Jump to content
IGNORED

More VAR fun


AppyDAZE

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

I don't know, I think it does/will detract from the actual matchday experience if you're sat about waiting for officials to make a decision. The appeal of football is the ecstasy of celebration, and I'm very wary of VAR in that respect.

The actual result isn't all that matters, anyway. I want to enjoy the experience of watching football as well.

It's introduction is about stirring up conversation for pundits, so Sky can strap more people to the giant flaming TV bubble zeppelin.

I agree with your first two points but your third one.................:rofl2br:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I agree with your first two points but your third one.................:rofl2br:

I don`t know why you find this so amusing as @ZiderEyed  has absolutely hit the nail on the head here. The introduction of this bollocks is nothing whatsoever to do with the fans at the match and completely to do with the ever circling was it/wasn`t it debates in pubs and TV studios up and down the land. It is being introduced so that Sky`s highly paid pundits have something else to bang on about in an attempt to justify their existences and for countless plastic fans to have something to talk about at work on Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AppyDAZE said:

Earlier in the game I heard the commentator say "It'll be interesting if they score from this corner, as it may well not count"

Uh?   This is just plain silly

Yes......Where is the cut-off point?
First touch, second touch, when the ball finally leaves the 18 yard box?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

I don`t know why you find this so amusing as @ZiderEyed  has absolutely hit the nail on the head here. The introduction of this bollocks is nothing whatsoever to do with the fans at the match and completely to do with the ever circling was it/wasn`t it debates in pubs and TV studios up and down the land. It is being introduced so that Sky`s highly paid pundits have something else to bang on about in an attempt to justify their existences and for countless plastic fans to have something to talk about at work on Monday.

It's laughable to suggest that VAR is designed to fuel controversy for pundits.......ffs........

They have enough controversy already without  VAR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

It's laughable to suggest that VAR is designed to fuel controversy for pundits.......ffs........

They have enough controversy already without  VAR. 

Since you appear to be pretty much the only one in favour of this nonsense can you explain to the rest of us how waiting five minutes for the referee to decide whether or not a goal should be allowed would enhance the spectator experience at a live match because I`m at a loss to see how it would.

Football is not an exact science and that is a large part of what makes it what it is. Perhaps you will be happier watching the game as if it were on TV with the benefit of a hundred replays from every conceivable angle but I`m not and never will be.

I would rather ten decisions were incorrect than the game was stopped ten times to make sure they weren`t. I suspect the vast majority of fans who actually go to games would agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, You Do The Dziekanowski said:

They’ve just let an 8 year old on Paint. Look at that :rofl2br:

B962C9D0-7B06-4190-A2F2-22506C194CE8.jpeg

What they might have found useful is if there was a straight line, let's say about 18 yards from the goal for an example, that went the majority of the way across the pitch that they could have used as a guide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

Since you appear to be pretty much the only one in favour of this nonsense can you explain to the rest of us how waiting five minutes for the referee to decide whether or not a goal should be allowed would enhance the spectator experience at a live match because I`m at a loss to see how it would.

Football is not an exact science and that is a large part of what makes it what it is. Perhaps you will be happier watching the game as if it were on TV with the benefit of a hundred replays from every conceivable angle but I`m not and never will be.

I would rather ten decisions were incorrect than the game was stopped ten times to make sure they weren`t. I suspect the vast majority of fans who actually go to games would agree.

Won't someone spare a thought for the Dolman early leavers?

They'd have to leave on 75 to catch the 76 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

Since you appear to be pretty much the only one in favour of this nonsense can you explain to the rest of us how waiting five minutes for the referee to decide whether or not a goal should be allowed would enhance the spectator experience at a live match because I`m at a loss to see how it would.

VAR is in its infancy but like all new technologies will improve with use. Cricket and rugby had similar teething problems.

My personal view is that VAR is a result of so many wrong decisions effecting results that has led to increasing amounts of critical comments from pundits and of course managers who end up getting fined.

Last season City received 7 letters of apology from the Referee Association after their referees had made the wrong decision against City.

VAR will hopefully reduced the number of wrong decisions but currently is a work in progress.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JamesBCFC said:

What they might have found useful is if there was a straight line, let's say about 18 yards from the goal for an example, that went the majority of the way across the pitch that they could have used as a guide.

Didn't we have the 18yd line go right across the width of the pitch in the 70s when it was the offside line for an experimental season? Attackers only became offside when they were closer to the goal than 18yds, not the opponents' half as it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Robbored said:

VAR is in its infancy but like all new technologies will improve with use. Cricket and rugby had similar teething problems.

