VAR | Page 2 | Vital Football

VAR

#21
You on about the Nations league match?
Don’t think it was on purpose, but to me it looked like the defender catches his leg slightly before the forward trips over his own feet. Penalty? Don’t know. It doesn’t have to be intentional does it.
Yes mate. Absolute joke it's supposed to be for obvious mistakes,if it takes that long it's not conclusive so you play on. It's still down to a human
 

The Fear

A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
#22
I like the idea of this, the refs get loads of stick, they can't keep up with everything, the money in the game is insane now. They need the help.
 

BodyButter

Vital Football Legend
#25
What do you think?

Wolves are raging that they had a goal disallowed. Not that I care about the doggies.

Sky Sports always make a big deal out of any decision the refs get wrong but human error is part of the game.

VAR just slows the game down looking for perfection.

If the players never made a mistake, every game would end 0-0.
 
#26
I think that VAR has overcompensated in terms of bad refereeing decisions and now has somewhat 'automated' the game with pretty much every decision being scrutinised - there was even a delay for a potential red card for McGinn and that is absurd.
We had the same situation with cricket a few years ago when Hawkeye first came in and it took a few revisions to get to where we are now with what is a very good system of decision reviews. I feel that the ability to review should be with the players and there should be a fixed number of reviews and a time limit on making the review - just like cricket. I feel that the review system in cricket actually adds to the excitement of the game and still gives the on field officials some control of the game.
 
#27
They reviewed a tackle by John McGinn for a possible red card, the ref never even thought it was a booking, that's the level of nit picking it's going to ie look for things that aren't even there.

Sorry didn't see your post above
 

tmg513

Vital Squad Member
#28
I didn't find it intrusive at Spurs but it was only used a couple of times apart from the goals.

The offside decision against Jesus in the Man City game was ridiculous though: VAR is meant to be for clear and obvious errors by officials and this case the decision rested upon judging where the player's arm ended which is subjective in itself.
 

VillaTomB38

Vital 1st Team Regular
#29
In tennis the players can make unlimited challenges but only 3 incorrect ones, if there’s a tie break they’re given an extra. It should be that the captain makes the call to challenge a decision/no decision by the ref, a limited number of challenges say 2 per half (One extra if there’s extra time) would make the players think twice at times and keep the game moving.

As for wolves yesterday the decision was correct according to the new law of the game but I don’t agree with that law. Yes it hit his arm but he had no idea about it, I think law needs some refining.
 
#30
In tennis the players can make unlimited challenges but only 3 incorrect ones, if there’s a tie break they’re given an extra. It should be that the captain makes the call to challenge a decision/no decision by the ref, a limited number of challenges say 2 per half (One extra if there’s extra time) would make the players think twice at times and keep the game moving.

As for wolves yesterday the decision was correct according to the new law of the game but I don’t agree with that law. Yes it hit his arm but he had no idea about it, I think law needs some refining.
This is another area that we can lay at the door of Sky and their supposed expert pundits who dissect every game to the nth degree and put the officials under excessive pressure.
In the days before Sky there were bad refereeing decisions but over a season they would e even themselves out.
 

DeanoVilla

One Bloody Number
#31
I like it.

It's not perfect. Don't think they ever expect it to be, but it will reduce the amount of wrong decisions which i think is a good thing.

The usage of it needs to be ironed out, but in terms of offsides and handballs that are black and white I'm not sure there can be any argument.

People need to remember it's in it's infancy and will get better in terms of how/when it's used and the speed in which decisions are reached.
 
#32
With offsides who actually stops the action is it a person or a computer?
What I'm getting at is the exact millisecond the ball starts to travel forwards how is it determined by eye or science ? if we are measuring to microns we can't be using human eyes
It's a stupid idea we'll still win some and still lose some so may as well leave it as it is.
Won't be long before we do away with players and have virtual games instead as BB said mistakes happen, the game is played by people.

The theory of it is good in practice it's another thing.

Then we move onto in Europe they use it differently to the Premier League, which suggests it's not very clear cut on how to use it.

It will be controversial, probably more than the ref's decisions, which is what SKY love, something to cause even more headline and money for them
 

"Merd"

Vital 1st Team Regular
#33
Didn't Sky analyse the first Spurs goal and decide it shouldn't have been allowed? There second goal, the player pinching the ball off Jack, came from behind and clearly made contact with Jack's leg prior to getting the ball.

Agree with Deano, it's in it's infancy and by the end of the season I think it will just be part of the game.
 

The Fear

A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
#34
I like it.

It's not perfect. Don't think they ever expect it to be, but it will reduce the amount of wrong decisions which i think is a good thing.

The usage of it needs to be ironed out, but in terms of offsides and handballs that are black and white I'm not sure there can be any argument.

People need to remember it's in it's infancy and will get better in terms of how/when it's used and the speed in which decisions are reached.
This.

Thought it worked well v Spurs. Without it, I've said for years, there is too much pressure on the refs. We get a million different angles and they get slated for getting things wrong. Now they have back up.
 
#36
On another matter , what I don't get is the opposition fans celebrating when a goal is disallowed. West Ham fans cheered when Man City's goal was chalked off , yet they were still 2-0 down at the time. Now I know most of them are a bit tapped , but it seemed a bit strange to me.
 
Last edited:

"Merd"

Vital 1st Team Regular
#37
On another matter , what I don't get is the oppoSition fans celebrating when a goal is disallowed. West Ham fans cheered when Man City's goal was chalked off , yet they were still 2-0 down at the time. Now I know most of them are a bit tapped , but it seemed a bit strange to me.
I lived down there and I can confirm your suspicion is totally accurate. :silly:
 

AMS78

Vital Squad Member
#38
What it will do is ensure our refs become even worse than they already are and won’t make any decisions and leave it to VAR.

Just look at the impact the decision review system has had on cricket. The umpires used to get the occasional decision wrong, but not many. Look at that last Ashes test match last week. The umpires got almost every decision wrong and seemed to be guessing, then leaving it to the review system to sort out.