2018 FIFA World Cup Thread
Comments
-
we'll see when it costs a team their place in the tournament at the knock out stages I couldn't be more certain it will happen1StevieG said:
It’s been used about 5 times over 6 games and most of those have been in 2 games and they get a couple of decisions the wrong in that it wasn’t used when it should have been. And they didn’t score from the one that shouldn’t have been given. Hardly a game changer eh? And it’s still got us talking about it afterwards too....Manicmania said:Shock horror VAR is a shambles.
In other news the sky is blue and water is wet.0 -
I mean it didn't technically cost Argentina anything. Without VAR being there, they still wouldn't have been given a penalty there.1
-
Wanna bet on it?Manicmania said:
we'll see when it costs a team their place in the tournament at the knock out stages I couldn't be more certain it will happen1StevieG said:
It’s been used about 5 times over 6 games and most of those have been in 2 games and they get a couple of decisions the wrong in that it wasn’t used when it should have been. And they didn’t score from the one that shouldn’t have been given. Hardly a game changer eh? And it’s still got us talking about it afterwards too....Manicmania said:Shock horror VAR is a shambles.
In other news the sky is blue and water is wet.
1 -
First penalty was a collision initiated by the Argentinan - no penalty -Second not given penalty was similar to the Italy penalty against us at Wembley recently - definitely significant contact to his foot! Not too hard to see both unless you are rushing things!Callumcafc said:
I'm confused? The first penalty was straight forward and no need for VAR to get involved. Maybe they had a quick glance but there was never any danger of changing the decision.MuttleyCAFC said:FIFA clearly thought they had found a way to make VAR faster, but I called both Argentian penalty and non penalty right watching on TV and the VAR missed both. I think the solution is give each team an appeal which they can only make for key decisions and they lose if they are wrong. Then do it properly when it is used!
Football has to try to find a way other than the obvious!
VAR got involved with the second non-penalty but obviously decided it wasn't enough to over turn. God knows why.
Both times it was handled quickly so not sure you can throw that particular criticism at it.0 -
The pen that was given wasn't a foul.Callumcafc said:
I'm confused? The first penalty was straight forward and no need for VAR to get involved. Maybe they had a quick glance but there was never any danger of changing the decision.MuttleyCAFC said:FIFA clearly thought they had found a way to make VAR faster, but I called both Argentian penalty and non penalty right watching on TV and the VAR missed both. I think the solution is give each team an appeal which they can only make for key decisions and they lose if they are wrong. Then do it properly when it is used!
Football has to try to find a way other than the obvious!
VAR got involved with the second non-penalty but obviously decided it wasn't enough to over turn. God knows why.
Both times it was handled quickly so not sure you can throw that particular criticism at it.2 -
Haha we'll agree to disagree on that. The first incident was 100% a penalty. Icelandic bloke wasn't looking where he was going and ran straight into the back of the attacker.0
-
We will - I think it was pretty clear the Argentinian was a bit sneaky there and initiated the contact. Don't blame the ref for missing it but VAR should have picked it up! I am a supporter of VAR, but it needs to be 100% accurate!0
-
I'd love to see where the attacker initiated the contact. His eyes were on the crossed ball the whole way, which he may have had a chance of heading into the net had he not been brought down.
0 -
The second one, I think was a penalty. The VAR will have watched the replay and told the referee that there was contact. From that point it's up to the referee on the pitch what he does with that info. Maybe he saw the contact with his own eyes and didn't think it was a penalty so decided against stopping the game to head over to the video review.0
-
Not a good angle there, didn't you watch the post game angle that showed it? All the panel agreed, including Mark Clattenburg when they saw it!0
- Sponsored links:
-
I think my main issue (other than being in a strop for bet related reasons) is that they set a precedent with the France penalty call, where there was infinitesimal contact made and the penalty awarded.
Whilst individual refs making decisions will always have inconsistencies, the use of VAR should eliminate those inconsistencies but in the very next game they have failed to follow their own standards set.
