Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Fiery Zac

VAR doesn’t work

Recommended Posts

Guest
Thing is kio - Walker definitely raised his arm, but the cross was going no where near any of them. An incredibly pedantic penalty, with frustration underlined by the fact Kane was rugby tackled twice with nothing given.

All anyone wants is consistency.

Still, we got the second goal, so #*$# em :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s never going to work because unlike goal line technology that deals in fact. The ball has either crossed the line or it hasn’t. This is still dealing in opinion. There was the incident in the Chelsea match last season when Klose wipes out Willian. My opinion was clear penalty, Vars wasn’t.The other issue is are all the angles of the incident available to the var refs instantly to make a decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ian"]Thing is kio - Walker definitely raised his arm, but the cross was going no where near any of them. An incredibly pedantic penalty, with frustration underlined by the fact Kane was rugby tackled twice with nothing given.

All anyone wants is consistency.

Still, we got the second goal, so #*$# em :-)[/quote]
Justice done I think by the second goal re: The Kane penalties, but in regards to the Walker ones, it doesn''t matter if he was going to get to the cross or not, you just can''t block people off like that, and you can''t swing your arm around at head height in the area. The Tunisian player took full advantage but Walker was being incredibly stupid risking it, when it was totally not needed.
Back to the wider point though - I think VAR has actually been pretty good, and used well generally in the WC but it was not well used in the England game. It''s not perfect, but it seems to me to be generally good for improving consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Errr, no. Kane scoring a well deserved second does not mean justice has been done for the previous two clear pens - it means we got what we deserved in terms of points. We can argue about Walker''s being a "clear foul" all night, but those on Kane were even more blatant yet not given, despite apparent VAR referrals.

Anyway, all is well that ends well. Hopefully Rashford will replace the incredible profligate Sterling and we will wrap up progression in the next match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The penalty should have been given against us, stupid move by Walker. In the same game VAR should have given us two penalties against Kane, not sure what the 4 VAR ref''s were thinking about not to give them.
The odd thing for me, is the 4 VAR ref''s have to get dressed in full ref''s gear to watch it in a studio in Moscow. They even had to change gear in the Switzerland match coz it clashed with their kit !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically VAR has changed nothing other than slowing down the game and giving thick football players an opportunity to practice drawing imaginary TV screens in the refs face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree with Ian - had we had the pen(s) we deserved we''d have almost certainly won by more, probably by 3-4. In terms of points it makes little difference but in the wider tournament a few goals may well be the difference in playing better or worse teams later on.

I''ve been reasonably impressed with refs and VAR so far, but tonight both were extremely poor - it''s just up to who you get, I suppose. For Tunisia to have ended with no pens or bookings against was crazy, and the guy couldn''t even get them to go back barely 5 yards at some free kicks and corners. You can almost guarantee the same treatment at corners will be given to Lukaku and it will be interesting to see if there''s different decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="Ian"]Thing is kio - Walker definitely raised his arm, but the cross was going no where near any of them. An incredibly pedantic penalty, with frustration underlined by the fact Kane was rugby tackled twice with nothing given.

All anyone wants is consistency.

Still, we got the second goal, so #*$# em :-)[/quote]
Justice done I think by the second goal re: The Kane penalties, but in regards to the Walker ones, it doesn''t matter if he was going to get to the cross or not, you just can''t block people off like that, and you can''t swing your arm around at head height in the area. The Tunisian player took full advantage but Walker was being incredibly stupid risking it, when it was totally not needed.
Back to the wider point though - I think VAR has actually been pretty good, and used well generally in the WC but it was not well used in the England game. It''s not perfect, but it seems to me to be generally good for improving consistency.
[/quote]
I thought Walker was lucky not to be sent off for that. It wasn''t one of those "passive" elbows where a player is trying to get leverage to jump. It was a single elbow thown back where the Tunisian player was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]Ahahaha purple...no. Just. No.[/quote]
Really? If an opposition player had done that at Carrow Road I can pretty much guarantee a good number of posters here would have said it deserved a red card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ref was awful, Walkers shouldn''t have been given and Kane should have had two, its as if FIFA aren''t a corrupt system who would bung their referees a load of money because they all hate England. The Tunisians were the dirtiest cheats ever especially that ginger number 8. Was very much justice seeing him cry at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone clear something up for me? Can VAR be applied if the ref gives a penalty? i.e. to overturn his decision. Or is it just for situations where he doesn''t give a pen - as in the first Kane grapple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me the Kyle one was soft but in the category of have seen them given and occasionally a red card too so I am ok with that decision.

Likewise the two Kane ones are the type we have seen both given and ignored on a regular basis; in my eyes both should have been given; what the (whats the right collective noun for a group of refs? an appeal a brown envelope ) refs saw or how they interpreted will never be known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, PC, I''ve just watched it frame by frame.

Walker is almost stationary, with his arms outstretches just below shoulder level. The Tunisian runs in behind him, lays his right arm across his back, tucks his shoulder under Walker''s arm & shoves his face against Walker''s neck/arm (Walker is not moving). He then falls down clutching his face.

Blatant simulation. He should have been sent off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Purple

So because a number of pinkun posters would have said it then it is a red? Odd logic.

Walker had his arm out, it was a penalty but he didn''t know the player was there and wasn''t aiming an elbow at his face on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
I thought the Walker one was 50-50. We will only know if Kyle takes scopolamine.

But the Kane ones were blatantly obvious and no doubt could be attributed.

