[Football] No VAR

[Molango's visa]

The way it is implemented is yeah

Yep.

 

[Molango's visa]

The VAR haters? That’s a very large group of football fans

Indeed. And until recently a majority of voters supported the conservatives.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Indeed. And until recently a majority of voters supported the conservatives.

How you can turn a VAR thread into political shite is beyond me. Keep politics elsewhere.

 

[GT49er]

VAR would (well ok should have) overturned their incorrectly awarded penalty. That goal they got gifted could have turned out to be quite bad.
The ball clearly hits Dunk's shoulder before rolling up his arm and so is not a penalty.

Don't care!

 

[BevBHA]

Indeed. And until recently a majority of voters supported the conservatives.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about I’m just trying to discuss the game with other Brighton fans

 

[Molango's visa]

How you can turn a VAR thread into political shite is beyond me. Keep politics elsewhere.

Don't be silly. I was illustrating a point. The point being (you're a bright bloke, you can work it out, but if you're overwhelmed with outrage I'll help) that the majority view is not always correct, and opinions can change over time.

 

[American Seagle]

Don't care!

I think we would cater if a clear and obvious error would have changed the course of our season though. The error was mitigated by us managing to win. That may not always be the case.
VAR as is currently implemented is not working, full of bias and needs redoing. Just because the people that do it now and implemented are doing it this way does not mean var in general is bad.
Just because someone puts skis on his head and face plants down a mountain does not mean skis don't work.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Don't be silly. I was illustrating a point. The point being (you're a bright bloke, you can work it out, but if you're overwhelmed with outrage I'll help) that the majority view is not always correct, and opinions can change over time.

The minority view is also not always correct. Were you at the game today ?

 

[GT49er]

Indeed. And until recently a majority of voters supported the conservatives.

And before that, a majority of voters supported Labour. Ridiculous comparison.

 

[birthofanorange]

Don't be silly. I was illustrating a point. The point being (you're a bright bloke, you can work it out, but if you're overwhelmed with outrage I'll help) that the majority view is not always correct, and opinions can change over time.

I'd trust an advocate of VAR far more than a died-in-the-wool Tory voter. That said, they're both a bit daft, imho.
As for opinions changing - of course they do, and to suggest someone isn't aware of that is also silly.
I fully approved of being able to see a match without the dubious 'advantage' of VAR, and I look forward to seeing the next one in which we're involved, as I find it so refreshing/pleasurable and simple.

 

[Rookie]

It was a joy being able celebrate the goals without the fear and wait of someone in an office saying it should be disallowed

 

[Driver8]

Just because the people that do it now and implemented are doing it this way does not mean var in general is bad.

It is. Ok for the plastic tv fans but for those of us that actually go to games it has spoiled the game. I’d rather have gone out the cup today to a dodgy decision than keep VAR. Having seen the replay I also have no argument with Stoke’s penalty.

 

[American Seagle]

It is. Ok for the plastic tv fans but for those of us that actually go to games it has spoiled the game. I’d rather have gone out the cup today to a dodgy decision than keep VAR. Having seen the replay I also have no argument with Stoke’s penalty.

1) It was wrong to award it
2) you will say otherwise but if we went out because of it you would be complaining
3) current VAR is terrible. That doesn't mean it can't be done well.

 

[birthofanorange]

With VAR, we can praise it when/if it goes in our favour, yet equally curse it when it doesn't. This is exactly what we had pre-VAR, when the on-field officials made those decisions.
The difference is, we could celebrate (or curse) those decisions immediately, rather than yawning for several minutes before finding out.
That's what I miss.

 

[Driver8]

1) It was wrong to award it
2) you will say otherwise but if we went out because of it you would be complaining
3) current VAR is terrible. That doesn't mean it can't be done well.

1) Looked a penalty to me.
2) As I said, I wouldn’t.
3) It’s not needed. Get rid.

 

[Sea Cider]

I think we would cater if a clear and obvious error would have changed the course of our season though. The error was mitigated by us managing to win. That may not always be the case.
VAR as is currently implemented is not working, full of bias and needs redoing. Just because the people that do it now and implemented are doing it this way does not mean var in general is bad.
Just because someone puts skis on his head and face plants down a mountain does not mean skis don't work.

It's a game. Entertainment. Fun. A release. An escape from normal life (especially for match going fans).

VAR will ALWAYS be bad as there is no way I can see of it not negatively impacting spontaneous goal celebrations in the stadium.

 

[birthofanorange]

To satisfy both VAR lovers and haters, the obvious thing is to restrict the time taken in making a decision. It has been mooted many, many times, and if (say) a maximum of 30 seconds/1 minute was allowed to spot a glaring error was allowed, that would be just about acceptable.
No need for this forensic-style several minutes of looking for 'something' - that's what makes it crap.

 

[American Seagle]

1) Looked a penalty to me.
2) As I said, I wouldn’t.
3) It’s not needed. Get rid.

1) hit the shoulder first so not handball.
2) you would. The past is full of incidents like that where events have been replayed over and over and referees complained about and video replays insisted on to help
3) you were ok with the amount of big 6 bias? The massive errors gifting points to big teams? VAR should stop this, but in it's current implementation it doesn't. It can be fixed. It would keep spontaneous fun at stadiums and remove glaring errors.

 

[American Seagle]

To satisfy both VAR lovers and haters, the obvious thing is to restrict the time taken in making a decision. It has been mooted many, many times, and if (say) a maximum of 30 seconds/1 minute was allowed to spot a glaring error was allowed, that would be just about acceptable.
No need for this forensic-style several minutes of looking for 'something' - that's what makes it crap.

Yes. The correct answer is not what is needed. We need to remove glaring errors. Those should be obvious on one or two quick replays.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Only because decisions didn't go against us today. If they did it would be a different tune being sung.

Their penalty could have been overturned by VAR, and the foul on Ferguson in the box could also have been looked at - so to say that "decisions didn't go against us today" is not fully justified.