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

[Stat Brother]

So VAR sees an offside that wasn't.
Then misses the handball that might have been.
Before disallowing a goal that was.


"It's not football any more".

 

[Lower West Stander]

It's not VAR, it's the way it's used; the rules; and the officials.

I like the idea employed in tennis where players get a set number of challenges.

Also, it simple has to be put own the screen and we need to hear what the officials are saying to each other, so mic them all up.

It's not hard, it's just football is so way behind in its adoption of technology.

Yep this.

In cricket, or US sport, everything is shown on the screen and described and explained by the officials.

The way football is dealing with this is laughable.

Mike Riley is an idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[m20gull]

The way football is dealing with this is laughable.

Mike Riley is an idiot.

At last something we can all agree on!

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

IMHO there should be a strict time limit on VAR. If it takes more than, say, 2 minutes to decide, then the original decision (or non-decision) should stand. Because otherwise it's too close to call within the spirit of the game.

 

[darkwolf666]

So Burn was offside from the free kick but play carried on for ages till Burn scored including Bournemouth having plenty of touches , just killing any enjoyment of scoring now

A question I have posed before. What if a red card offence us committed in that period of play, the Burn one today had plenty of opportunities for foul play to be committed. If play is taken back to the point of the original offence, then any subsequent incidents can't happen, and therefore can't be penalised, can they?

 

[whosthedaddy]

The Cockwombles that allowed the use of VAR in the Premier League, long before it was proved as an accurate model of consistency, need to hang their heads in shame.

The 3 points for a win that was brought into the game of footbal in the1995-96 season was so that football teams were encouraged to try and score more goals and win games rather than go for a boring stalemate, thus the football fans was seeing more goals and getting entertainment value.
VAR has appeared to have the opposite effect. Subjective video images, which are sometimes inconclusive at best, are now being used to write off perfectly good goals such as Dan Burns' today, it's pathetic and needs to be sorted out pronto.

 

[BensGrandad]

Or have a time limit. If VAR cannot be 100% sure within 30seconds then it is "inconclusive" and the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side.
If it should be "clear and obvious" then it shouldn't take long to establish there is an error.

This is too logical for the authorities to bring in plus the notion that the law on offside needs changing so that offside is only such if a part of the body that you can score with is offside.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

I've disagreed from the start. Football is played by humans. Like forwards who miss open goals, or keepers who let goals slip between their legs, referees make mistakes. It's part of the game.

Let's improve our officials by better training. No coincidence that England has few officials at tournaments.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

VAR has just made an even bigger fool of itself in the Norwich game than it did in ours.

It’s actually making wrong decisions, not just questionable, Pukki was onside. It’s ridiculous. Football administrators are clueless wankers.

Anyone that is for this shit hates football.

 

[GT49er]

IMHO there should be a strict time limit on VAR. If it takes more than, say, 2 minutes to decide, then the original decision (or non-decision) should stand. Because otherwise it's too close to call within the spirit of the game.

Two minutes? I'd give it twenty seconds, max. And maybe only ten for offside.

 

[ROKERITE]

VAR has just made an even bigger fool of itself in the Norwich game than it did in ours.

It’s actually making wrong decisions, not just questionable, Pukki was onside. It’s ridiculous. Football administrators are clueless wankers.

Anyone that is for this shit hates football.

I was always against the idea but no-one could have foreseen just how it would suck the fun out of the game.
Weren't we told it would only be used if there was a clear and obvious error? What was clear and obvious about Burn or Pukki's goals?

 

[GT49er]

The problem with having a time limit is that it makes corruption possible. Either deliberate, or accidental through subconscious bias.

"It probably is a Man United red card... but I think I'll just let the clock run down..."

It might with fans running it, but not the referees. And of course it's much easier to send off a United player at Old Trafford if you're safely locked away in secure premises 100 miles or so away!

 

[GT49er]

I was always against the idea but no-one could have foreseen just how it would suck the fun out of the game.
Weren't we told it would only be used if there was a clear and obvious error? What was clear and obvious about Burn or Pukki's goals?

It's a misinterpretation by the officials of 'clear and obvious error', As Dermot Gallagher keeps telling us (and tbf he's not alone), 1 millimetre off-side is 'clear and obvious' - yes, after six views from different angles in slo-mo it is clear and obvious offside - but as it's so marginal is not a clear and obvious error by the referee.

Perhaps they should have used 'glaringly obvious error' as the criteria instead.

 

[GT49er]

If you don't think referees have subconscious bias already, then you haven't been watching the Premier League for the last 20 years!

This would be heavily exacerbated if they had the option of running down a timer when making a decision...

Referees having been refereeing from a secure room at a safe distance for the last 20 years - and without the risk of angry red-shirted players right in their face swearing at them..

 

[Hungry Joe]

Just get rid of it for offsides and I'll be happy. In the spirit of the game I'd rather see Kane's goal allowed every time if it meant we wouldn't have the ludicrous decision to rule out Burn's today.

 

[Bodian]

Three goals disallowed today - not sure I saw one defender even appeal for offside for any of them. And they generally know.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The blackest in a number of black VAR days.

 

[Stato]

VAR has just made an even bigger fool of itself in the Norwich game than it did in ours.

It’s actually making wrong decisions, not just questionable, Pukki was onside. It’s ridiculous. Football administrators are clueless wankers.

Anyone that is for this shit hates football.

The Pukki one is not worse than Dan Burn's. The Pukki decision was based on a questionable frame of the moment when the ball was played, but showed that part of his body was offside. The Burn one was based on a frame when the ball has already left Mooy's foot, the lines drawn are in the wrong place and the measurement is of something that was two or three phases before Burn's shot. The question of whether Burn was offside from the free kick should have been a moot point as soon as the Bournemouth defender headed it clear.

Whatever technology is brought in, it seems that Eddie Howe's teams will always get incorrect decisions given in their favour against us. Thankfully, unlike Fletcher's handball winning them a penalty, them being awarded a penalty for Calderon's fair tackle outside of the box and the sending offs against Burnley, this latest error didn't affect the result.

 

[amexer]

If they are going to use lines why not change rule to say both feet have to be behind it

 

[dazzer6666]

If they are going to use lines why not change rule to say both feet have to be behind it

Make the line thicker, and they have to be clearly over it....