I can forgive ref inconsistencies to an extent but not VAR.2 -
Contact initiated by the Argentinian!?!? There won't be many more clear cut penalties at this World Cup. And useful to have VAR confirm the correctness of the decision.MuttleyCAFC said:
First penalty was a collision initiated by the Argentinan - no penalty -Second not given penalty was similar to the Italy penalty against us at Wembley recently - definitely significant contact to his foot! Not too hard to see both unless you are rushing things!Callumcafc said:
I'm confused? The first penalty was straight forward and no need for VAR to get involved. Maybe they had a quick glance but there was never any danger of changing the decision.MuttleyCAFC said:FIFA clearly thought they had found a way to make VAR faster, but I called both Argentian penalty and non penalty right watching on TV and the VAR missed both. I think the solution is give each team an appeal which they can only make for key decisions and they lose if they are wrong. Then do it properly when it is used!
Football has to try to find a way other than the obvious!
VAR got involved with the second non-penalty but obviously decided it wasn't enough to over turn. God knows why.
Both times it was handled quickly so not sure you can throw that particular criticism at it.1 -
The only reason that I can think that the referee in the France game went to the video replays was because he was given information by the VAR that he hadn't previously been aware of e.g. there was contact between the defender and the attacker. That's the kind of thing that, as a referee, would make you think 'oh I need to go over and double check this'.
If the VAR has said the exact same thing to the referee in the Argentina game but the referee already saw the contact then why would they be convinced to go to the video replay on that information alone?
I wouldn't be surprised if these referees watching replays are specifically trained not to inject bias into their reading of an incident so you could say "there was contact between defender and attacker" but you couldn't say "I think it's a penalty".
Have to remember that VAR is only there to advise and the final decisions are still with the referee on the pitch.0 -
The ref clearly didn't see the contact in the Argentina game though - he even indicated it may have been simulation, not that he did anything about that either. All VAR had to say was there was contact and the ref should have put two and two together and realised he missed something and needed to have a look at the replay.Callumcafc said:The only reason that I can think that the referee in the France game went to the video replays was because he was given information by the VAR that he hadn't previously been aware of e.g. there was contact between the defender and the attacker. That's the kind of thing that, as a referee, would make you think 'oh I need to go over and double check this'.
If the VAR has said the exact same thing to the referee in the Argentina game but the referee already saw the contact then why would they be convinced to go to the video replay on that information alone?
I wouldn't be surprised if these referees watching replays are specifically trained not to inject bias into their reading of an incident so you could say "there was contact between defender and attacker" but you couldn't say "I think it's a penalty".
Have to remember that VAR is only there to advise and the final decisions are still with the referee on the pitch.
The problem is we don't even know what VAR said to him at that moment as yet again, for the umpteenth time that this has been brought up there is no transparency in the system - all it takes is a mic on the ref and a feed to the VAR truck so we can hear the conversation. American football do it, rugby do it. Why can't football?1 -
Another good game this Peru Denmark. Good tournament so far.1
-
I like the look of Peru. Looks like they just want to go for it.3
-
This is your Sistine ChapelForeverAddickted said:
As Gary Neville said earlier though; Iceland equalised so quickly against us they didnt need to adjust their formationLaddick01 said:
That’s what we thought in 2016paulie8290 said:Iceland cant sit back now.
Just what Argentina needed a goal to force Iceland forward
That wont happen here1 -
I remember curbs was doing punditry for an under 21s game between Germany and france (If I remember correctly)CharltonMadrid said:My visionary comment last night about Diego Costa not fitting into the Spanish team was another howler.
He was asked for his prediction.
He said....having followed both sides I cant see anything other then a france win, although I think it might be narrow.
Germany won 6-0
0 -
Looks like Ronaldo will get his 4th straight Ballon d'Or. Crazy given his age. Has he actually passed up Messi on the GOAT list? You could make a case.0
- Sponsored links:
-
This is brill - love the bit when they all run back in so they don't miss the rest of the game as well.A-R-T-H-U-R said:3 -
You’ve got to love that Peru kit. Had the subbuteo team as a kid, one of my favourites.8
-
I'd be more impressed if he paid his way there and bought his own ticket.LouisMend said:0 -
here we go again....0
-
That is a penalty.0
-
Thought it was a penalty in real time.0
-
Very good decision imo0
-
Correct decision.0
-
VAR results in the right decision again.0
-
How the he’ll did the ref not give that in real time?0
