Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Recommended Posts

Can we have it retrospective please?

OK, so in 1966 England would have won 3-2, not 4-2.

On the other hand in 1986, after consulting VAR, Maradonna would have been sent off for "deliberate handball and trying to deceive a match official".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want the game refereed by geeks with TV cameras. I don't care if a ref and lino make wrong decisions even if only a couple of millimetres involved.

Players make mistakes and so do match officials. Live with the mistakes or the constant delays will make the game a farce of several hours.

Edited by cidered abroad
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

Just scrap it, kill it, eradicate it, exterminate it (and those responsible for it) 

It should be there but not to the extent they use it. Been saying for awhile they need to have a challenge system. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, miser said:

Whilst it should be consistent, the use of VAR in the women's world cup has been farcical. The approach outlined for the Premier league seems more like common sense, although time will tell.

Hope that ridiculous if the ball hits the hand, arm, even when you can see the player couldn't possibly get their hand out of the way rule doesn't come in or players will target the opposing players hand or arm rather that bothering to aim for the goal. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve tried to keep an open mind about VAR and up to a couple of months ago thought it was a good idea. However, so far I don’t really like what I have seen. 

The women’s World Cup has highlighted how VAR doesn’t always provide a satisfactory answer in some of those marginal decisions (e.g. White’s disallowed goals v the USA and Sweden). Maybe here, though, it’s the laws that are wrong. I assumed that with offside decisions the benefit of the doubt was with the attacking team. It seems ridiculous in such a fast moving game that an attacking player can be given offside because their toe is goal-side.

I also think the way goals are ruled out by VAR to be a bit cruel (and yes I can appreciate it’s also cruel when, without VAR, a team loses yo a goal that clearly shouldn’t have stood). In real time in a game it’s apparent pretty quickly if one of the officials spots an infringement, but with VAR the celebrations have often died down before anyone realises it’s being reviewed. The way that Man City v Tottenham semi-final ended, for example, left me feeling a bit uncomfortable - the way such jubilation turned to despair.

Looking back at our victory v Man Utd, would Smith’s winner have been ruled out by VAR because Reid looked slightly in advance of the last defender when the ball was played to him during the build up? If so would that have been the right decision? And what a horrible decision that would have been. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I jeep getting told “it works in rugby”, and I cal bullshit on that, when ever I watch, every try seems to go to the VAR equivalent and everyone waits around for 2 mins whilst they double check all the angles.  The ref in football has to make a split second decision, they get some wrong on occasion true, but most are right, football is a flawed game, that’s what makes it beautiful

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JoeAman08 said:

It should be there but not to the extent they use it. Been saying for awhile they need to have a challenge system. 

Spot on, works an absolute treat in tennis and cricket and actually adds an entertainment aspect to the game without slowing it down. 

Trying to make their own mark and do something different rather than copying already tried and tested systems in other sports has been VAR’s current downfall. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR IS farcical.

There are some decisions that get ignored by VAR just cos they happen outside the box yet were blatant fouls, and some slight touches that would've been ignored anyway cos the ref couldnt see it get referred to VAR.

Its a joke!

I thought VAR was supposed to be equal and see things the on pitch refs missed.... Then explain why nothing was given when a Cameroon player DELIBERATELY pushed that ref or when that ref refused to give England the penalty.... If England got a pen from a tap on the leg vs USA, how was a stamp on the feet by a Cameroonian player any different?

Also (I'm not complaining) but without VAR, that would have been 2-2 when Ellen Whites goal got disallowed due to VAR - Its the way football has been played for over 40yrs since the offside rule was brought in. Some goals may be offside but the linesman (woman in this case) didnt see that. Its swings and roundabouts, goals happened with a margin of offside which can happen to be very small. It in my opinion after this game has adapted to the fact there is an offside rule, has been entertaining, sometimes it in your favour sometimes it isnt. This makes footy exiting. VAR ruins this.

