Two absolute VAR howlers yesterday down 100% to the incompetence of the official behind the screen - this lack of competence is the problem.
For me, definitely.Surely that is the core question? So?
It shouldn't take forever. I have long argued that if VAR can't decide in 30 seconds (perhaps less, 20 maybe?) the ref's decision stands. There is absolutely no need for them to piss about the way they sometimes do. I happen to think that decision are normally much quicker now, as the operators learn the rubric, and the process gets tweaked. As I have also stated, I have suspected the officials subconsciously sabotaged the VAR process, especially early on, because the refs subconsciously (and consciously in some cases) feared that their role was being diminished. We all do this when our job is (or appears to be) downgraded.In rugby and cricket it doesn’t matter whether it takes forever. In football it’s a huge issue.
Precisely.Two absolute VAR howlers yesterday down 100% to the incompetence of the official behind the screen - this lack of competence is the problem.
Wenger's rule (actually he said it after me so HWT's rule) - clear blue water: you can't be offside if any bit of your body overlaps that of a defender. If you feel this is too simple (ho, ho, ho) then restrict the rule to the 'decision is made on the body waist down'. It is about preventing players taking an unfair advantage after all, not about whether they bend forward or stick their arse out when they run.Just base offside on feet. Scrap all the dotted lines. If would make it simple.
Exactly, the problem is not the system but the operatives. Lee Mason was useless on the pitch and now continues in that vein off it. I'd rather not have VAR but the decline in refereeing standards made it pretty much inevitable.The question is badly worded as the answer is obvious that virtually no-one would think VAR has made football more entertaining.
The question should be as to whether it has improved the accuracy of decision making. It clearly has, but days like to day have constantly caused controversy. It's less about the idea and more about its operation.
Agree, surely there are camera positions at Selhurst that are far closer to the goal line, if not on it rather than just the Arthur Waite gantry? That at least should have made it clearer who was the last defender. As for the Arsenal goal, as Murphy was suggesting, they should start with the goal scorer and work back from there. Toney wasn't offside so you look at the assist.The camera position for VAR at Selhurst was so far behind the passage of play didn’t help and made worst by dreadful decision by the two clowns looking at it.
Having said all that we really should have run out clear winners Ali Mac could would have scored four on another day and Palace only had one shot on goal admittedly from which they scored and that was as a result of an unfortunate mistake.
Ultimately it’s two points lost exclusively as a result of VAR which leaves a bitter taste
That’s a fair opinion. We do often complain about change at first (cigarette ban) but eventually come to the stance of never wanting to turn back.For me, definitely.
For me, being robbed of points, or having a player deliberately injured with the guilty party getting away with it during the match destroy the spectacle. Avoidable bad reffing decisions kills the game for me.
The wait for VAR confirmation is perfectly fine as far as I am concerned.
I have watched loads of championship TV football this season, and it now seems amateurish almost to the point of absurdity watching offside goals allowed, and horrible challenges disregarded. To me it is no longer proper football.
I appreciate that this is a minority view, but it will be interesting to see what people think in 5 or 10 years. If you had done a poll of drivers in 1968 about whether they liked the new drink driving laws introduced a year before, the result would have been a resounding 'No!'. And as for speed limits....well....
most cricket decisions are quite quick these days...In rugby and cricket it doesn’t matter whether it takes forever. In football it’s a huge issue.
No what we have is Alan Shearer at Sheffield United v Wrexham saying words to the effect of:-No, it’s ruining it. Goal moments ruined and for what ? VAR neither improves nor makes worse the decisions on the pitch. We now have MOTD and Sky muppets complaining about incorrect decisions when they were the ones who agitated for this in the first place. Most of us grew up with bad refereeing decisions as a part of the game. We accepted it and talked about the football. Now we have a situation where nobody can accept a bad decision because it’s ‘the technology.’ I don’t care about the Estupinan goal nor any other individual bad decision. I do care that football has come to this because people decided to stop accepting refereeing decisions in the pursuit of some nirvana of ‘correctness.’ If you want proper analysis of a game watch lower league VAR less games.
That’s what I think. Have it as an option rather than something that dictates the game.The only way I can see VAR being worth keeping is if both teams have 2 VAR reviews per game, a bit like the cricket. So the manager decides within a set time if he wants to challenge a certain decision otherwise the on field decision stands.
Ah, the TV pundits.That’s a fair opinion. We do often complain about change at first (cigarette ban) but eventually come to the stance of never wanting to turn back.
My problem are the TV pundits who talk about football like it’s a fine art, a game of science that can’t have any mistakes or errors. It’s killing the joy of the game all this perfectionism being demanded. Mistakes happen, that’s life, especially when playing games. So surely we should stop focusing on the mistakes and the errors of football and instead value the good nature, fun and gamesmanship required to make a game of sport enjoyable?
What made football big was it grass roots level. It’s sad to see top flight football trying all it can to completely disassociate itself with the grass roots way of playing the game. I fear eventually we’ll see kids laughing and mocking the way football is being played in the park because it doesn’t come with the technology needed for the it to be ‘proper’. Instead, they’ll go straight to their rooms, switch on the PlayStation, connect with their friends online, and improve their fitness levels and technical ability through playing FIFA instead.
Fun or perfectionism, what’s best for football?
As for kids and parks.....when did you last see unsupervised kids playing in a park?
Ah, the TV pundits.
"That was a goal". "That wasn't offside". "Let's look at that from multiple angles"
And on the radio it is worse
"That was a coming together!" (oo-er missus!). Luckily I think they have all been warned now to not say "It's a man's game". Apar
As for kids and parks.....when did you last see unsupervised kids playing in a park?
My bedroom window overlooks a park in town just off Dyke road. I see kids after school playing every day in that park, even in the winter. But yes , there’s a lot less kids running around these days than there were 60 years ago.Ah, the TV pundits.
"That was a goal". "That wasn't offside". "Let's look at that from multiple angles"
And on the radio it is worse
"That was a coming together!" (oo-er missus!). Luckily I think they have all been warned now to not say "It's a man's game". Apart from Souey.
As for kids and parks.....when did you last see unsupervised kids playing in a park?
Fair enough.My bedroom window overlooks a park in town just off Dyke road. I see kids after school playing every day in that park, even in the winter. But yes , there’s a lot less kids running around these days than there were 60 years ago.
Jethro Tull aye!Fair enough.
For some reason Jethro Tull's song 'Aqualung' popped into my head while reading you reply
Coincidence!Fair enough.
For some reason Jethro Tull's song 'Aqualung' popped into my head while reading you reply