[Football] Right then. After that demonstration... VAR? Yes or No?

[Blackadder]

That was a killer today. We had all done the man hugs, It just seemed to take too long to kill the goal off. I hope this improves.

Most of us usually look at the ref at time of the goal, not the build up.

If it's the right result, we have to live with it.

Hopefully these things should balance out, over the season, and some future decisions will go in our favour.

As far as I can see two decent premier league sides have suffered so far. Man City and us... I can live with that.

 

[Easy 10]

Completely disagree. Offside is often very difficult to call in real time especially with high line defence against free kicks and VAR can help give a decision when it is close. How do you know linos get it right 95% of time without VAR? Shame today but Burn was offside; wouldn't we all be pissed off if WH had scored that goal, been given, then MOTD showed a WH player was offside.

I would like to see DRS in football so captains have two reviews they can use, to be retained only if they are correct. As in cricket, it would add a bit of judgmental spice.

Part of Burns fvcking LEG was offside. It still got headed away. He still had to run to retrieve it from the byline. He still had to swivel 180 degrees to loop that cross over. Trossard still had to meet it with that CRASHING volley to bury it in the bottom corner. And we still celebrated it for 2 minutes before some arsewipe at Heathrow decreed that Burns KNEE was offside in the initial cross.

Sorry, up your arse. If thats the game YOU want to watch, we're never going to agree. I'm even more furious now having seen it again on TV. Its absolutely RUINING the game.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I blame the twxts.

The twxts who micro study every decision, the twxts who point out that the home team have won 42.7% of all games where the first choice striker was left on the bench until at least the 60th minute of all games where the third choice kit was worn.

The twxts who live for details rather than the overall experience. Refereeing decisions generally even themselves out over a season, and add colour to the post match conversations. VAR just spoils the match day buzz. Get rid.

 

[jessiejames]

If VAR shows you to be offside then letting the goal stand when you know a law has been broken in the build up to said goal is a clear and obvious error.

That will happen every week outside of the Premier league. This was not a clear error, as far as the linesman, referee and West Ham players were concerned it was a legitimate goal. That is why he ball was put on the center spot for WH to restart the game. It was looked at by a referee 100 miles away from the incident who then I admit gave the correct decision that Burn was a couple of inches off side.
Use VAR if at the time your not sure, but not for every goal. Keep some of the human error n he game or we will be at risk of sanitising the game forever.

 

[Easy 10]

Look at it this way VAR has fvcked over 2 goals today that NOBODY would have had any objection to, even post-replay. Our opener, where initially Burns LEG is partially offside (his fvkcing LEG) before they challenge in the air for it, he retrieves it, swivels 180 and crosses it, and Trossard LEATHERS a brilliant volley for his first goal for the club. What actual advantage did Burn get by his leg being in front ? Thats a serious passage of play. Would ANYONE from WHU moan about that goal ? They didn't, and they wouldn't. What should have been a great goal is chalked off by some speccy cvnt in Heathrow.

Man City. A corner comes over, Laporte and a Spurs player leap and challenge, the ball randomly bounces off his bicep, it falls to Jesus who buries it for the winner. But no. A minute or two of celebrations later, and once again the speccy brigade decree they've somehow cheated, and the goal is binned off.

This.
Is.
Shit.

 

[Acker79]

That will happen every week outside of the Premier league. This was not a clear error, as far as the linesman, referee and West Ham players were concerned it was a legitimate goal. That is why he ball was put on the center spot for WH to restart the game. It was looked at by a referee 100 miles away from the incident who then I admit gave the correct decision that Burn was a couple of inches off side.
Use VAR if at the time your not sure, but not for every goal. Keep some of the human error n he game or we will be at risk of sanitising the game forever.

This would appear to be a waste of time since you've ignored it when another poster pointed it out: referees have been taught to ignore tight decisions and allow VAR to make the call. If there was no VAR that instruction wouldn't be in place, and the linesman would have flagged. West Ham didn't need to appeal because they would know that every goal is reviewed, and as soon as the ball went in the ref was holding his finger to his ear making it clear the goal was being reviewed.