But on the other hand folks.... Im sure people said it was ruining the game when the offside rule was first brought in 40yrs ago, the game will adapt!! (BUT VAR REALLY NEEDS TO IMPROVE WHAT THEY LOOK FOR IN A FOUL AS SOME ARENT CHECKED YET SOME ARE, thats the problem.)

Edited by CrazyInWeston
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CrazyInWeston said:

VAR IS farcical.

There are some decisions that get ignored by VAR just cos they happen outside the box yet were blatant fouls, and some slight touches that would've been ignored anyway cos the ref couldnt see it get referred to VAR.

Its a joke!

I thought VAR was supposed to be equal and see things the on pitch refs missed.... Then explain why nothing was given when a Cameroon player DELIBERATELY pushed that ref or when that ref refused to give England the penalty.... If England got a pen from a tap on the leg vs USA, how was a stamp on the feet by a Cameroonian player any different?

Also (I'm not complaining) but without VAR, that would have been 2-2 when Ellen Whites goal got disallowed due to VAR - Its the way football has been played for over 40yrs since the offside rule was brought in. Some goals may be offside but the linesman (woman in this case) didnt see that. Its swings and roundabouts, goals happened with a margin of offside which can happen to be very small. It in my opinion after this game has adapted to the fact there is an offside rule, has been entertaining, sometimes it in your favour sometimes it isnt. This makes footy exiting. VAR ruins this.

But on the other hand folks.... Im sure people said it was ruining the game when the offside rule was first brought in 40yrs ago, the game will adapt!! (BUT VAR REALLY NEEDS TO IMPROVE WHAT THEY LOOK FOR IN A FOUL AS SOME ARENT CHECKED YET SOME ARE, thats the problem.)

I'm just waiting for VAR to be used at every corner and free kick into the box and the penalties that it will thereby identify for defenders holding and shirt pulling.

The again, I don't think I will hold my breath!

What I am anticipating is "good" goals being disallowed for a striker being 0.000000000001mm offside 5 minutes earlier in the build up.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

I do not want the game refereed by geeks with TV cameras. I don't care if a ref and lino make wrong decisions even if only a couple of millimetres involved.

Players make mistakes and so do match officials. Live with the mistakes or the constant delays will make the game a farce of several hours.

Until players refrain from cheating every 15 seconds then I feel its a necessary evil. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

 ref in football has to make a split second decision, they get some wrong on occasion true, but most are right, football is a flawed game, that’s what makes it beautiful

This -  100% agree.  It's ruining the game more than any other development has ever done.

We love football as it is........so please stop effing about with it.

Sky are to blame. in the past mistakes were made, the game carried on, if someone thought someone was a fraction offside it might have been debated over a pint in the pub after for a few minutes and we moved on. Now any hint of a marginal decision on a tv game is seized upon by sky - endless replays and they stir up a was it/wasn't it row between 2 pundits to get some good telly. Sky have highlighted - because it showcases their tech - marginal errors and made the topic uppermost .....because it makes tv pictures central - essential now - to the game and the way it's referreed

A pox on them I say!

Edited by CodeRed
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CrazyInWeston said:

VAR IS farcical.

There are some decisions that get ignored by VAR just cos they happen outside the box yet were blatant fouls, and some slight touches that would've been ignored anyway cos the ref couldnt see it get referred to VAR.

Its a joke!

I thought VAR was supposed to be equal and see things the on pitch refs missed.... Then explain why nothing was given when a Cameroon player DELIBERATELY pushed that ref or when that ref refused to give England the penalty.... If England got a pen from a tap on the leg vs USA, how was a stamp on the feet by a Cameroonian player any different?

Also (I'm not complaining) but without VAR, that would have been 2-2 when Ellen Whites goal got disallowed due to VAR - Its the way football has been played for over 40yrs since the offside rule was brought in. Some goals may be offside but the linesman (woman in this case) didnt see that. Its swings and roundabouts, goals happened with a margin of offside which can happen to be very small. It in my opinion after this game has adapted to the fact there is an offside rule, has been entertaining, sometimes it in your favour sometimes it isnt. This makes footy exiting. VAR ruins this.

