[Football] Eng-Ger-Land v Italy tonight

[Brovion]

I think 'people' also have a legitimate concern as to how it will impact with the flow of the game and the stemming of euphoria of a goal when we then have to wait 2 minutes before the two refs and the video transmission decide for or against.

Going up for a goal is to me one of the most spiritual moments of ones regular life.

VARS will not solve everything. But it will fundamentally alter the structure of game as we know it. One of the worst aspects is that the spontaneous rush of celebrating a goal will often be put on hold while we wonder if VARS will be getting involved - it happened last night after Vardy scored. One second its "YYYEEESSSS", the next its "oh....hang on....the refs got his finger in his ear"

You like that being brought into the game ? Cos I think its proper shite.

Yes. Currently as the VAR system stands I am not a fan. In principle I'm in favour, (as we'd like to eradicate all major refereeing errors), but I'm very concerned that actually we'll lose far more than we gain. When we score the most we do now is quickly glance at the linesman before we go apeshit. (And even if you've missed that flag the fact that everyone else stops celebrating soon brings you back down to earth). That joyous feeling when your team score is THE greatest feeling, far greater than a wicket falling in cricket, and it won't be the same if the goal is finally awarded only after a judicial process. Even if that process if just a futile appeal by the opposition who know they haven't got a leg to stand on, but have a forlorn hope that the TV can spot something.

On balance, as the VAR system stands at the moment, I think I'd rather take the rough with the smooth on refereeing decisions and keep the spontaneity of the goal celebrations. And also I give thanks that they didn't have it when we beat Doncaster in 1997. Have you seen the foul on the keeper in the build up? Jeez. Still don't know how the ref missed that.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

It was for bringing the Italian down by standing on his foot. Clear as day.

The referee mimed the action to illustrate this, when Henderson was complaining afterwards.

I thought it was a penalty. I’m not sure if the actual ‘foul’ can be debated, because it was a ‘foul’.

Have to say, I would have been gutted if it had been the Albion and it hadn’t been awarded, England I care less about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sorrel]

My guess is that VARs will lead to an increase in the number of penalties awarded. Incidents, when slowed down, often look like they could have been penalties because it will appear that there might have been some kind of contact. To be sure it isn't a penalty there would need to clearly be no contact and a gap.

How will this be handled during the game? Even if they use the cricket rules of sticking with the referees original decision unless there is a clear reason not to, there's still likely to be more penalties as it's hard to argue with 'evidence' of contact.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I see a perfect storm brewing here.

We have the World Cup in Russia, a land famous for corruption and bribery. We have a global betting industry with big money being placed on outcomes. We have a fledging VAR in operation that is probably at least 2 years off from being perfected, we have the issue of the language barrier between players and officials, and the endemic problems of those officials working often not working well together as a unit.

We then have the players who will cheat, dive, simulate, provoke, feign and do whatever it takes to gain an advantage.

This could get very messy.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

What about 1966? Technology may have prevented our greatest achievement as a country as I am far from convinced the ball crossed the line for the third goal.

We won 4-2 not 3-2.

 

[Sorrel]

I see a perfect storm brewing here.

We have the World Cup in Russia, a land famous for corruption and bribery. We have a global betting industry with big money being placed on outcomes. We have a fledging VAR in operation that is probably at least 2 years off from being perfected, we have the issue of the language barrier between players and officials, and the endemic problems of those officials working often not working well together as a unit.

We then have the players who will cheat, dive, simulate, provoke, feign and do whatever it takes to gain an advantage.

This could get very messy.

When money is involved - usually through betting - then corruption may well follow. VAR is just another avenue for ii: it's not as if there haven't already been dodgy World Cup events/decisions before.

 

[Dolph Ins]

We won 4-2 not 3-2.

I do sometimes wonder how the game would have panned out if Lampard's goal against Germany had been (rightly) given. Would they then have beaten us 4-2. Not convinced. Goals change games.

 

[Perry Milkins]

Yes. Currently as the VAR system stands I am not a fan. In principle I'm in favour, (as we'd like to eradicate all major refereeing errors), but I'm very concerned that actually we'll lose far more than we gain. When we score the most we do now is quickly glance at the linesman before we go apeshit. (And even if you've missed that flag the fact that everyone else stops celebrating soon brings you back down to earth). That joyous feeling when your team score is THE greatest feeling, far greater than a wicket falling in cricket, and it won't be the same if the goal is finally awarded only after a judicial process. Even if that process if just a futile appeal by the opposition who know they haven't got a leg to stand on, but have a forlorn hope that the TV can spot something.

On balance, as the VAR system stands at the moment, I think I'd rather take the rough with the smooth on refereeing decisions and keep the spontaneity of the goal celebrations. And also I give thanks that they didn't have it when we beat Doncaster in 1997. Have you seen the foul on the keeper in the build up? Jeez. Still don't know how the ref missed that.

