Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Football is now a farce
Comments
-
Over my life time I've been to hundreds of games and seen thousands upon thousands of refereeing decisions where I had no idea why they'd made it. Not sure how this is any different.benjest1989 said:Heard from some fans at the game, they had no idea what was going on. think they need to re think the whole thing
I've always thought it should be like American football, the referee is miked up and says what the free kick/card is for. I think not only would it inform the fans, but it would clarify the referee's thought process if he has to vocalise the rational behind the decision. Too many times have I seen a centre half and big striker challenge for a high/long ball and a decision given seemingly at random because the referee feels there must have been a foul somewhere.0 -
Think in most over sports like cricket, rugby or tennis is used the big screen says TRY and the clock is stopped. Cant do that in football. Turns it into a pantorandy andy said:
Over my life time I've been to hundreds of games and seen thousands upon thousands of refereeing decisions where I had no idea why they'd made it. Not sure how this is any different.benjest1989 said:Heard from some fans at the game, they had no idea what was going on. think they need to re think the whole thing
I've always thought it should be like American football, the referee is miked up and says what the free kick/card is for. I think not only would it inform the fans, but it would clarify the referee's thought process if he has to vocalise the rational behind the decision. Too many times have I seen a centre half and big striker challenge for a high/long ball and a decision given seemingly at random because the referee feels there must have been a foul somewhere.2 -
I would have thought VAR presents an opportunity for older retired refs.2
-
I love that you took the suggestion seriouslyForeverAddickted said:
I guess the issue of that is if a team go 5-0 up with four goals potentially being chalked off... the other team will have long shut up shop and instead of trying to score themselves (which they should do @ 1-0) they'll be trying to stop it going 6-0stevexreeve said:Instead of stopping the game for every incident, they could review the whole game at the end and be able to adjust the result after a few hours when they are really sure!
1 -
Another prime of example of how shit VAR is in the Huddersfield vs Man Utd game...0
-
Ridiculous.... wobbly lines to decide an offside! Laughable. i'm for VAR but they are not doing themselves any favours with decisions like that....
Normally wouldn't be so pissed off but I got a tenner on Mata to score anytime... grrr0 -
If advantage should be given to the attacker, how can someone be offside because of their knee? How can Mata legislate for that in the heat of a game?1
-
Yeah the VAR presentation was laughable but the decision seems as much on the current offside rule, I always preferred the unofficial"daylight" between the attacker and defendercafcnick1992 said:If advantage should be given to the attacker, how can someone be offside because of their knee? How can Mata legislate for that in the heat of a game?
2 -
Any body part in an offside position that is able to play the ball, makes the player offside.
Stupid line but correct decision.4 -
Load of wank if you ask me.1
- Sponsored links:
-
-
These twats on Match of The Day are annoying me.
Moaning that the correct decision was made because it slowed the game down.
But the correct decision was made, surely thats the best thing for football,
That said that a delay took the players out of rhythm but is it any longer than a player getting treatment or a club taking ages to make a sub1 -
Ridiculous that the ref did not even call for the review. Slippery slope to let the game be remotely controlled.0
-
IT WAS NOT THE CORRECT DECISION!paulie8290 said:These twats on Match of The Day are annoying me.
Moaning that the correct decision was made because it slowed the game down.
But the correct decision was made, surely thats the best thing for football,
That said that a delay took the players out of rhythm but is it any longer than a player getting treatment or a club taking ages to make a sub
Matta was on-side.1 -
It was actually correct by the letter of the law.Riviera said:
IT WAS NOT THE CORRECT DECISION!paulie8290 said:These twats on Match of The Day are annoying me.
Moaning that the correct decision was made because it slowed the game down.
But the correct decision was made, surely thats the best thing for football,
That said that a delay took the players out of rhythm but is it any longer than a player getting treatment or a club taking ages to make a sub
Matta was on-side.
The law states if any part of the players body is offside then the player is offside0 -
Marginally offside so correct decision made somehow but the studio ref had to guess from angle given (really he should've sent it back and said the pictures were inconclusive).
Those lines were a shambles and it does nothing for building a positive case for rolling it out.
Frustrating as a supporter of VAR.0 -
No it wasn't! The letter of the law gives the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. That is FIFA Law. There is no way the evidence shown on MOTD can prove anything else.paulie8290 said:
It was actually correct by the letter of the law.Riviera said:
IT WAS NOT THE CORRECT DECISION!paulie8290 said:These twats on Match of The Day are annoying me.
Moaning that the correct decision was made because it slowed the game down.
But the correct decision was made, surely thats the best thing for football,
That said that a delay took the players out of rhythm but is it any longer than a player getting treatment or a club taking ages to make a sub
Matta was on-side.
The law states if any part of the players body is offside then the player is offside1 -
Didn't see the game but that's a horrendous line for a back 4. Alan Hansen would've done his nut if he was still on MOTD.hudson-son-son said:
0 -
They cant get it right in rugby, cricket and now football. This is just a VARce.0
-
Steve McClaren on the Mata incident:
"It was close. There are teething problems with VAR - but if it takes 20 minutes, that's how long it should take"
Fuck off Steve. As if anyone wants to sit waiting for even 2minutes, never mind 20.5 - Sponsored links:
-
They need a few years of doing VAR in cups before the prem and leagues get in.
Trial and error...eventually will get it right
0 -
My main issue at the moment is that nothing seems to be changing with VAR even as issues are identified- for example, from match number one of the trial people have been calling for better communication when an incident is reviewed - if it's a trial why haven't they addressed this by miking up the refs - how hard is that to do? Seems like what they are saying is its VAR in this exact form like it or lump it.
There's nothing trial and error about it at the moment just doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.3 -
Ultimately it will be the fans who decide whether they want this or not. Having four or five two/three minute stoppages in a game while they sort out offsides and fouls, etc is not what I would call entertainment. Especially as the fans in the stadium are not included in the process. They just sit there and wait for the outcome however long it takes.The product of football is in danger of destroying itself whilst striving to find perfection.
The exciting end to end element of the game will suffer and could even disappear as officials are too embroiled in trying to sort out whether there was an offside, handball, dive or foul at the opposite end and stopping the game while a team makes a quick counter attack.
Maybe I am missing something but if it's rolled out across the board then I will find something else to do with my free time.0 -
Why isn’t it being used for what it was intended?
“Clear and obvious error”0 -
They need something along the lines of 'Umpires Call' in cricket if it is to work in any way1
-
How about the Rochdale v Millwall game?
Played on a pitch that was fucking awful.
Tottenham complain, and the pitch gets relayed
Still let's make sure the lovely boys don't have their day ruined.1 -
But in cricket it is not used to eliminate clear and obvious errors, it is mostly used tactically on the most marginal calls against best batsmen or to break key partnershipsPelling1993 said:They need something along the lines of 'Umpires Call' in cricket if it is to work in any way
0 -
Apparently clear and obvious error is in relation to penalties etc. Where as offsides (much like goal line technology) is supposedly clear cut and either on or off, one or the other, nothing down to interpretation therefore it can always be reviewed not just "clear and obvious"WSS said:Why isn’t it being used for what it was intended?
“Clear and obvious error”
All according to Graham Poll on the tele box the other night0 -
They sent the wrong image to BT Sport but used the correct image to make the decision apparently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/43106899?__twitter_impression=true1 -
For what it's worth I believe that for VAR to work with offsides the law needs to be changed to "daylight" between the striker and defender.
If they change that then there must be a possibility cameras can be used in a similar way to goal line technology to ensure 100% accuracy0
