|
Post by Spaceman on Jan 31, 2018 17:35:12 GMT -5
Fuck this shit, I like my football shady and controversial tbh
|
|
|
Post by Elie De Beaufour 🐴 on Jan 31, 2018 23:53:47 GMT -5
No. When the system itself and the guidelines have been fully developed, the question should be asked. But as of now, it only leads to more confusion than there was before. Like in Italy, where some calls are revoked because of something that happened long before the situation that is being investigated, while clear handballs in the penalty area pass by unchecked. The referees don't know how to properly use this technology yet, which leads to inconsistency. Inconsistencies that contradict the entire point with VAR being installed. Some day the system will be ready for it, and so will the referees, but that day is not today. Go back to the lab and come back when you're done, but until then football will be better off without it. Edit: I dont know how it's been working in Germany, but if they can achieve some kind of consistency over there I have less of a problem with it, despite interrupting the flow of the game and so on. I'm for a fairer game. But not if it ends up like in Italy, then it is pointless. In Australia, Graham Arnold is abusing it.
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Feb 4, 2018 0:05:54 GMT -5
its sh!te. itll never be fast/smooth enough to integrate well into the game, but even if they manage to speed it all up, there will still be errors, so whats the point? Why wouldn't it get faster and smoother over time? It's brand new technology, with some obvious flaws, of course it will get better. And "there will still be errors", yeah, but about 80-90% fewer errors, and mostly the kind of "too close to call" situations where you wouldn't be sure even after seeing multiple replays. By the way, at least in the Bundesliga most of the really long awkward pauses are in situations where there would be awkward pauses without VAR as well, like when players are shouting at the ref after a penalty call/red card. my point is, no matter how fast it gets, its not gonna be fast enough. it being new isnt really an excuse. its not as if the more its used, the less replays the VAR will have to watch, or the quicker he'll be able to make decisions. it takes the time it takes to review an incident. and the more often its used, the more time it uses up. the bundesliga is not a good example. its been kind of a disaster. far too many long pauses, but more importantly, incorrect decisions being made even after review (including major game changers). which is what i meant by 'there are still errors'...VAR made errors. whats the point of a VAR, if he gives the ref a wrong decision?
|
|
|
Post by RocketMan on Feb 4, 2018 8:25:05 GMT -5
VAR would have played a blinder in the 86 World Cup..Arg v Eng. Just sayin. well, or in the final 1966 *cough*
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 4, 2018 13:30:25 GMT -5
WOW WHAT A MATCH AT ANFIELD!!!!!
I don’t think VAR would have cleared up the second penalty given to Spurs, but the first one Kane was certainly offside. Still, I don’t want to see VAR at all in the sport but sadly that’s the way we are going.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Lee Vulgar on Feb 4, 2018 15:12:24 GMT -5
That first penalty where it took them about half an hour to come to the wrong decision was kind of a nice argument for VAR. (They were both dives though, right?)
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 4, 2018 15:32:42 GMT -5
That first penalty where it took them about half an hour to come to the wrong decision was kind of a nice argument for VAR. (They were both dives though, right?) There was contact on the second, but was it a foul? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows.
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Feb 4, 2018 18:32:54 GMT -5
WOW WHAT A MATCH AT ANFIELD!!!!! I don’t think VAR would have cleared up the second penalty given to Spurs, but the first one Kane was certainly offside. Still, I don’t want to see VAR at all in the sport but sadly that’s the way we are going. By the letter of the law he wasn't offside.
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Feb 4, 2018 22:09:02 GMT -5
WOW WHAT A MATCH AT ANFIELD!!!!! I don’t think VAR would have cleared up the second penalty given to Spurs, but the first one Kane was certainly offside. Still, I don’t want to see VAR at all in the sport but sadly that’s the way we are going. By the letter of the law he wasn't offside. how so? because lovren touches it? hes still offside. its about where kane is when alli plays the ball, since he gains an advantage after tha ball is played.
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Feb 4, 2018 22:29:19 GMT -5
That first penalty where it took them about half an hour to come to the wrong decision was kind of a nice argument for VAR. (They were both dives though, right?)it depends on your definition of 'diving'. both had contact, so technically both are penalties (apart from the offside business). for me, a dive has to have NO contact. its too difficult to judge how much contact is needed to knock a player off balance. it would be different for every player in every situation...
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Feb 4, 2018 23:30:44 GMT -5
By the letter of the law he wasn't offside. how so? because lovren touches it? hes still offside. its about where kane is when alli plays the ball, since he gains an advantage after tha ball is played. Its quite clear. By the letter of the law he isn't. "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage"
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Feb 6, 2018 21:41:00 GMT -5
how so? because lovren touches it? hes still offside. its about where kane is when alli plays the ball, since he gains an advantage after tha ball is played. Its quite clear. By the letter of the law he isn't. "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage" guess i shouldve read the actual rule...altho how anyone can claim there was no advantage is beyond me. i suppose it depends on what 'deliberately plays the ball' really means...if kane wasnt there and lloris picked the ball up, would it have been a pass back? highly unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 17, 2018 21:42:25 GMT -5
lol what a fucking joke. VAR had a few drinks, innit.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 28, 2018 15:38:43 GMT -5
VAR is an utter disgrace. Kick VAR out of football.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 13, 2018 13:37:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Apr 13, 2018 13:49:09 GMT -5
Its going to happen at some point, they're just giving you more time to get used to the idea
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 13, 2018 14:03:23 GMT -5
Its going to happen at some point, they're just giving you more time to get used to the idea Of course it will. But the hope is that by the time it’s implemented the technology won’t have as many problems!
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 7, 2018 18:07:01 GMT -5
I fucking despise VAR.
To me, it should only be used for objective decisions - offsides, mistaken identity, etc.
Things like penalties are almost always subjective and adding VAR to the debate tends to just add to the confusion and controversy - it’s just another ref giving his opinion. VAR should never be used when it is strickly opinion based.
But anyway, here is a video from The NewYorker....
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Jul 7, 2018 18:57:38 GMT -5
VAR is shit the way it is now because if referee is paid from one team, he can just ignore VAR. VAR doesn't change anything then. He can use VAR when it suits him and ignore it when he wants. Players should get one or two challenges, like in tennis.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 7, 2018 19:00:30 GMT -5
VAR like anything new takes getting used to. There will be a day when it is the norm in football and people will wonder how the game ever survived without it.
|
|