VAR yet again

[dylanisabaddog 4,871]

Madders just scored a wonderful goal for Leicester which was cancelled by VAR. They seemed to check him against the Spurs centre half but looked to me that Aurier may be playing him on and the lines on the screen suggested that wasn't checked. Very similar to Teemu's goal against Spurs. 

It's great to see us doing so well but the thought of all that rubbish next year puts me off a bit. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

Something needs to be done about VAR and these offside decisions. It's pure anti-football - against the spirit of the game and has been proven that it is not 100% accurate anyway, so there is no moral grounds for doing these forensic investigations. How many people have to keep saying it before something is done? 

[Daz Sparks 1,151]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It's great to see us doing so well but the thought of all that rubbish next year puts me off a bit. 

Same here Dylan.

[Nuff Said 5,089]

It makes no sense to me, if you take the position that goals are what makes the game exciting. How many people rave about a 0-0 draw? But looking at the reaction to Leeds being tonked tonight, they are still getting appreciation because they play to attack and score goals.

VAR looking for any reason to rule goals out is anti exciting football, slows it down and turns what should be a fast and skilful spectacle into a drawn out technical argument.

 

It wouldn’t be difficult to fix IMHO. Just make the presumption in favour of the attacker unless there’s a clear reason to rule a goal out. If there isn’t a clear and obvious mistake, then the referee’s original decision stands. I can’t see anyone objecting to this surely?

[Grando 260]

If they’re going to draw these lines then I don’t understand why they don’t take a tangible fixed point: the furthest back defender’s foot and the furthest forward attacker’s foot.

[ncfcstar 287]

5 minutes ago, Grando said:

If they’re going to draw these lines then I don’t understand why they don’t take a tangible fixed point: the furthest back defender’s foot and the furthest forward attacker’s foot.

They can do that, but it will still create marginal calls which people will moan about. 

I think the only way to do it 'fairly' is to introduce some kind of version of 'Umpires Call' as they have in cricket.  If the original goal is given and the offside is marginal then it's given, if it was ruled offside then it remains as offside.  It also gives a bit more power back to the officials on the pitch.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

All the big clubs wanted VAR. Football was too important (meaning the money involved) to not use technology available.

The system is doing what they wanted. But now they realise, things that no-one noticed before, are being picked up. They thought it was to get rid of howlers only. But you can't have one without the other.

In the WBA match, the ref gave Livermore a yellow. VAR said, in slow motion, he has raked Grealish. Change of decision. In the Brighton game, slow motion showed Lundstram was indeed guilty of bad contact.

One manager rubs his hands, the other cries unfair.

And the time it now takes to celebrate a goal is draining even 2000 fans of any emotion.

There is no inbetween with VAR. You have it or don't have it. Stop pretending that thickening lines etc will make any difference.

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

There is no inbetween with VAR. You have it or don't have it. 

Not have it please 👍

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Just now, Ken Hairy said:

Not have it please 👍

Agree

[C.I.D 302]

32 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

All the big clubs wanted VAR. Football was too important (meaning the money involved) to not use technology available.

The system is doing what they wanted. But now they realise, things that no-one noticed before, are being picked up. They thought it was to get rid of howlers only. But you can't have one without the other.

In the WBA match, the ref gave Livermore a yellow. VAR said, in slow motion, he has raked Grealish. Change of decision. In the Brighton game, slow motion showed Lundstram was indeed guilty of bad contact.

One manager rubs his hands, the other cries unfair.

And the time it now takes to celebrate a goal is draining even 2000 fans of any emotion.

There is no inbetween with VAR. You have it or don't have it. Stop pretending that thickening lines etc will make any difference.

There didn't look to be that much solid contact in Livermore's tackle but it was reckless and out of control,The tackle by Villa's Hause on the WBA guy after the Livermore red card was an ankle-breaker and yet it wasn't even referred to VAR 🙄

 

 

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

36 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

There is no inbetween with VAR. You have it or don't have it. Stop pretending that thickening lines etc will make any difference.

I disagree. As has been mentioned, there are different variations of it that make it much improved. The umpire's call model sounds very appealing; ie, if there isn't daylight between the attacker and defender then the ruling on the field stands. You could even bring in some form of NFL flag system, meaning the coach has to trigger the VAR decision and it has to be done almost instantly. If there's not flag on the play when the ball hits the back of the net, fans in the stadium will know the goal stands. If a flag has been thrown, it gets checked. And like with Tennis (and NFL) there is a limit to the challenges a coach can make, say 2 a half.