Mr Brovion. Wonderfully put. May I hoover your carpet till years fall away in gratitude.

 

[spongy]

If VAR is to be used then I don't think they should stop the game to review it.

I see no reason why play cannot continue as normal. VAR should not contact the ref to look at something. The ref should get onto his earpiece and ask for something to be looked if he is UNSURE at but play continues. The VAR can then review and tell the ref what happened. He can then decide on what to do.

Take no action.
Bring play back and card someone or send them off.
Disallow a goal.
Stop play and award a penalty

There's nothing wrong with him asking to review build up to a goal but still let play continue. If anything is found then by all means bring it back, disallow it, whatever. But don't stop the game at crucial times to check it.

If the ref doesn't see anything then don't do anything. He is in charge after all. Will still maintain the flow and enable people to celebrate still. I don't know about any of you but I go crazy after a goal and only get disappointed when people around me stop celebrating. My first reaction is not to look at the linesman.

Just let everything continue and only stop it if something is found. If it's ambiguous then refs decision stands.

 

[BensGrandad]

Why cant they just tell him over his earpiece stop the game you have missed a penalty. They then take the onus away from the ref and the pressure that he will get.

 

[Easy 10]

If VAR is to be used then I don't think they should stop the game to review it.

I see no reason why play cannot continue as normal. VAR should not contact the ref to look at something. The ref should get onto his earpiece and ask for something to be looked if he is UNSURE at but play continues. The VAR can then review and tell the ref what happened. He can then decide on what to do.

Take no action.
Bring play back and card someone or send them off.
Disallow a goal.
Stop play and award a penalty

There's nothing wrong with him asking to review build up to a goal but still let play continue. If anything is found then by all means bring it back, disallow it, whatever. But don't stop the game at crucial times to check it.

If the ref doesn't see anything then don't do anything. He is in charge after all. Will still maintain the flow and enable people to celebrate still. I don't know about any of you but I go crazy after a goal and only get disappointed when people around me stop celebrating. My first reaction is not to look at the linesman.

Just let everything continue and only stop it if something is found. If it's ambiguous then refs decision stands.

I see where you're coming from, but under the current system, the referee CANNOT (or should not) ask VARS for assistance. He referees the game as normal, makes his decisions as normal, and the VAR only gets in his ear if they think he has made a massive blunder - that is how it is supposed to work. All ok in theory, but as we are seeing, it doesn't work like that. We;re getting the dreaded situation where VARS is getting involved not in massive blunders, but in marginal, highly debatable calls. That way, chaos will ensue.

The problem with your proposal is that if refs can call for VARS assistance, he's going to start using it more and more when he's not sure. It'll become a "crutch" for him, because if there's an element of doubt in his mind, its only human nature to want to have it looked at again to make sure. Which means more and more VARS decisions interfering with the flow of the game. We've seen it in cricket with run-outs, when a batsman can be blatantly inside or outside the crease, but the umpire will go for a review "just to make sure". Doesn't matter as much in cricket, as that passage of play has naturally stopped. But that doesn't apply in football.

You've also got to throw in the aspect of decisions and NON-decisions on incidents, ie in the opinion of the ref was it a foul / penalty (in which case the ref stops play) or wasn't it (when play goes on). Its a rats nest of potential issues. And its incredible that we are going to have teams of officials controlling games in the World Cup, who have never actually reffed before using VARS. I'm sure FIFA will give them a crash course, but blimey, even the ones who have been using it are making a hash of things.

I think its actually going to be quite funny, but for all the wrong reasons. I just hope England aren't on the receiving end.

 

[LamieRobertson]

This was quite something special for a boy who lost his Mum recently.....further down you will see there is a clip of an interview Simon Thomas gave recently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43565809

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

I do sometimes wonder how the game would have panned out if Lampard's goal against Germany had been (rightly) given. Would they then have beaten us 4-2. Not convinced. Goals change games.

No, we were terrible in that first half and it would have been a travesty, although admittedly a funny one, if we had gone in at HT 2-2. The Germans would have still beaten us. I thought of another England game where we benefited from the non-use of VAR. England v Spain, Euro 1996. We would never have had Stuart Pearce's moment of redemption or that thrilling semi-final had Spain's "offside" goal been overturned.

 

[Renegade1]

I do sometimes wonder how the game would have panned out if Lampard's goal against Germany had been (rightly) given. Would they then have beaten us 4-2. Not convinced. Goals change games.

Goals do change games.I believe when Lampard 'scored' England were on the up.It can't be taken for granted that Germany would have still won.

As for Capello,despite his fantastic club record England fans will always have only a bad word to say about him.Had Lampards goal stood and England had won,
who knows where they would have ended and what that would have done to Capello's reputation.