Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] England v Switzerland





maltaseagull

Well-known member
Feb 25, 2009
12,938
Zabbar- Malta
Curse you VAR. 0-0 and pointless extra time beckons

It was a foul but no different than goes on in every penalty area for every corner in the PL week in week out and never given.
So will VAR mean about 6 penalties and some disallowed goals each match when it is used ?
 


vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
27,867
Don't waste your life watching that pointless crap BG, Live and Let Die is probably starting on ITV9 any minute now. Treat yourself to a bit of Sheriff JW Pepper

" Secret Agent ? !!!!!!!! "
 


















Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Nov 15, 2008
31,765
Brighton
It was a foul but no different than goes on in every penalty area for every corner in the PL week in week out and never given.
So will VAR mean about 6 penalties and some disallowed goals each match when it is used ?

I think that depends on your personal philosophy and whether you feel such physicality is what makes football, or if you think football should be purely about skill.

If you like physicality then, yes. It'll mean 6 penalties, and disallowed goals, and ruination of the game.

If you prefer skill over physicality, then, no. Players will soon learn they can't do that and will adapt and the game will be better for it.


(nb, this isn't meant as a judgement on either philosophy, more a point of how pundits argue - this is usually related to red cards; if they like the rule change, giving out red cards will stamp it out, if they don't then giving red cards for that will mean every game will end with 7 players v 7).
 


Steve in Japan

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
May 9, 2013
4,417
East of Eastbourne
It was a foul but no different than goes on in every penalty area for every corner in the PL week in week out and never given.
So will VAR mean about 6 penalties and some disallowed goals each match when it is used ?

Probably. Cleverer people than me have debated the application of VAR. Predictably it has morphed from its stated aim of correcting egregious errors by officials. It is now about looking for any and every possible reason to disallow a goal.

We'll all be sorry.
 






GooGull

New member
Aug 14, 2016
667
The decision was obviously correct and gives a warning to attackers as well as defenders that big brother is watching you, stay within the laws and you will be fine.

It’s important the evidence is displayed on the big screens or disappointed fans could turn nasty.
 






Eeyore

Lord Donkey of Queen's Park
NSC Patreon
Apr 5, 2014
23,381
I don't think VAR should disallow goals for infringements that would not have affected the final outcome. It gets subjective otherwise.
 


GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,475
Gloucester
Probably. Cleverer people than me have debated the application of VAR. Predictably it has morphed from its stated aim of correcting egregious errors by officials. It is now about looking for any and every possible reason to disallow a goal.

We'll all be sorry.
Afraid this is how I feel about it too. "To correct a clear and obvious error is fine, but to me, being two millimetres offside (probably, on balance, after ten slow-mo replays and much deliberation) is not a "clear and obvious" error if it is missed. But that's the way it seems to be heading.
 




Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Aug 25, 2011
63,407
Withdean area
The decision was obviously correct and gives a warning to attackers as well as defenders that big brother is watching you, stay within the laws and you will be fine.

It’s important the evidence is displayed on the big screens or disappointed fans could turn nasty.

This.

Over time, players will cut out pointless infringements in the 18 yard box.
 




Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Nov 15, 2008
31,765
Brighton
Probably. Cleverer people than me have debated the application of VAR. Predictably it has morphed from its stated aim of correcting egregious errors by officials. It is now about looking for any and every possible reason to disallow a goal.

We'll all be sorry.

I think people got a little too caught up on the 'clear and obvious error' and how it is applied, which I think has impacted on people's views of VAR.

Letting a goal to stand when a player was offside is a clear error. It may have been offside by half an inch, but it was offside - not giving the offside was clearly an error. It is an entirely understandable error to make giving the tightness of the decision, but still wrong. So the goal can't stand if you want to eliminate such obvious errors.

Similarly with fouls, if a foul occurs in the build up to a goal and the goal is allowed to stand, a clear error has been made. When it comes to fouls, the challenge is deemed a foul if, in the opinion of the ref it is a foul - that is, it doesn't matter what the pundits think, or the fans, or the players, just the referee so it's not a matter of "well, the boys in the studio are divided about whether it's a foul, ergo not a clear error". If the referee looks at a replay and sees what he deems a foul, and your plan is to avoid clear errors, the goal has to be chalked off irrespective of the views of the pundits on the foul.


Now if the stated aim had been to avoid uncommon or unreasonable mistakes (the sort of mistake that when you see makes you think 'we shouldn't need VAR to get that right'), then tight offsides missed would be accepted as part of the game, fouls that were unnoticed remain ungiven and people can just get on with it.
 


Bakero

Languidly clinical
Oct 9, 2010
13,680
Almería
England upped their game after about an hour, by far the best team now. If only Sterling would relax and tuck all the chances away.

Much better in defence without the awful Walker and Stones.

I've barely noticed Gomez which probably means he's having a very good game.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here