Letting a goal stand when you know there was an offside is a clear error. The offside call won't always be clear, I've seen a replay and can tell it's offside without the need for the additional lines. So I think it's a clear offside, but even if we agree that it was a tight decision, that is irrelevant. It isn't about how obvious the offside is, it's about allowing a goal to stand when know it was it offside. Allowing the goal to stand is the clear error, not the offside call itself.

I don't say this to defend or champion VAR (still on the fence about it, personally), but to explain the approach regarding the term 'clear and obvious'.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

But 1 clear and ridiculous decision is 1 too many and it builds up over a season.
Do you remember a match last season when the lino was so far behind play he had to lean to try and see but totally muffed it, they scored but the player was miles offside.
The ref had a decent view as well.
Better officials is what is needed, then bin VAR except for circumstances you have mentioned.

Or even better just accept that officiating a game of football is a very difficult thing to do. If the best 20 officials in England aren't to a high enough standard then maybe your standards are too high.

 

[GT49er]

But 1 clear and ridiculous decision is 1 too many and it builds up over a season.
Do you remember a match last season when the lino was so far behind play he had to lean to try and see but totally muffed it, they scored but the player was miles offside.
The ref had a decent view as well.
Better officials is what is needed, then bin VAR except for circumstances you have mentioned.

Yes, but that's thee point. VAR for such (clear and obvious) howlers by the on-field refereeing team is fine. VAR for let's look at that five times over, slowly, at several different angles, to see if it might possibly be disallowed is what is wrong. Stick with the Dermot Gallagher interpretation - "I can see why he did that........" - and if the can, don't invoke VAR.
If it isn't a howler, as in cricket, go with the referee's decision.

 

[GT49er]

If VAR shows you to be offside then letting the goal stand when you know a law has been broken in the build up to said goal is a clear and obvious error.

Not if nobody thought it was at the time, in real time, with referees, assistant referees and players all watching like hawks - for various reasons, obviously - if none of them think there was anything wrong, then it wasn't a clear and obvious error. It was one that was spotted by people with access to slow motion TV replays, from different angles, after looking at it several times.
Anyway, thee computer generated line they super-impose on the pictures of the pitch to ascertain if he was off-side by a bo-hair is about a foot wide, if not more.

 

[OzMike]

I say yes, it was a pain for us yesterday, but I can see us praising it when it gets Mr Tumble sent off for consistent diving.
Burns should have had an early goal, loads of headers at goal though none of them directed downwards, simple and effective tactic.

 

[jessiejames]

This would appear to be a waste of time since you've ignored it when another poster pointed it out: referees have been taught to ignore tight decisions and allow VAR to make the call. If there was no VAR that instruction wouldn't be in place, and the linesman would have flagged. West Ham didn't need to appeal because they would know that every goal is reviewed, and as soon as the ball went in the ref was holding his finger to his ear making it clear the goal was being reviewed.

Letting a goal stand when you know there was an offside is a clear error. The offside call won't always be clear, I've seen a replay and can tell it's offside without the need for the additional lines. So I think it's a clear offside, but even if we agree that it was a tight decision, that is irrelevant. It isn't about how obvious the offside is, it's about allowing a goal to stand when know it was it offside. Allowing the goal to stand is the clear error, not the offside call itself.

I don't say this to defend or champion VAR (still on the fence about it, personally), but to explain the approach regarding the term 'clear and obvious'.

I have been following Brighton for 40 years, over that time I have witnessed things go our way and also go against us, I can live with that, as they say it all evens itself out over the season. What I don't like is to celebrate a goal and just as the other team are about to restart the game have it cancelled out a few minutes later because someone sitting in front of a TV screen nowhere near the ground spots an infringement. If the goal was ruled out straight away no problems, but from the moment the ball went in, to it being ruled offside was over 2 minutes. Why only 1 minute of added time played at the end of the half.

 

[Easy 10]

I have been following Brighton for 40 years, over that time I have witnessed things go our way and also go against us, I can live with that, as they say it all evens itself out over the season. What I don't like is to celebrate a goal and just as the other team are about to restart the game have it cancelled out a few minutes later because someone sitting in front of a TV screen nowhere near the ground spots an infringement. If the goal was ruled out straight away no problems, but from the moment the ball went in, to it being ruled offside was over 2 minutes. Why only 1 minute of added time played at the end of the half.