Both are stop/start sports with significant breaks in play all the time. Football is not.

What will happen is that officials will be so terrified of getting a decision wrong that they will review everything just to be sure. We`ll be lucky if the match is finished by 5:30.

My personal view is that VAR is a result of so many wrong decisions effecting results that has led to increasing amounts of critical comments from pundits and of course managers who end up getting fined.

So what? it has always been thus and who cares what pundits have to say? Managers need to learn to button it if they don`t want a fine and if they can`t it`s their own fault. You never hear them saying `I thought our second goal was offside` do you? All that will happen is that the likes of Warnock will start criticizing the referee`s interpretation of the pictures rather than his decision in the first place.

Last season City received 7 letters of apology from the Referee Association after their referees had made the wrong decision against City.

Again, so what? It`s part of the game.

VAR will hopefully reduced the number of wrong decisions but currently is a work in progress.

I would ask you again, how will your match day experience/enjoyment be enhanced by constant stop/start play with five minute delays in decisions being made?

As I said in a previous post, it`s technology for technology`s sake and it is not appropriate or necessary in football. It will destroy the game we love as a spectacle and reduce it to some sort of live version of Football Manager. I for one don`t want that to happen. You might, I don`t know.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make no mistake VAR will kill the game as we know it. Yes in rugby they tend to get to the correct decision (im sure welsh fans might possibly debate that at the moment)  but you can barley celebrate a try as it always has to get reviewed.

If that’s what you want from football then good luck to you but as I’ve already said, once this nonsense comes in full time that’s me done with my ST.

I want to be able to celebrate a goal there and then not wait for someone else to make a decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rob k said:

Make no mistake VAR will kill the game as we know it. Yes in rugby they tend to get to the correct decision (im sure welsh fans might possibly debate that at the moment)  but you can barley celebrate a try as it always has to get reviewed.

If that’s what you want from football then good luck to you but as I’ve already said, once this nonsense comes in full time that’s me done with my ST.

I want to be able to celebrate a goal there and then not wait for someone else to make a decision.

Nail on the head there my friend. The only ones who want this bollocks are the TV companies and armchair fans.

It will destroy the game for those of us that actually go,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Robbored said:

Your arguement is similar to the one used by some cricket lovers when DRS was introduced.

Now it's an integral part of cricket. Why? because the right decision is made.

Once VAR is working effectively and efficiently it'll be a useful addition to the game. 

Robbored - you defeat your own argument - we are talking about football and not cricket - different sport different impact.

And still no-one has said how a penalty affirmed by VAR came but from an incorrect throw in award 60 seconds early makes things right?  If the throw in was to the wrong team and then the penalty was missed - it evens out - if you allow the penalty when the team should never have had the throw in how is that making it right. Football is not about absolutes - it is football played fast and quick and some decisions will be wrong . If the game is so flawed how did it become the greatest sport in the world without VAR? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, You Do The Dziekanowski said:

They’ve just let an 8 year old on Paint. Look at that :rofl2br:

B962C9D0-7B06-4190-A2F2-22506C194CE8.jpeg

 

14 hours ago, JasonM88 said:

More concerned that the lines at a ******* 30 degree angle 

Wasn't there an earthquake yesterday at about that time???

That's obviously the reason!!!

:yes:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree with TV replays to make decisions in our major sports of football, cricket and rugby.

It allows refs and umpires to leave any major decisions to someone else. I've seen umpires asking for replays on run out decisions that were clearly visible to the crowd sat outside the boundary.

And seeing rugby refs taking three or four minutes to decide whether try or no try is ludicrous. If the ref has any doubt, it's no try. Or make it a rule to give benefit of doubt to attacking side. It will all even up over time.

While decisions influence events that follow such as a manager losing his job, we should remember that it is only sport and not heart surgery. It is not a matter of life and death whether a goal, try or lbw is given or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goal line technology - Yes. Quick, simple, play can carry on whilst ref checks watch etc. 

VAR - Too slow, gone to the extreme of checking everything, as said above will kill off atmosphere and make it more like cricket and tennis (slow sports with the breaks after each phase of play). 

 

Keep it as it is. Yes I get annoyed if we should’ve had a penalty given but I still think it’s a beautiful game and the inaccuracies add to that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Markman said:

If the game is so flawed how did it become the greatest sport in the world without VAR? 

Cricket lovers said exactly the same when DRS was introduced.

