[Football] VAR does not work for England

[Lower West Stander]

Read what I wrote. I’m not actually disagreeing with anything you say. Of course they were snides, and of course they deserved to lose.

The guy celebrating ‘winning’ the pen is a dick. I hate seeing that. It doesn’t change the fact that Walker has clumped him. Walker himself said as much in his post-match interview.

The next one, I’ve said from my very first post that it was a clear foul on Kane, worthy of a penalty. Just that Stones push is even more obvious, and that if they do go over the video, they’d just as likely give that decision.

The last one, the guy does have his arm over Kane’s shoulder to stop him jumping. That in itself could be a foul, but Harry wants to make certain, so he grabs the arm, and pulls the guy onto him. That’s not opinion - it’s there on video to see

No idea why any of these points are being described as ‘negative’. Attempting to understand a couple of refereeing decisions is nothing to do with wanting to see England win, and being delighted that we did.

You have no idea why your points were construed as negative? Hmmm....

Go back to your first post. There was nothing positive about it at all, you then spent several rambling posts trying to dig yourself out of that hole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hugo Rune]

Their’s I think would have been given on review - there was simply no need for his arm to be up there, and asking for trouble.

I disagree in that the Ref had a clear view of the incident. His reasons for not giving the penalty would have been that the ball was not in playing distance of the players and that The Tunisian scoundrel was ‘looking for it’. Even if he’d reviewed it, he’d have pretty much seen the same thing happening.

I do take your point about the arm. There are many players in this World Cup who are going to take advantage of an incident like that. Walker was facing the wrong way and put himself in a position to be taken advantage of.

 

[Exile]

Does silly child not apply to you then? Or is having a bit of attention through posting gibberish now considered a grown up activity?

For posting THIS?:

People are so one-eyed on this stuff.

Tunisia penalty - Walker is careless and his swinging arm catches him in the face. It’s a penalty all day long.

The first half Kane one, he IS fouled, but there is an earlier MASSIVE push by Stones (they missed both of course)

The second half Kane one, watch it again - Kane grabs the guy’s arm, and pulls him onto him.

No - I wouldn't say so. This was titled as a thread on VAR, so I gave my opinion on it. Rather than 'gibberish' it all seems to make sense, even if you disagree with every single word of it, as is your prerogative.

This, on the other hand, isn't intelligent discussion:

Sorry we won the war & killed jihadi John (****)

No bent decisions in he tourno but **** it let’s go against my country and stick up for them - utter clueless ****! Bet you watched at home with a Horlicks - follow England away follow England away follow England away.

You’re so ****ing wrong you’re a Kraut - **** off

Had it been clear in the title that the thread was meant to be about who has the biggest bulldog tattoo, I wouldn't have bothered posting on it

 

[Horses Arse]

For posting THIS?:



No - I wouldn't say so. This was titled as a thread on VAR, so I gave my opinion on it. Rather than 'gibberish' it all seems to make sense, even if you disagree with every single word of it, as is your prerogative.

This, on the other hand, isn't intelligent discussion:







Had it been clear in the title that the thread was meant to be about who has the biggest bulldog tattoo, I wouldn't have bothered posting on it [emoji106]

Agree with the last bit. I also think that you are stretching opinions to an equal extreme re the ridiculous decisions. To the extent that it was attention seeking (in my opinion of course).

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Springal]

Gary Neville sums it up well. The VAR only get the angles that the directors give them. There are about 26 angles and only 2 directors/producers who get about 30 seconds to view them and send to VAR to then make a call if something needs to be seen.

Sky Sports on a live match have about 14 people to put all the camera angles together for replays etc. The problem is they don't have enough people to put the clips together and view all the angles to send to VAR.

On the first Kane penalty you can tell because they sent a clip where Kane was barely in the shot of being thrown to ground

 

[Sheebo]

For posting THIS?:



No - I wouldn't say so. This was titled as a thread on VAR, so I gave my opinion on it. Rather than 'gibberish' it all seems to make sense, even if you disagree with every single word of it, as is your prerogative.

This, on the other hand, isn't intelligent discussion:







Had it been clear in the title that the thread was meant to be about who has the biggest bulldog tattoo, I wouldn't have bothered posting on it

I apologise - I was hammered x

 

[Exile]

I apologise - I was hammered x

Really!?

No drama.

 

[Sheebo]

Really!?

No drama.

I think a mixture of Jaga on a Monday and the passion of winning got to me. Sorry again, my posts were indeed stupid childish drivel x

 

[Triggaaar]

Read what I wrote. I’m not actually disagreeing with anything you say.

I did. You do disagree.

Of course they were snides, and of course they deserved to lose.

I read you post that the first time. That's not what I'm disagreeing with you about.

The next one, I’ve said from my very first post that it was a clear foul on Kane, worthy of a penalty. Just that Stones push is even more obvious, and that if they do go over the video, they’d just as likely give that decision.

No, you try reading what we've written. We can see the Stones push - it is nothing like as bad as the rugby tackle on Kane, and it it's after the rugby tackle on Kane, so it's a penalty.

