In the Women's WC, the two Italian striker got caught offside more times than Darren Bent.(yes that many) The Italian striker could've had a Hat-trick but the TV Picture made it look level but the screens the 5 officials looked at is a tad different.
VAR is good overall but.does take too long. I thought we may have to turn around from Wembley way, hand back the trophy and play the 30 minutes ET after VAR ruled that Pearce had fouled.
The human element is the weakness in VAR at the moment.
Not sure about the penalty decision in the England Scotland game today. No one appealed and it looked very harsh, but awarded via VAR. Going right off this - strikes me that football with no refereeing errors and VAR is not the same game.
The rules of the game are meant to be interpreted by the officials seeing incidents in real time and making snap decisions for good or ill. I have no doubt that had VAR been in place for the Play off final, our second goal would have been disallowed. However, seen in real time, while Pearce may have touched the defender, it had no material impact on the actual action - the defender was never going to get to the cross. It was rightly given as a goal - but VAR is not going to give those sorts of goals in future as Pearce did touch the defender. The VAR officials seem to feel duty bound to change the decision.
You just don't get it do you? It kills the emotion out of the game. Thats far more important than trying to reach the correct decision at all times
You’d be relieved if it was scored against England though wouldn’t you??
There’s always going to be times when your team is hard done by because of a refereeing decision.
But I’d rather experience that low and not have those seconds of pure unadulterated joy after a goal goes in taken from me by a VAR review.
Those seconds of joy are not taken away though are they. You still get to go mental if a goal has been confirmed after he review.
No. I wouldn't. The joy is in the moment, that moment is when the goal is scored (or was). Even if you are wired differently to me, surely you must see the fundamental difference between that, and an anticipatory hush falling over the stadium every time a goal is scored, waiting for two minutes, and then being told it is now time to celebrate?
Lingard was offside and the correct decision was reached in an important competitive fixture. Sorry, you’ll get used to it eventually like the top leagues in the rest of Europe have over the past two years.
Was it an important fixture? I didn’t really care, the Nations League is a far bigger joke than VAR.
Relax everyone, cafcfan1990 say's it's a joke, so we should all just chill.
Thank goodness he's put us right.
Weird post, you should have had an extra hour in bed...
You throw in a completely random and irrelevant statement in a thread about VAR, and I'm the weird one?
You just don't get it do you? It kills the emotion out of the game. Thats far more important than trying to reach the correct decision at all times
You’d be relieved if it was scored against England though wouldn’t you??
There’s always going to be times when your team is hard done by because of a refereeing decision.
But I’d rather experience that low and not have those seconds of pure unadulterated joy after a goal goes in taken from me by a VAR review.
Those seconds of joy are not taken away though are they. You still get to go mental if a goal has been confirmed after he review.
I disagree. The sheer jubilation when the ball hits the back of the net isn't the same as waiting for the outcome of a review to be made on a big screen and then celebrating.
That handball decision in the Eng v Sco game yesterday was just plain wrong. If that's FIFA's idea of illegal use of the hand/arm, then pro footballers will be running around with their arms behind their backs, while opponents chip the ball up at them from point blank range. Ruinous for the game but that's absolutely par for the course for that hysterically corrupt shitshow. The complete absence of appeals from England players tells everybody everything we need to know. They didn't all miss it the way the on field officials did, they just knew as players there was nothing untoward. Even then the referee has to go to the screen to check what it is she might have missed, that she then gives a penalty either means she's incompetent, or corrupt, probably the latter, corrupted by the risible crock of shit meddling by FIFA's trough guzzlers. Scotland shouldn't feel too hard done by though. It was a case of when not if England scored, Alexander was a one woman wall against the deluge of chances, she was player of the match by several miles.
The new laws seem reasonable when players are standing still facing the ball and trying to block a cross or shot.
But if a player is running and the ball hits his him from the side, his arm may easily be outside the "silhouette" but still between the ball and body. It's tricky to run without moving your arms!
I guess time will tell whether forwards prefer to try for a penalty by aiming at the arms to crossing the ball in the traditional way.
The penalty for the England women's team was just wrong and the ruling out of the men's team goal was just petty.
What I expected of VAR was a tool for the referee to use, not some tools somewhere remotely interfering.
I think that each manager should be given three challenges for the match. If you challenge, are proved right, then the decision gets reversed, and you keep your challenge. If you challenge and VAR decide that the original decision was correct then you lose a challenge.
This way each team is only allowed to make three incorrect challenges per match.
In my opinion, no-one would have challenged for the goals I mention above, unless of course Switzerland still had a challenge left at the end of the match in which case they would have had nothing to lose by trying. They would however have had to explain why they were challenging. They may have claimed (in hope) that it were offside, in which case the goal would have stood (even if the VAR referees noticed when replying the action that there was a little pull they would have to ignore it as the challenge was for offside).
I think FIFA have not introduced VAR in the right way. Every team should have one challenge for material result affecting decisions, which they lose if they are proven wrong. To stop them using for the sake of it at the end of the game, two consecutive wrong challenges should mean they lose a challenge for their next game.
