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

[Arthritic Toe]

Var is an abomination. It is almost worth getting relegated to the championship for. I know quite a few people who are re considering whether to go anymore if it stays. It will, has killed the game stone dead. There is no point in celebrating a goal amymore, might as well go an get a pint and come back and see if it has been allowed. It seems to me what we have here are basically traffic wardens sat in a room somewhere DESPERATE to find a reason to give a ticket/disallow a goal

I thought it went to var if there was a doubt, not every goal to be poured over with a microscope for a couple of minutes looking for something that happened in the minute leading to the goal to get it disallowed

It is utter shite !!!!!

Agree mostly, but doubt in who's mind? Yesterday Burn was clearly offside. Plenty of reason for doubt there. Just because the lino (and every one else) missed it - surely this is absolutely makes the case for VAR for those that wanted it. The fact that it kills the game completely and renders the whole thing a series of cold clinical decisions is a just what we now have to put up with. We can't have it both ways - either accept VAR for what it is or get rid.

 

[Hugo Rune]

VAR will be the reason I walk away from football sooner rather than later.

The delayed restart after our ‘second’ goal with the ref’s hand-to-ear whilst gesticulating to the players to ‘wait’ made me feel ****ing sick. I’d have walked out the stadium if Trossard’s second debut goal had been ruled out by VAR, I really would.

 

[Bodian]

The ball hit his hand that directly led to Jesus getting the ball and burying it, anyone who is in favour of VAR should be hailing that decision, had it not been for that little flick off his hand the ball may not have reached Jesus, the rules are clear for the reason I said, who is to say what is a deliberate handball and what is accidental? It would open up a big can of worms to say oh that handball is accidental and allow the goal.

Really? 'little flick of his hand'? There was no hand involved, it brushed off the top of his arm as it passed the defender. No way could that have been remotely semi-intentional. Nor did it significantly affect the flight of the ball, it was so minimal. It wouldn't 'open up a big can of worms' - it would merely revert back to where we were previously.

 

[The Wizard]

Really? 'little flick of his hand'? There was no hand involved, it brushed off the top of his arm as it passed the defender. No way could that have been remotely semi-intentional. Nor did it significantly affect the flight of the ball, it was so minimal. It wouldn't 'open up a big can of worms' - it would merely revert back to where we were previously.

Unless you’re going to get ball tracking and Hawkeye out how can you say that minimal touch didn’t give Jesus the split second he needed to control it. Like I said, I don’t know where it’s written but the commentators have repeatedly said if any kind of hand ball is involved in a goal it’s ruled out. It’s simpler to just do that than start arguing about deliberate or accidental incidents

 

[BensGrandad]

The 3 men in Black did not see the offside, neither did the 11 west sham players on the pitch at the time.

What I don't understand is that after celebrating the goal and the ball back on the center spot, it was over a minute to get the decision, why was only 1 minute added at the end of the first half.

That is not true. The lino in front of Lower West during the VAR check had his flag raised for offside but I must admit I didnt see when he raised it and for how long it was raised..

 

[beorhthelm]

...It would open up a big can of worms to say oh that handball is accidental and allow the goal.

would it? that was the case only a few months ago, more fluid rule of ball to hand vs hand to ball. not this dictatorial new rule. it bearly glanced his arm, clearly unintentional, not one player appealled and even the Spurs keeper and others were surprised anything was wrong with the goal.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Who doesn't agree that human error from a ref is better than VAR? Seriously?

 

[Seasider78]

I find it odd that people have such a problem with analogies.

VAR is showing us things that we could not possibly see before VAR.

The question is what do you do with the information?

The answer is we have to change some of the laws.

That's it

Or we could have changed the offside rule etc to make life easier for the match officials before VAR?

 

[jessiejames]

Let's stop repeating this about the Murray non-handball. It was nothing to do with VAR - the ref did not give the handball. If VAR didn't exist it would not have been an issue in the first place.

This is the trouble - we're now sort of saying 'the ref doesn't have to make a decision, as VAR will rule on all penalty shouts'. That's not what it's for.

But it was handball. Decision went to VAR and they decided no handball, this was a lot clearer than the Man City goal yesterday.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

Really? 'little flick of his hand'? There was no hand involved, it brushed off the top of his arm as it passed the defender. No way could that have been remotely semi-intentional. Nor did it significantly affect the flight of the ball, it was so minimal. It wouldn't 'open up a big can of worms' - it would merely revert back to where we were previously.

