arsenal.
First rule of VAR
Dont give Arsenal anything
comment by Franko Cantona 🏆 for ego only (U22187)
posted 51 minutes ago
Any team that plays a high line against us at OT deserves to get beaten, end off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So so true. Arteta thought he was back at City for a second. Total and utter lack of respect for us cost him a point or maybe even 3.
comment by Culèr: Back Soon (U9489)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
Yeah but you made out it was. Get over it you got battered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Got sh@t in your eyes mate
Are all arsenal fans conspiracy theorists?
comment by The Logical One™ - destroying the souls of trolls 😏 (U20872)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because refs are arrogant t*ssers and he was trying to find a reason to stick by his initial decision. The fact he overruled himself in the end means that it was clear in his head he was wrong and he had to swallow his pride.
Because, you know, it was a foul. Not even debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it took 8 replays it means its probably debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This fallacy of an argument needs to be put to bed. Someone wanting to see things back multiple times before making a firm decision does not equate to it being a controversial or debateable decision.
“ There's also no doubt that if Man Utd had scored that goal we all know it would have been allowed”
___________
Have you got proof of that!
Stop your fecking crying, you even said it was a foul!!
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 15 minutes ago
“ There's also no doubt that if Man Utd had scored that goal we all know it would have been allowed”
___________
Have you got proof of that!
Stop your fecking crying, you even said it was a foul!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure I said if you look at it slow motion... then yes like many challenges it probably will be deemed a foul. It is a contact sport, just because you get nudged and fall over doesn't mean its always a foul, which is why Saka didn't get a penalty when he got pushed.
comment by The Logical One™ - destroying the souls of trolls 😏 (U20872)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 15 minutes ago
“ There's also no doubt that if Man Utd had scored that goal we all know it would have been allowed”
___________
Have you got proof of that!
Stop your fecking crying, you even said it was a foul!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure I said if you look at it slow motion... then yes like many challenges it probably will be deemed a foul. It is a contact sport, just because you get nudged and fall over doesn't mean its always a foul, which is why Saka didn't get a penalty when he got pushed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are suggesting that VAR only watch things at full game speed?
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by The Logical One™ - destroying the souls of trolls 😏 (U20872)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 15 minutes ago
“ There's also no doubt that if Man Utd had scored that goal we all know it would have been allowed”
___________
Have you got proof of that!
Stop your fecking crying, you even said it was a foul!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure I said if you look at it slow motion... then yes like many challenges it probably will be deemed a foul. It is a contact sport, just because you get nudged and fall over doesn't mean its always a foul, which is why Saka didn't get a penalty when he got pushed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are suggesting that VAR only watch things at full game speed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What speed do you think the ref is watching replays at over at the VAR screen? Pretty obvious it's slow motion only
VAR was introduced to hopefully assist referees and reduce the number of "bad" decisions made by game officials (human beings). Upon inception it appeared to be functioning reasonably well in an "advisory" role. Now it is in danger of becoming a bigger problem than the problem it was meant to correct. VAR is actually slowly becoming a problem in that it is trying to be too precise when applied to offside decisions, in some cases it is becoming too long to resolve a decision and, it now perhaps seems to see its role as "controlling" game officials, not "assisting" them. FA Officials need to get ahead of this matter and perhaps re-think VAR's scope and imperfect implementation.
Same old thing here, if your team wins the ball unfairly and you score and have it disallowed then VAR is ruining the game. If you lose the ball unfairly, concede and it's disallowed then VAR is helping the right decision to be made. Your feelings towards VAR change from game to game whether you benefit from it or not.
There's a lot of mental contortion going into the 'it should have stood even though it was a foul' position though.
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Same old thing here, if your team wins the ball unfairly and you score and have it disallowed then VAR is ruining the game. If you lose the ball unfairly, concede and it's disallowed then VAR is helping the right decision to be made. Your feelings towards VAR change from game to game whether you benefit from it or not.
There's a lot of mental contortion going into the 'it should have stood even though it was a foul' position though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even on MOTD 2 last night, there was some strange logic. They all agreed that it was a foul and one of them (I think Ian Wright) said the ref should have spotted it in real time. But then they started questioning whether it was clear and obvious.
Well, if you all agree it's a foul and you think the ref should have spotted it, does that not mean it's clear and obvious?!
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Same old thing here, if your team wins the ball unfairly and you score and have it disallowed then VAR is ruining the game. If you lose the ball unfairly, concede and it's disallowed then VAR is helping the right decision to be made. Your feelings towards VAR change from game to game whether you benefit from it or not.
There's a lot of mental contortion going into the 'it should have stood even though it was a foul' position though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even on MOTD 2 last night, there was some strange logic. They all agreed that it was a foul and one of them (I think Ian Wright) said the ref should have spotted it in real time. But then they started questioning whether it was clear and obvious.
Well, if you all agree it's a foul and you think the ref should have spotted it, does that not mean it's clear and obvious?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd think so. Once they refer it to the referee to review it's either an error or it isn't, he can't go "I clearly missed that in real time, but I'll let it go because I missed it in real time".