But on the other hand folks.... Im sure people said it was ruining the game when the offside rule was first brought in 40yrs ago, the game will adapt!! (BUT VAR REALLY NEEDS TO IMPROVE WHAT THEY LOOK FOR IN A FOUL AS SOME ARENT CHECKED YET SOME ARE, thats the problem.)

Just puzzled about "40 years" in relation to offside law.

It's been in football ever since the game started 150 years ago. Changed a few times but always been there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcfc01 said:

VAR should be used where the referee has missed a blatant and obvious transgression and for goal line decisions - not for spotting a toe offside etc.

 

As with so many things in the modern game, it will always be the thin end of the wedge.

At the risk of mixing metaphors, but the VAR genie is out of the bottle now, and once it was released it would always be the case that it's use would be extended. The money now in the game has increased the pressure on referees from players and managers, and over recent years the introduction of technology into other sports has increased the pressure on football's ruling bodies to introduce technology as the means of removing the unfair decisions that can cost clubs games, titles, trophies and money!

Unfortunately, and as has been discussed ad nauseam on here, the application of hawkeye in tennis or cricket or video replay in rugby is completely different than the use of technology in football, because of the nature of the game. That as it maybe, the use of goal line technology was universally welcomed, as it addressed a black and white issue, and did so very effectively,  but in hindsight it now appears to be have been a trojan horse for what followed.

I don't know about everyone else, but when VAR was introduced I anticipated it being used for marginal offside decisions, and to assist referees so they could avoid making glaring mistakes. In only 12 months since it's introduction it has quickly led to assistant referees becoming about as much use as a eunuch at an orgy and referees abdicating almost all responsibility for making on field decisions ( other than too many ludicrous yellow and red cards for  daft offences) and still being too easily conned by cheating players.

Also rather than removing uncertainty and contentious decisions, it seems to me that VAR creates as much contention and uncertainty and the cope of it's use is creeping ever further. Sadly, what the introduction of VAR has done is make the post match pundit debates more about Var decisions than the game itself. More worrying is the concern about who will have the final decision when VAR is applied, as in my opinion it should always be the on filed referee, otherwise there has to be a danger that outside influence will be allowed to impact decisions and the course of a game.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I jeep getting told “it works in rugby”, and I cal bullshit on that, when ever I watch, every try seems to go to the VAR equivalent and everyone waits around for 2 mins whilst they double check all the angles.  The ref in football has to make a split second decision, they get some wrong on occasion true, but most are right, football is a flawed game, that’s what makes it beautiful

To be fair it's not a good comparison, they are totally different sports. It does work very well in rugby but there are far more frequent stoppages than in football anyway. It's obviously frustrating when decisions that are clearly straightforward require eighteen replays from seven angles to be consulted before the decision is given but on the whole it's made a positive contribution to the game.

In football it doesn't work at all for me. I would get rid of it entirely. I would like to see a citing system where bad tackles or diving are retrospectively punished whether the ref has dealt with it during the game or not, and I wouldn't mind broadcasting the ref mics (backed up with bans for dissent) to stop players mouthing off at them constantly but those are the only things I'd borrow from rugby. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 'microscopic scrutiny' approach to 'offsides' that VAR allows is bloody farcical, annoying, stupid and if an attacker is offside by a toenail who gives a damn? So what, goal should stand, if purists don't like it well pardon the pun but that'll be just toe bad!

Reckon the offside rule should only apply if its shown that there was 'clear daylight' between the last defender and the goalside attacker..  (the onus then rests with the competence or otherwise of the defence to prevent such situations, if they cant then fair play to the attack for gaining a one on one with the goal keeper).   

Clear daylight or its not offside, keep the game flowing, create a few more striker v goalkeeper 'duels' .. goals and or saves.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...