Bang on. To have 30,000 people in a stadium thinking its a goal, all ready for kickoff, only to have it binned off 2 minutes later....?

Come on. Seriously What are we watching here. Its not fvcking football any more, I know that.

 

[jessiejames]

VAR ruined the atmosphere, if a decision goes against us and ts the refs fault human error then the volume from the crowd goes up, even to the extent that we can have a go at the ref, even that is taken from us. Maybe I might take a TV with me next week and if a VAR decision goes against us I can start giving the TV abuse.

 

[Triggaaar]

Trossard’s first goal being ruled out was crushing. That hurt a lot seeing all that unbridled joy get flushed down the toilet.

That was indeed annoying, but it was offside, so fair enough.

What we do need to change, is the big screens displaying 'Goal' before the VAR check is complete. That gave us all the impression it was done and dusted.

 

[OvingdeanSeagull]

The absolute worst thing to ever happen to football. We'll get some similar decisions go our way over the season, and it will feel great at the time. But the idea that we may have to wait 2 whole minutes to celebrate scoring a goal is the absolute opposite of what football is about. Those eruptions of pure elation are what we all love football for, and VAR will take that away from us. Utterly destroying the game we all love.

 

[Bwian]

I don't like VAR, spoiling the flow and spontinaity of the game, better refs and linesmen are what's needed.

If they did something like the cricket I'd be happy, the technology's there and needs to be used.

For today's incident the goal was good . . . . It's what happened before at the free kick which was marginal . . . No one complained, no flag, so Play should have continued IMO. If you're going to start measuring pubes and leg hairs for offside and spend half an hour doing it we're doomed.

How can football "do something like cricket"? Cricket has regular natural stoppages-every single ball.

If players stopped their blatant cheating VAR wouldn't be necessary. It shouldn't take long for them to modify their behaviour-be that less cheating or being more aware of offsides, etc. We also need the people in charge of the big screens to keep us fully informed as to when VAR is being used and what for.

Anybody who was at The Amex today saw a pretty damn good game of football that really wasn't ruined by VAR. There was disappointment when the goal was disallowed, obviously, but ultimately it was the correct decision using current Laws of The Game. Some Laws need revising and then VAR won't be so much of an issue.Then they can start going after the cheats and the snidey challengers.

Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk

 

[Beanstalk]

VAR yes, Taylor no. Crap ref - shown up by VAR.

 

[Guinness Boy]

VAR is executed by TV for TV fans, it has no place for those who actually pay to see the game in the flesh. Against Modern Football.

Twice in a week you’ve hit the nail on the head

Sometimes we can agree after all...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guinness Boy]

Watching MotD and it just confirms everything I thought. VAR is a pedant's charter, a system for those who'd rather see the "right" result than a nutmeg, volley or crunching tackle. For City's winner the correct decision was eventually made according to the letter of the law. It was handball under the rule changes. But the touch barely changes the tradjectory of the ball, the referee doesn't see it, if it hits the defender's arm it's not a penalty and not a single player appeals. The real issue is the new handball law but VAR has enabled it. We have a terrible rule that has only been brought in because technology allows it. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

As for our goal, yes one of Burn's legs is offside. Does it give him an advantage in reaching the ball? Of course not. he's 6ft 7 and the ball drops in to an area where he's favourite to pick it up. And is his cross part of the same passage or a new phase? It's debateable. What's not debatable is that a 6ft 7 defender put a cross on a sixpence for a Premier League debutant to volley beautifully in to the corner and go wild with joy. We're back to Pep's passion killer quote again. VAR is granny pants.

I can only assume those in favour have spent their lives driving Volvos, wearing Super Dry and going to the same Spanish resort on holday every year. These things are technically fine but no one will every write a song about them or paint a masterpiece entltled "Man in Super Dry jacket admires his XC40".

 

[trueblue]

If that is the correct answer then VAR is not working should there have been an infringement at the start of the build up to the goal.

If you mean do they look at the player that was offside before he crossed it then, well, obviously yes. That’s a pretty big influence on the game, don’t you think? Likewise, if a striker ran from just beyond the halfway line, then scored, they’re going to take it back for offside.

The phase thing is a bit confusing but not really in yesterday’s case.