Doesn't explain the West Ham and Newcastle goals being disallowed though.
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Same old thing here, if your team wins the ball unfairly and you score and have it disallowed then VAR is ruining the game. If you lose the ball unfairly, concede and it's disallowed then VAR is helping the right decision to be made. Your feelings towards VAR change from game to game whether you benefit from it or not.
There's a lot of mental contortion going into the 'it should have stood even though it was a foul' position though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even on MOTD 2 last night, there was some strange logic. They all agreed that it was a foul and one of them (I think Ian Wright) said the ref should have spotted it in real time. But then they started questioning whether it was clear and obvious.
Well, if you all agree it's a foul and you think the ref should have spotted it, does that not mean it's clear and obvious?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly! Wright totally agreed with the decision and said the ref should of spotted it.
VAR will eventually ruin football if it's scope and timing are not re-examined. Every team will eventually get burned by the current process. It is already slowing the game down with its ridiculous handling on many off-side calls. It is opening itself up to ridicule as witnessed by the biased back and forth it generates. Was it not intended to eliminate the opinion that referees were sometimes biased? Now that claim is being transferred to VAR officials. Who are these people who decide "clear and obvious"? If VAR is so precise, why does it often take so long to get a decision? Let the game officials do their jobs, that is why they are called "game" officials!
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR
Page 2 of 2
posted on 4/9/22
Any team that plays a high line against us at OT deserves to get beaten, end off.
posted on 4/9/22
It was a foul and Eriksen was well on. Stop making excuses.
posted on 4/9/22
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
posted on 4/9/22
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
posted on 4/9/22
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because refs are arrogant t*ssers and he was trying to find a reason to stick by his initial decision. The fact he overruled himself in the end means that it was clear in his head he was wrong and he had to swallow his pride.
Because, you know, it was a foul. Not even debatable
posted on 4/9/22
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because refs are arrogant t*ssers and he was trying to find a reason to stick by his initial decision. The fact he overruled himself in the end means that it was clear in his head he was wrong and he had to swallow his pride.
Because, you know, it was a foul. Not even debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
posted on 4/9/22
It’s a shame VAR let Arsenal concede 3 goals
posted on 4/9/22
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because refs are arrogant t*ssers and he was trying to find a reason to stick by his initial decision. The fact he overruled himself in the end means that it was clear in his head he was wrong and he had to swallow his pride.
Because, you know, it was a foul. Not even debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it took 8 replays it means its probably debatable
posted on 4/9/22
comment by The Logical One™ - destroying the souls of trolls 😏 (U20872)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because refs are arrogant t*ssers and he was trying to find a reason to stick by his initial decision. The fact he overruled himself in the end means that it was clear in his head he was wrong and he had to swallow his pride.
Because, you know, it was a foul. Not even debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it took 8 replays it means its probably debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wouldn't have overturned it if it was debatable. Did it take you 8 replays to see it was a foul? Be honest. Cry, cry, cry. You faced a decent team and you lost. It's what Arsenal do. Should be used to it by now
posted on 4/9/22
Aye arsenal did well with var today. Could've been two reds but they let you off.
3-1 was a good result for arsenal.
posted on 4/9/22
First rule of VAR
Dont give Arsenal anything
posted on 4/9/22
comment by Franko Cantona 🏆 for ego only (U22187)
posted 51 minutes ago
Any team that plays a high line against us at OT deserves to get beaten, end off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So so true. Arteta thought he was back at City for a second. Total and utter lack of respect for us cost him a point or maybe even 3.
posted on 4/9/22
comment by Culèr: Back Soon (U9489)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
Yeah but you made out it was. Get over it you got battered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Got sh@t in your eyes mate
posted on 4/9/22
Are all arsenal fans conspiracy theorists?
posted on 4/9/22
comment by The Logical One™ - destroying the souls of trolls 😏 (U20872)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 13 minutes ago
For our first goal, yes it was probably a foul (a soft one)
----
That's enough, love on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's quite bizarre that so much is being made of a decision that almost universally has been acknowledged was given for what was a foul. As for clear and obvious, it was clear from the very first replay that it was a foul. That's clear and obvious in my book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did take nearly 8 replays to give the decision if it was that clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because refs are arrogant t*ssers and he was trying to find a reason to stick by his initial decision. The fact he overruled himself in the end means that it was clear in his head he was wrong and he had to swallow his pride.
Because, you know, it was a foul. Not even debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it took 8 replays it means its probably debatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This fallacy of an argument needs to be put to bed. Someone wanting to see things back multiple times before making a firm decision does not equate to it being a controversial or debateable decision.
posted on 4/9/22
“ There's also no doubt that if Man Utd had scored that goal we all know it would have been allowed”
___________
Have you got proof of that!
Stop your fecking crying, you even said it was a foul!!
posted on 4/9/22
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 15 minutes ago
“ There's also no doubt that if Man Utd had scored that goal we all know it would have been allowed”
___________
Have you got proof of that!
