[Football] I don't like football any more.

[Easy 10]

Germany v Nigeria, 4 VAR reviews in the 1st half, 2 of them lengthy. It took an AGE for them to eventually "allow" the first goal, then a review on a penalty decision. Both of those the ref, after a delay with her finger in her ear, eventually went to the pitchside monitor before making the decision that it was a pen.

And yet only 3 minutes added on. Absurd. The first review on its own took longer than that.

We are losing vast CHUNKS of playing time to this. Its an absolute cluster****.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Germany v Nigeria, 4 VAR reviews in the 1st half, 2 of them lengthy. It took an AGE for them to eventually "allow" the first goal, then a review on a penalty decision. Both of those the ref, after a delay with her finger in her ear, eventually went to the pitchside monitor before making the decision that it was a pen.

And yet only 3 minutes added on. Absurd. The first review on its own took longer than that.

We are losing vast CHUNKS of playing time to this. Its an absolute cluster****.

VAR will kill football mate, watch, wait and see.

 

[Geestar]

VAR will kill football mate, watch, wait and see.

Money already has

Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk

 

[Acker79]

Of FFS! Why can't they get VAR right? It's very simple.

4). Any VAR ref. who is too thick to understand the difference between a 'clear and obvious error' and, "Hang on, let me view that half a dozen times in slow motion just in case there's an error" should be removed from the referees panel with immediate effect.

Again, that's not the VAR ref getting it wrong, it's you, it's pundits, its the wider footballing world. Clear and Obvious error doesn't refer to how easy it was to make the mistake, but to how factual the error was. Is he offside? Then it cannot be a goal. To award a goal would be a clear and obvious error. Is it a tight offside? Maybe so, but it is still offside, so awarding a goal is still a clear error.

https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2018/6/20/17484152/world-cup-2018-var-video-replay-review

Your fourth point should be, imo, Remove the 'clear and obvious' language and only review 'unreasonable errors'.

 

[GT49er]

Again, that's not the VAR ref getting it wrong, it's you, it's pundits, its the wider footballing world. Clear and Obvious error doesn't refer to how easy it was to make the mistake, but to how factual the error was. Is he offside? Then it cannot be a goal. To award a goal would be a clear and obvious error. Is it a tight offside? Maybe so, but it is still offside, so awarding a goal is still a clear error.

https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2018/6/20/17484152/world-cup-2018-var-video-replay-review

Your fourth point should be, imo, Remove the 'clear and obvious' language and only review 'unreasonable errors'.

''Clear and obvious'' - something the ref. just didn't see (like two falls and a submission as he is watching the ball from a corner) or an obvious howler everyone in the ground can see. Nor=t a load of nonsense as in England v. Cameroon women. Cameroon's goal disallowed because an eye-lash was off-side (debatable even with VAR), decision farted around with for minutes. Plus (entirely justified) shenanigans.........should have been six minutes added time on its own..............

Nah, it;s not the beautiful game any more. Yes, the technology is fine; those applying it are wankpuffins ruining the game.

 

[Kosh]

Germany v Nigeria, 4 VAR reviews in the 1st half, 2 of them lengthy. It took an AGE for them to eventually "allow" the first goal, then a review on a penalty decision. Both of those the ref, after a delay with her finger in her ear, eventually went to the pitchside monitor before making the decision that it was a pen.

And yet only 3 minutes added on. Absurd. The first review on its own took longer than that.

We are losing vast CHUNKS of playing time to this. Its an absolute cluster****.

I watched the England vs Cameroon farce this afternoon... 1: although the decisions were mostly right, although the Cameroon goal should have stood, everything takes (as others have bemoaned) much like this point - an age... 2: half of the Cameroon side should have been dismissed by half time - yet they were not. In my book, it’s being over used and under used at the same time - making me both angry and disappointed - if, indeed, that’s even possible?!?

It’s all a bit Eric Morecambe sitting at the piano.

The PL this season is going to be a car crash, with VAR controlling the vehicle as we hurtle towards the cliff edge.

