Clear blue daylight for me.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Right then. After that demonstration... VAR? Yes or No?
- Thread starter SweatyMexican
- Start date
Clear blue daylight for me.
SweatyMexican
Well-known member
- Mar 31, 2013
- 4,105
- Thread starter
- #902
If it's not clear within one or two replays, stick with the on-field decision.
It should take the VAR guys less than 5 seconds to spot a 'clear and obvious' mistake, so no need to keep stopping the game and have all this waiting around.
It should take the VAR guys less than 5 seconds to spot a 'clear and obvious' mistake, so no need to keep stopping the game and have all this waiting around.
Jesus Christ
That Norwich goal.
Fml
That Norwich goal.
Fml
Another week, another shiocking demolition of the game we used to know and love by technology being weilded by idiots. The sooner someone gets rid of it the better, so, of course, it's here to stay.
If we absolutely must have this "improvement" then three things must change. Firstly the on field referee must review his own decision on a pitch side monitor. No more luxury cavern near Heathrow with a barely interested third party ref with no match context drawing childish crayon lines to prove someone's fingernail was offside. Secondly, as per the second part of point one, absolute daylight between attacker and defender for an offside, else they're level. Thirdly show all of every replay on the big screen to the fans. If it is going to be the correct decision then what's the harm in showing people?
But preferably I'd rather the whole thing was thrown in a massive sea container, covered in concrete and sent out to the bottom of the North Sea, alongside whoever thought it would be a good idea.
If we absolutely must have this "improvement" then three things must change. Firstly the on field referee must review his own decision on a pitch side monitor. No more luxury cavern near Heathrow with a barely interested third party ref with no match context drawing childish crayon lines to prove someone's fingernail was offside. Secondly, as per the second part of point one, absolute daylight between attacker and defender for an offside, else they're level. Thirdly show all of every replay on the big screen to the fans. If it is going to be the correct decision then what's the harm in showing people?
But preferably I'd rather the whole thing was thrown in a massive sea container, covered in concrete and sent out to the bottom of the North Sea, alongside whoever thought it would be a good idea.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Forgive me if I've missed it for today, but I believe I read Trossard against West Ham was 1.56 minutes to be disallowed. Anyone know what Burn was today?
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
I’ll sail the boat. They are ripping the heart out of our game
BUTTERBALL
East Stand Brighton Boyz
Goal line technology yes. VAR no. Some you win, some you lose but the game stays true - and i'm happy with that. Bin it at the end of the season.
Sorrel
Well-known member
I still wish it was for clear and obvious mistakes, with the onus being on the on-field decision being obviously wrong. If it takes more than two views to be sure, then just go with the on-field decision.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
It took a while for the buffoons to go back 6 phases of play to find a couple of mm somewhere on a not particularly accurately picked freeze frame.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
The ball did ping about in Bournemouth's box before the 'goal' on several occasions. Therefore so many reasons and so much time, I was just curious as to how long the anti-goal secret police took.
Sorrel
Well-known member
They should be given 30 seconds - maybe a minute at maximum. If there is not a clear mistake that can be identified in that time, then the on-field decision should stand.
And during that time the conversation and videos should be played on the screens (if the screens are working) for everyone to see and hear.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
The IFAB wont allow the incident under review to be placed on the big screens. Trossard's ball in and Mooy's finish made that one of the better Albion goals I've ever seen in the flesh - afterwards I was thinking how to disallow it. They've ruined the sport.
As soon as the ball is bouncing around in the box you know there is a high chance of being disallowed for brushing a finger or someone being a mm off side
Let's put it this way - the stream I had hadn't shown the goal by the time the VAR decision was on NSC.
Scored at 57.15
Disallowed at 59.30
Trossards goal was worse in a way - firstly, it was all still new to us, and secondly - W.Ham were just about to kick off before anyone even knew it was being looked at in any detail.
2.15, and we only had 3 minutes added time.
Withdean and I
Well-known member
- Aug 6, 2003
- 1,353
The way the FA have introduced VAR this season should see them charged with incompetence.
Rugby have been doing it perfectly well for years and all they had to do was copy it.
But no, they have made their usual utter dogs dinner of it and made this season a farce on many occasions such as today.
I am not against VAR but it shouldn’t be used in he way it is this season.
For offside I thought the rule pre VAR was you had to be clearly offside when the ball is played, not half an eyebrow!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rugby have been doing it perfectly well for years and all they had to do was copy it.
But no, they have made their usual utter dogs dinner of it and made this season a farce on many occasions such as today.
I am not against VAR but it shouldn’t be used in he way it is this season.
For offside I thought the rule pre VAR was you had to be clearly offside when the ball is played, not half an eyebrow!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My issue is the limit of accuracy of VAR. Given the limited number of frames per minute of their video, the precise moment the foot touches the ball not always clear and/or visible and the lines the ref draws there is clearly a limit with VAR. My point is they can’t say with certainty a goal is offside if it’s below this level of quantification and therefore surely can’t strike a goal off if the laws of the game are to be followed. Also, I have never seen anything published about this.
It was also supposed to be unobtrusive, but VAR is now often a bigger talking point than goals. Other countries don’t seem to have screwed this up as badly as the Premier League have. Didn’t they look at other leagues which have implemented it ?
Seasider78
Well-known member
- Nov 14, 2004
- 5,952
The introduction of VAR and it’s continued use in the face of 6 months of a complete shambles shows how completely out of touch the lawmakers are with the fans of the game.
It makes you wonder how much worse it needs to get before it is binned off
The problem VAR was supposed to solve it has made worse and for that it has been a complete failure
It makes you wonder how much worse it needs to get before it is binned off
The problem VAR was supposed to solve it has made worse and for that it has been a complete failure
Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,432
I initially thought we'd get used to VAR once a few decisions went our way. Well, given the ones against Villa, Sheff utd, spurs and the fluky penalty against Everton it's interesting that everyone still hates it when we've had more go our way than against us.
3 improvements would make it more tolerable
-Thicker lines or benefit of the doubt to the attacker at offside
- Make penalties dead (like in a shoot out) to stop this encroaching bollocks. Keepers ball on the penalty spot or goal kick if he saves it
- Sort the stadium experience out. Get the crowd involved like Rugby or Cricket
3 improvements would make it more tolerable
-Thicker lines or benefit of the doubt to the attacker at offside
- Make penalties dead (like in a shoot out) to stop this encroaching bollocks. Keepers ball on the penalty spot or goal kick if he saves it
- Sort the stadium experience out. Get the crowd involved like Rugby or Cricket