In the Sweden game, the ref said no penalty and VAR looked at it and told the ref to have a look. He changed his mind and awarded a rightful penalty.

I cannot understand why VAR did not have a word with the ref for the first one and yet it was obvious with the second one that he was looking straight at the incident and gave nothing so VAR should have told him of his error.

As Roy Keane said, it has been brought in too early before it has been made mandatory for VAR to tell the ref he has made a mistake.

And I know we criticise our refs in Britain but so many of the cover matches with top players in a tough league.

Please tell me that the Angolan league is the best place for a referees apprenticeship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"]Well, PC, I''ve just watched it frame by frame.

Walker is almost stationary, with his arms outstretches just below shoulder level. The Tunisian runs in behind him, lays his right arm across his back, tucks his shoulder under Walker''s arm & shoves his face against Walker''s neck/arm (Walker is not moving). He then falls down clutching his face.

Blatant simulation. He should have been sent off.[/quote]

Spot on. All this bollocks about not having your arm up etc etc - that does not make it a pen if a player deliberately runs into it. As for the 2 Kane rugby tackles, how VAR didn''t give pens points to corruption, pure and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VAR does work if used correctly. They have not, however, yet worked out the best framework for its use and it also will not work correctly if applied ineptly (or perhaps even corruptly) as it was in the England game last night.

I watched the Sweden game yesterday afternoon and VAR was used correctly to award Sweden a penalty following an intervention by the VAR. The same has happened in other games including the France game (although the pen there was a bit more 50/50). It is inexplicable that the VAR officials last night did not do the same for the 3 times Kane and Maguire were rugby tackled in the box at corners all of which were clear penalties. I hope I am wrong but it seems to me a huge coincidence that England were the victims of this.

You can just tell that now there is going to be a clampdown on wrestling in the box which will see penalties given in similar situations in future games, probably with one against us in one of our remaining games.

If VAR is going to work then the terms of reference need to be clear and consistent. Ironically, although the penalty given against us was soft, i think the fact it was not reversed by VAR was the correct outcome because there was contact and the matter then really becomes a subjective which means it wasn''t a clear and obvious error.

The other thing that would help with VAR would be if like rugby you could hear the conversation between the officials or at least it was made available after the game so you could understand the rationale behind the decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thing is VAR is kind of letting the ref off the hook for a pretty woeful performance all game.

He seemed to have no willingness to get Tunisian gamesmanship under control- he stopped the game for a player who''d been hit by the ball, couldn''t get a player to move 10 yards back from a free kick and allowed a huge amount of niggly, tactical fouling without booking a single Tunisian player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tennis and cricket seemed to have adapted quite well with VAR where you have limited appeals during the game. Football could for instance have 2 appeals per half for each side where foul play happened within the penalty area and was missed by officials at the time. ie Kane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not keen on the appeals bit if I am honest; we have enough player pressure on refs already and I am not sure it would be a good thing - although arguably it could lessen dissent (rules are already in place for that but like wrestling at corners refs rarely do anything about it). It is easy to see the warnocks breaking up rhythms of play and easing pressure on a team with spurious appeals, if they have any left over.

Tennis and cricket have the advantage of natural breaks in play / action where such a review can take place, and again they are a factual rather subjective view.

Rugby Union leaves the power in the hands of the officials rather than the players, ensuring game control remains with the refs and not the players.

We are having some teething issues - but more hits than misses at the moment for me - although if i was to have a preference I am a dinosaur who would leave it the hands of the refs - errors and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swindon - They just said on the BBC that the officials did review the penalty claims on Kane and decided no action should be taken !

I was listening to the last 10 mins of the first half on 5 Live and I''m sure they said the first Kane incident went to VAR & they decided not to overule the ref''s decision not to award a pen.

Whoever was co-commentator then went into a rant about how FIFA were useless and how the pre-tournament ref''s briefing specifically used the type of tackle on Kane as an example of a situation where a penalty would be given by VAR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Woodman"]Swindon - They just said on the BBC that the officials did review the penalty claims on Kane and decided no action should be taken !

I was listening to the last 10 mins of the first half on 5 Live and I''m sure they said the first Kane incident went to VAR & they decided not to overule the ref''s decision not to award a pen.

Whoever was co-commentator then went into a rant about how FIFA were useless and how the pre-tournament ref''s briefing specifically used the type of tackle on Kane as an example of a situation where a penalty would be given by VAR![/quote]
Maybe the question that the media should be asking is what was it that two sets of officials saw that convinced them that it wasn''t a penalty.
Could be that Harry Kane was also in contact with the defender in both cases and they decided that both players were fouling each other, also John Stones pushed over a Tunisian defender for one of the incidents.
Instead of wailing about the outcome the media should find out why they decided not to give penalties. We are being badly let doen by lazy journalists and terrible pundits on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We''re just the ''Millwall'' of the World Cup......Nobody luvs us and we don''t care......No different to the Eurovision Song Contest and why we get paltry votes.....FACTIMISSIMO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JF"]king canary wrote the following post at 18/06/2018 8:00 PM:

Worked really well for the Sweden game.

That particular decision was ridiculous. The red shouldn’t have needed the var it was that clear but yes it sorted it in the end. I can’t see how they, having viewed the Kane incident haven’t given it. Unless they haven’t viewed from all angles. Either way it hasn’t worked in this game[/quote]

It is turning referees into cowards who are reluctant to make decisions. They are becoming like bean counting umpires in cricket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×