You can't really stop decisions that are contentious, VAR or no VAR, but this system would help to eradicate massive injustices which surely is all you really need to do.
I’m not sure about a set number of challenges. I can’t see how this wouldn’t result in long delays of the kind people are already complaining about.
VAR should be triggered by one of the officials needing to confirm or clarify an incident. VAR deciding that a penalty should be awarded when none of the players or the officials on the pitch seemed to think it was a pen is just nonsense.
Would give a huge advantage to any team with immediate access to video replays. Very difficult to stop a message getting through to the captain to challenge for offside when someone deep in the stands has already watched it from different angles and knows the challenge will succeed. Even the crowd know when there is a mistake. You can't stop them taking their phones into the ground.
Yes - I was thinking particularly about the situation where a team of hidden "watchers" are looking for fouls in the penalty area missed by the ref. They could then signal the captain to make an appeal while play is continuing or at the next break.
This would give the home team an advantage if they install their own private camera system.
Don't think this is realistic in cricket and tennis. But it would be in football.
The suggestion of a time limit seems the best idea to me - the VAR officials have 20 secs to watch replays - if that's not enough to spot a "clear and obvious mistake", then stick with the on-field decision.
Or just scrap it altogether as a failed experiment - which would be my preference.
The suggestion of a time limit seems the best idea to me - the VAR officials have 20 secs to watch replays - if that's not enough to spot a "clear and obvious mistake", then stick with the on-field decision.
Or just scrap it altogether as a failed experiment - which would be my preference.
The idea is good, the way it's being used / implemented is not
The suggestion of a time limit seems the best idea to me - the VAR officials have 20 secs to watch replays - if that's not enough to spot a "clear and obvious mistake", then stick with the on-field decision.
Or just scrap it altogether as a failed experiment - which would be my preference.
The idea is good, the way it's being used / implemented is not
The last World Cup nearly changed my mind as on the whole it worked well then - I am assuming that the officials were very well trained. It also had the side benefit of cutting out a lot of shirt-pulling and play-acting. However, more recent use is confirming my fears that it is just as much of a lottery as the ref's on-field decisions. In the end, a lot of football is a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. VAR just brings more cooks into the mix to spoil the broth and genuinely does take away that moment of goal-scoring elation.
Comments
The Italian striker could've had a Hat-trick but the TV Picture made it look level but the screens the 5 officials looked at is a tad different.
VAR is good overall but.does take too long.
I thought we may have to turn around from Wembley way, hand back the trophy and play the 30 minutes ET after VAR ruled that Pearce had fouled.
The human element is the weakness in VAR at the moment.
But I’d rather experience that low and not have those seconds of pure unadulterated joy after a goal goes in taken from me by a VAR review.
Announce the official result the next day when everyone has had time to thoroughly check each decision the ref made.
Well said but even on review they get it wrong.
The complete absence of appeals from England players tells everybody everything we need to know. They didn't all miss it the way the on field officials did, they just knew as players there was nothing untoward. Even then the referee has to go to the screen to check what it is she might have missed, that she then gives a penalty either means she's incompetent, or corrupt, probably the latter, corrupted by the risible crock of shit meddling by FIFA's trough guzzlers.
Scotland shouldn't feel too hard done by though. It was a case of when not if England scored, Alexander was a one woman wall against the deluge of chances, she was player of the match by several miles.
But if a player is running and the ball hits his him from the side, his arm may easily be outside the "silhouette" but still between the ball and body. It's tricky to run without moving your arms!
I guess time will tell whether forwards prefer to try for a penalty by aiming at the arms to crossing the ball in the traditional way.
Is it an offence to try to hit a defender's arm?
The penalty for the England women's team was just wrong and the ruling out of the men's team goal was just petty.
What I expected of VAR was a tool for the referee to use, not some tools somewhere remotely interfering.
I think that each manager should be given three challenges for the match. If you challenge, are proved right, then the decision gets reversed, and you keep your challenge. If you challenge and VAR decide that the original decision was correct then you lose a challenge.
This way each team is only allowed to make three incorrect challenges per match.
In my opinion, no-one would have challenged for the goals I mention above, unless of course Switzerland still had a challenge left at the end of the match in which case they would have had nothing to lose by trying. They would however have had to explain why they were challenging. They may have claimed (in hope) that it were offside, in which case the goal would have stood (even if the VAR referees noticed when replying the action that there was a little pull they would have to ignore it as the challenge was for offside).
You can't really stop decisions that are contentious, VAR or no VAR, but this system would help to eradicate massive injustices which surely is all you really need to do.
VAR should be triggered by one of the officials needing to confirm or clarify an incident. VAR deciding that a penalty should be awarded when none of the players or the officials on the pitch seemed to think it was a pen is just nonsense.
This would give the home team an advantage if they install their own private camera system.
Don't think this is realistic in cricket and tennis. But it would be in football.
Or just scrap it altogether as a failed experiment - which would be my preference.
Football can be bloody stop / start at times