Stop your fecking crying, you even said it was a foul!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure I said if you look at it slow motion... then yes like many challenges it probably will be deemed a foul. It is a contact sport, just because you get nudged and fall over doesn't mean its always a foul, which is why Saka didn't get a penalty when he got pushed.
posted on 4/9/22
comment by The Logical One™ - destroying the souls of trolls 😏 (U20872)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 15 minutes ago
“ There's also no doubt that if Man Utd had scored that goal we all know it would have been allowed”
___________
Have you got proof of that!
Stop your fecking crying, you even said it was a foul!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure I said if you look at it slow motion... then yes like many challenges it probably will be deemed a foul. It is a contact sport, just because you get nudged and fall over doesn't mean its always a foul, which is why Saka didn't get a penalty when he got pushed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are suggesting that VAR only watch things at full game speed?
posted on 4/9/22
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by The Logical One™ - destroying the souls of trolls 😏 (U20872)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 15 minutes ago
“ There's also no doubt that if Man Utd had scored that goal we all know it would have been allowed”
___________
Have you got proof of that!
Stop your fecking crying, you even said it was a foul!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure I said if you look at it slow motion... then yes like many challenges it probably will be deemed a foul. It is a contact sport, just because you get nudged and fall over doesn't mean its always a foul, which is why Saka didn't get a penalty when he got pushed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are suggesting that VAR only watch things at full game speed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What speed do you think the ref is watching replays at over at the VAR screen? Pretty obvious it's slow motion only
posted on 5/9/22
VAR was introduced to hopefully assist referees and reduce the number of "bad" decisions made by game officials (human beings). Upon inception it appeared to be functioning reasonably well in an "advisory" role. Now it is in danger of becoming a bigger problem than the problem it was meant to correct. VAR is actually slowly becoming a problem in that it is trying to be too precise when applied to offside decisions, in some cases it is becoming too long to resolve a decision and, it now perhaps seems to see its role as "controlling" game officials, not "assisting" them. FA Officials need to get ahead of this matter and perhaps re-think VAR's scope and imperfect implementation.
posted on 5/9/22
Same old thing here, if your team wins the ball unfairly and you score and have it disallowed then VAR is ruining the game. If you lose the ball unfairly, concede and it's disallowed then VAR is helping the right decision to be made. Your feelings towards VAR change from game to game whether you benefit from it or not.
There's a lot of mental contortion going into the 'it should have stood even though it was a foul' position though.
posted on 5/9/22
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Same old thing here, if your team wins the ball unfairly and you score and have it disallowed then VAR is ruining the game. If you lose the ball unfairly, concede and it's disallowed then VAR is helping the right decision to be made. Your feelings towards VAR change from game to game whether you benefit from it or not.
There's a lot of mental contortion going into the 'it should have stood even though it was a foul' position though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even on MOTD 2 last night, there was some strange logic. They all agreed that it was a foul and one of them (I think Ian Wright) said the ref should have spotted it in real time. But then they started questioning whether it was clear and obvious.
Well, if you all agree it's a foul and you think the ref should have spotted it, does that not mean it's clear and obvious?!
posted on 5/9/22
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Same old thing here, if your team wins the ball unfairly and you score and have it disallowed then VAR is ruining the game. If you lose the ball unfairly, concede and it's disallowed then VAR is helping the right decision to be made. Your feelings towards VAR change from game to game whether you benefit from it or not.
There's a lot of mental contortion going into the 'it should have stood even though it was a foul' position though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even on MOTD 2 last night, there was some strange logic. They all agreed that it was a foul and one of them (I think Ian Wright) said the ref should have spotted it in real time. But then they started questioning whether it was clear and obvious.
Well, if you all agree it's a foul and you think the ref should have spotted it, does that not mean it's clear and obvious?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd think so. Once they refer it to the referee to review it's either an error or it isn't, he can't go "I clearly missed that in real time, but I'll let it go because I missed it in real time".
Doesn't explain the West Ham and Newcastle goals being disallowed though.
posted on 5/9/22
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Same old thing here, if your team wins the ball unfairly and you score and have it disallowed then VAR is ruining the game. If you lose the ball unfairly, concede and it's disallowed then VAR is helping the right decision to be made. Your feelings towards VAR change from game to game whether you benefit from it or not.
There's a lot of mental contortion going into the 'it should have stood even though it was a foul' position though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even on MOTD 2 last night, there was some strange logic. They all agreed that it was a foul and one of them (I think Ian Wright) said the ref should have spotted it in real time. But then they started questioning whether it was clear and obvious.
Well, if you all agree it's a foul and you think the ref should have spotted it, does that not mean it's clear and obvious?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly! Wright totally agreed with the decision and said the ref should of spotted it.
posted on 5/9/22
VAR will eventually ruin football if it's scope and timing are not re-examined. Every team will eventually get burned by the current process. It is already slowing the game down with its ridiculous handling on many off-side calls. It is opening itself up to ridicule as witnessed by the biased back and forth it generates. Was it not intended to eliminate the opinion that referees were sometimes biased? Now that claim is being transferred to VAR officials. Who are these people who decide "clear and obvious"? If VAR is so precise, why does it often take so long to get a decision? Let the game officials do their jobs, that is why they are called "game" officials!
Page 2 of 2