 

[Exile]

No, you try reading what we've written. We can see the Stones push - it is nothing like as bad as the rugby tackle on Kane, and it it's after the rugby tackle on Kane, so it's a penalty.

That's one bit I'm happy to back-pedal on somewhat - the timing of the two offences in that incident. The foul on Kane might well start earlier. I was just trying to make sense of how the VAR people could watch the whole incident, and NOT give the penalty. The counter-offence from Stones is just about the only explanation (apart from fanciful conspiracy theories, obvs)

 

[Triggaaar]

That's one bit I'm happy to back-pedal on somewhat - the timing of the two offences in that incident. The foul on Kane might well start earlier.

Ok cool, drama over.

I was just trying to make sense of how the VAR people could watch the whole incident, and NOT give the penalty.

It's like trying to make sense of flatworms sword fighting with their penises, before mating.

The counter-offence from Stones is just about the only explanation (apart from fanciful conspiracy theories, obvs)

The officials being fairly incompetent is another one.

 

[Icy Gull]

I think a mixture of Jaga on a Monday and the passion of winning got to me. Sorry again, my posts were indeed stupid childish drivel x

They were funny, don’t be embarrassed. It was a great evening to be a drunk English fan,

 

[Hungry Joe]

A deeply flawed system being used by incompetent (at best) officials last night. When the officials can't even spot clear foul throws or chose not to make players retreat 10 yards from set-pieces then is it any wonder that the opposition take liberties at every opportunity. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but games like last night's certainly add considerable fuel to such fires.

 

[timbha]

I think a mixture of Jaga on a Monday and the passion of winning got to me. Sorry again, my posts were indeed stupid childish drivel x

No, no. Well played sir, it made a good night last a bit longer. Wish we had a bit more passion for our country rather than all those who mock those of us who watch all the friendlies and qualifiers and then jump on the band wagon about now, who then think they have the right to an opinion!
Start on the java on Saturday night and carry on Sunday morning...... then start posting on here please

 

[GT49er]

That's one bit I'm happy to back-pedal on somewhat - the timing of the two offences in that incident. The foul on Kane might well start earlier. I was just trying to make sense of how the VAR people could watch the whole incident, and NOT give the penalty. The counter-offence from Stones is just about the only explanation (apart from fanciful conspiracy theories, obvs)

Why label the conspiracy theories as fanciful? It's either those or incompetence.

Apart from the two clear penalties they 'didn't see', there was the matter of not retreating ten yards from the ball at free kicks. At least one yellow card should have been issued for failing to comply, with a red to follow if necessary - not for the referee just to wait for the free kick to be taken anyway. On at least one occasion he was looking straight at the offender, but just backed away.

 

[The Large One]

My two-penn'orth is that I can certainly see why the penalty against Walker was given. Flinging your arms out so carelessly invites trouble - and the Tunisian gladly accepted. He may have been looking for it - for anything - but Walker obliged him.

As I've said before, there's no such thing as a 'soft penalty'. It either should have been or shouldn't have been. If it crosses - in the opinion of the referee - the threshold of it being a foul, it will be called. Of course, two referees will have a different opinion but, hey, that's what the law says - 'in the opinion of the referee'. And that's what makes for endless debates. The next referee may not have given it, that's just the way it has always been.

However... if that set the bar for what defined a penalty, then the two Kane incidents clearly exceeded that. And as for VAR - we were led to believe it was an all-seeing eye. Evidently not - in which case, what purpose does it serve?

 

[Springal]

My two-penn'orth is that I can certainly see why the penalty against Walker was given. Flinging your arms out so carelessly invites trouble - and the Tunisian gladly accepted. He may have been looking for it - for anything - but Walker obliged him.

I think the fact the fact Walker made no attempt to go for the ball, either by jumping for it or controlling it made it look even worse. It was a penalty but so easily avoidable.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

I'm not a fan of VAR - if it was meant to remove contentious issues then it has failed.

Clearly VAR misses things - Kane being dragged twice to the floor clearly shows that. Unless, it wasn't missed in which case it would appear corrupt.

It might mean that England players need to be much more vocal and demonstrative when fouls are made against them. Look at Kane when he is dragged to the floor, he gets up almost immediately. If he stayed on the ground, VAR would have had to examine why....and hopeful the refe would be alerted to a clear foul. Hardly complaining almost allows VAR to miss things. England get punished for their sense of fair play

With VAR, you will see much more play acting. One of the reasons why I hate it.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Do you think maybe, just maybe, our allegiance to England taints the way we see the way VAR is used. There have been many strikers who could have been given fouls called. Referees call a game a certain way and if it doesn't fit the fans allegiance than those fans will scream bloody murder.

 

[The Large One]

Do you think maybe, just maybe, our allegiance to England taints the way we see the way VAR is used. There have been many strikers who could have been given fouls called. Referees call a game a certain way and if it doesn't fit the fans allegiance than those fans will scream bloody murder.

Maybe, and fans of other countries probably have been doing the same. We just haven't heard about it.

Brazil have just asked FIFA for an explanation into why VAR wasn't used on two incidents in their game with Switzerland.