'little flick off his hand' but I agree with you. There are two bits in the handball rule that don't seem to work together as I understand - a. if it's accidental and doesn't make the body larger, if it's in a natural position, handball doesn't apply. But b. (the new bit of the law) if it's accidental, wherever the hand is, and leads to a goal, then handball applies, which seems particularly pointless, especially in light of the Man City 'goal' yesterday.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Or we could have changed the offside rule etc to make life easier for the match officials before VAR?

If you mean we could have changed the rules (so they make sense) before bringing in VAR, yes, we could.

My point is that the rules we have brought in see a bit shit (see Bozza's new thread).

We are where we are and the rules need to be changed. VAR is getting the blame.

The loss of viscerality (not your point but I add a comment anyway) is a separate issue and I acknowledge that those who favour viscerality over getting the decisions corect (and therefore oppose VAR) are entitled to that view. My view is that when the rules are fixed the viscerality will return, because we won't be spending 2 minutes overthrowing goals like Leo's first, yesterday, and others like the City winner.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Let's stop repeating this about the Murray non-handball. It was nothing to do with VAR - the ref did not give the handball. If VAR didn't exist it would not have been an issue in the first place.

This is the trouble - we're now sort of saying 'the ref doesn't have to make a decision, as VAR will rule on all penalty shouts'. That's not what it's for.

Well, it went for a VAR check and didn't overturn the refs decision. The handball rule has been a mess for a while. The Laporte one being a handball because he is attacking but Murrays not because he is defending doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[The Wizard]

would it? that was the case only a few months ago, more fluid rule of ball to hand vs hand to ball. not this dictatorial new rule. it bearly glanced his arm, clearly unintentional, not one player appealled and even the Spurs keeper and others were surprised anything was wrong with the goal.

As I said in my last post though, where is the dividing line between deliberate and accidental handball? Nobody can say for sure, so surely it’s better to just have a blanket rule, imagine the uproar if that Man City goal is allowed and then next week a different VAR team disallow a goal for something similar.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

They have changed the rules so handball and offside are black or white, hopefully they will get quicker or use the chip implanted in every players head....What they cannot make black and white are leaning or pushing and shirt tugs of players if they are both at it etc and in those cases VAR operators will have to use their judgement which won't be agreed with 100% of supporters.

 

[Whitechapel]

And yet you have ripped up your season ticket and (one infers) won't be watching The Albion?

Isn't that a bit like taking a vow of celebacy but continuing your monthy subscription to Reader's Wives?

So fans who don’t live in the UK and don’t watch the Albion live shouldn’t post on here? People who can’t afford to go to The Amex aren’t allowed to post on here? Unless you go to games you aren’t allowed to post on here or support Brighton, right?

You’re normally a decent poster but f*ck me you’re acting like a cretin here

 

[Eggman]

No.

 

[Guinness Boy]

That's not sanitised, that's incredibly dramatic?

Besides, not EVERY goal will go to VAR. Only the controversial ones will... and out of the goals that are disallowed, the decision will surely be correct.

...and a lot of the time, we'll get to celebrate twice.

Nonsense. It’s been confirmed a number of times in various media that every goal is checked. Sometimes it will be such an obvious goal that the check will last seconds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Yes I had, but in the morning I am sober and I still don't like VAR.

Always good to somehow cross-reference Churchill!

 

[Napper]

It said a lot about VAR but

It is absolutely f****** sh 1t.

Part of the beauty of football is the robberies and lucky / unlucky decisions. Why does it have to be perfect .

It’s ruined the unbridled joy when we score which can’t be a good thing .

I agree it adds the drama if watching at home but it’s killed a bit of the live enjoyment .

Yesterday the time it took was a shambles

VAR is shite

 

[Acker79]

What they cannot make black and white are leaning or pushing and shirt tugs of players if they are both at it etc and in those cases VAR operators will have to use their judgement which won't be agreed with 100% of supporters.

No they don't. That's not what video assistan refs are there to do. They don't (in the current process) look at challenges and judge whether they think they are fouls or not. When it comes to decisions that fall under "in the opinion of the referee", if the ref says it's a foul, it's a foul, as long as what he bases his decision on actually happened. The VAR is there to check whether it happened or not. For example, if the ref says 'didn't give the pen because both were pulling each others shirts', the VAR looks at the footage and says 'yes they were' or 'no they weren't', he's not judging who started it, he's not judging who pulled whose shirt more, he's not asking 'would I give that?'. There is very little judgement from the VAR, that still (currently) sits on the referee's shoulders.