To paraphrase Event Horizon: this game - is ****ed.

 

[Acker79]

''Clear and obvious'' - something the ref. just didn't see (like two falls and a submission as he is watching the ball from a corner) or an obvious howler everyone in the ground can see. Nor=t a load of nonsense as in England v. Cameroon women. Cameroon's goal disallowed because an eye-lash was off-side (debatable even with VAR), decision farted around with for minutes. Plus (entirely justified) shenanigans.........should have been six minutes added time on its own..............

I didn't see the game today. I've not watched any football since our game v Man City, so I can't comment on those specific decisions.

But if you and everyone else wilfully misinterpret the policy, that is on you, not the officials. Again, I'm not saying their interpretation of clear and obvious (as established in law) is the right way to go about VAR. I agree with you and others it should be the layman interpretation of 'clear and obvious', not the legal one, and to avoid confusion it should be shouted from the mountain tops that the new standard is 'any unreasonable error'. But all the while they stick with 'clear and obvious' as established in law (see the link in my previous post), it will play out as it currently is. Offside by an eyelash is still offside. The law says 'if you're offside you can't score a goal'. Not 'if you're offside but only just you can still score'. Under current interpretation that is an error that VAR should catch and as much as it is killing the game and as much as you and others hate it (I would probably hate it if I had watched), the VAR ref is doing what he is instructed to do.

 

[GT49er]

But all the while they stick with 'clear and obvious' as established in law (see the link in my previous post), it will play out as it currently is.

In that case, they've got it wrong then, not me and all the other posters who think it's shit as it is.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I watched the England vs Cameroon farce this afternoon... 1: although the decisions were mostly right, although the Cameroon goal should have stood, everything takes (as others have bemoaned) much like this point - an age... 2: half of the Cameroon side should have been dismissed by half time - yet they were not. In my book, it’s being over used and under used at the same time - making me both angry and disappointed - if, indeed, that’s even possible?!?

It’s all a bit Eric Morecambe sitting at the piano.

The PL this season is going to be a car crash, with VAR controlling the vehicle as we hurtle towards the cliff edge.

To paraphrase Event Horizon: this game - is ****ed.

Cameroon goal was offside. Why should it have stood? Along with goal line technology it’s the one definite VAR offers. All other decisions are made by humans.

 

[Albumen]

Cameroon goal was offside. Why should it have stood? Along with goal line technology it’s the one definite VAR offers. All other decisions are made by humans.

Because it wasn't offside.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Because it wasn't offside.

Imho, it was offside.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

It was

Because it wasn't offside.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Because it wasn't offside.

Well, no it was offside, but it was the kind of offside that if the goal had stood pre-VAR no-one would have complained, the pundits probably wouldn't even pick up on it. VAR rules it out and killed any excitement in the game

 

[Albumen]

Imho, it was offside.

It was

So which of these rules did the offence fall under?

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

 

[Is it PotG?]

So which of these rules did the offence fall under?

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

Maybe 'interfering with play' might cover crossing the ball for a goal.

 

[Albumen]

Haha wait. I was talking about the England goal. I'll shut up now. Soz.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Haha wait. I was talking about the England goal. I'll shut up now. Soz.

Now that WASN'T offside, you're spot on there.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

So which of these rules did the offence fall under?

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

Er......the first one, interfering with play by touching the ball.

Think that clears that up.

 

[RandyWanger]

I was walkin' down the street
Concentratin' on truckin' right
I heard a dark voice beside of me
And I looked round in a state of fright
I saw four faces one mad
A brother from the gutter
They looked me up and down a bit
And turned to each other
I say
I don't like football oh no
I love it

 

[*Gullsworth*]

Well, no it was offside, but it was the kind of offside that if the goal had stood pre-VAR no-one would have complained, the pundits probably wouldn't even pick up on it. VAR rules it out and killed any excitement in the game

Time to change the rules.......do away with offside altogether. Might be a giant shift in the way the game is played but there would be less stoppages with or without V.A.R.
It would also bring back GOALHANGERS.
I'm in