Obviously cricket is a much slower game than football but my point is that VAR will become an integral part of the game when it's proved to be effective and efficient. Judging from yesterday the powers that be are a long off from that but they will get it right eventually.

Despite me apparently supporting VAR I'm very much on the fence regarding it. To me there are several further developments  needed including more variety in when its used. Personally I reckon a review system similar to cricket where only the captain can ask for a review, say three per game could be used.

Not only is VAR new technology with teething problems but how/when its used needs reviewing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Cricket lovers said exactly the same when DRS was introduced.

Obviously cricket is a much slower game than football but my point is that VAR will become an integral part of the game when it's proved to be effective and efficient. Judging from yesterday the powers that be are a long off from that but they will get it right eventually.

Despite me apparently supporting VAR I'm very much on the fence regarding it. To me there are several further developments  needed including more variety in when its used. Personally I reckon a review system similar to cricket where only the captain can ask for a review, say three per game could be used.

Not only is VAR new technology with teething problems but how/when its used needs reviewing.

 

 

I used to love cricket MORE before DRS was introduced. It has lost a fair bit of its spontaneity since. I used to cheer wholeheartedly when the team I was supporting took a wicket, but now I am somewhat guarded knowing that it could be overturned once recordings of the bowler and batsman are subjected to rigorous technological analysis. So now, when a wicket falls, I give a muted cheer, followed a few mins later by a cheer if it is confirmed by DRS. The wholehearted, spontaneous cheers are a thing of the past...unless the opposition have used up all their reviews. The same could occur with VAR in football. Having stated this, I would say that I think in cricket it does work for run outs. Just as in football it works for whether the ball has crossed the line.

Also, I recall a game featuring FC Koln (Cologne) this season where it took the VAR people an absolute age to decide on the merits of a penalty appeal before handing in back to the female ref who then ran over to a monitor and studied that for another long period of time. It took about 7 minutes before a decision was made. This seven minutes was added on to the end of the match but no more on top of that! Thus, we are expected to believe that in that one game there would have been no injury time played whatsoever. Very few refs seem inclined, if there is a lengthy stoppage, to add the time lost to the time they would've added on if the stoppage hadn't occurred. 

I see from an earlier poster that Koln fell foul of VAR again yesterday. That's several times this season that has occurred where the original decision had been in their favour. Not once has it worked the other way around for them. Yet, in one game a few months ago, they had an appeal for a penalty that the ref just dismissed and refused to consult VAR.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

Also, I recall a game featuring FC Koln (Cologne) this season where it took the VAR people an absolute age to decide on the merits of a penalty appeal before handing in back to the female ref who then ran over to a monitor and studied that for another long period of time. It took about 7 minutes before a decision was made. This seven minutes was added on to the end of the match but no more on top of that! Thus, we are expected to believe that in that one game there would have been no injury time played whatsoever. Very few refs seem inclined, if there is a lengthy stoppage, to add the time lost to the time they would've added on if the stoppage hadn't occurred. 

I see from an earlier poster that Koln fell foul of VAR again yesterday. That's several times this season that has occurred where the original decision had been in their favour. Not once has it worked the other way around for them. Yet, in one game a few months ago, they had an appeal for a penalty that the ref just dismissed and refused to consult VAR.

The current difficulties with VAR is because it's a new technology. As I posted earlier when/if it becomes effective and (crucially) efficient then it'll be used in far slicker fashion but to get there more fine tuning needs to be done.

7 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The application of Hawkeye technology in tennis is restricted to a limited number of appeals by a player in each set. It is never instigated by the umpire.

It's application in cricket is similar however the umpires can and too frequently, do request reviews of anything from a fair catch to the award of a boundary.. This has had the effect of preventing umpires from making decisions in real time in case they are subsequently proved to have made a wrong call. How often does an umpire give a run out or a stumping without review? They have abdicated to technology their responsibility and skill in decision making. Personally, I prefer the sometimes flawed decision making of a Dickie Bird rather than the sterile approach taken by today's umpires whose skill is limited to drawing in the air an imaginary rectangle.

I don't want VAR in football. It won't improve the spectacle just remove the controversy - and the game thrives on controversy. Leeds supporters wouldn't agree but I prefer my sport to contain the potential for controversy such as introduced by referee Ray Tinkler in their 1971 match vs WBA. I've remembered the match for well over 40 years because of his decision that day. Had VAR been around back then, I'd have no reason to recall it.

Goal line technology is a step forward for the sport. VAR is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...