The idea that VAR can only exist in its current, and quite frankly appalling, state doesn't hold true for me.

[Fuzzar 1,702]

1 hour ago, Grando said:

If they’re going to draw these lines then I don’t understand why they don’t take a tangible fixed point: the furthest back defender’s foot and the furthest forward attacker’s foot.

If they're having to draw lines for offside, then it's so marginal the benefit of doubt should go to the attacking side.

[Hairy Canary 668]

9 minutes ago, Fuzzar said:

If they're having to draw lines for offside, then it's so marginal the benefit of doubt should go to the attacking side.

Totally agree.

The answer for off-side decisions using VAR is so simple. Take away the lines completely and use the picture showing the players positions when the ball is kicked. If it isn't obviously off side from that then it is on-side. It's the same as what the assistant referee has to do in real time but with a still picture and more time to judge.

Having said that, like most I wish it was just chucked in the bin.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

58 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I disagree. As has been mentioned, there are different variations of it that make it much improved. The umpire's call model sounds very appealing; ie, if there isn't daylight between the attacker and defender then the ruling on the field stands. You could even bring in some form of NFL flag system, meaning the coach has to trigger the VAR decision and it has to be done almost instantly. If there's not flag on the play when the ball hits the back of the net, fans in the stadium will know the goal stands. If a flag has been thrown, it gets checked. And like with Tennis (and NFL) there is a limit to the challenges a coach can make, say 2 a half.

The idea that VAR can only exist in its current, and quite frankly appalling, state doesn't hold true for me.

And every option you mention takes away from what we love about the game. Each sport has its own version to suit it. Cricket=stop start. Rugby=stop start. NFL=stop start.

Football was enjoyable to watch and support before pundits started telling us what we should be watching. Then the money rolled in and it all started changing.

Football was simple and had few rules. Now it is hard to keep track of the constant changing.

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

And every option you mention takes away from what we love about the game. Each sport has its own version to suit it. Cricket=stop start. Rugby=stop start. NFL=stop start.

Football was enjoyable to watch and support before pundits started telling us what we should be watching. Then the money rolled in and it all started changing.

Football was simple and had few rules. Now it is hard to keep track of the constant changing.

Football is actually a very stop-start sport as well. I remember a few years back Sky published a stat showing the duration that the ball was actually in play but it was casting such a negative light on the sport that they quickly binned it off. There were matches were the game was active, as in the ball on the field, for as little as 24 minutes in a half.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Football is actually a very stop-start sport as well. I remember a few years back Sky published a stat showing the duration that the ball was actually in play but it was casting such a negative light on the sport that they quickly binned it off. There were matches were the game was active, as in the ball on the field, for as little as 24 minutes in a half.

I think that is a thing of the past now. We do get real and proper time added on now.

[canarydan23 4,060]

9 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think that is a thing of the past now. We do get real and proper time added on now.

You'd be surprised, according to Opta in the 2017/18 season, the ball was in play for an average of only 59 minutes and 23 seconds in the Premier League that year. When you think that a game is probably more like 97 minutes on average including stoppage time, that means for over a third of a match you're not watching anything really.

[Nuff Said 5,089]

29 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think that is a thing of the past now. We do get real and proper time added on now.

21 minutes!?

If you add up all the time taken for restarting after play has stopped - goal kicks, throw ins, free kicks etc. - you see how little time the ball is actually in play.

 

[lake district canary 4,531]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

You'd be surprised, according to Opta in the 2017/18 season, the ball was in play for an average of only 59 minutes and 23 seconds in the Premier League that year. When you think that a game is probably more like 97 minutes on average including stoppage time, that means for over a third of a match you're not watching anything really.

At least it's not cricket where the ball is in play about 15 seconds in a whole day.

[Foxy2600 297]

VAR had a torrid weekend. I like Scott Parker and he’s absolutely correct that 2 penalty decisions were wrong. 

The ref is not seeing on his monitor what Shockley Park is seeing. 

“We are still making the same mistakes even with VAR”. We brought it in to make the right decisions. All we have achieved is to change the dynamic of the game. Even the players start shouting if a ball ricocheted off an arm to make it a ‘clear and obvious’ - what ever that is. If they are still getting clear and obvious corners wrong and non clear and obvious offsides wrong it makes a mockery of the game. 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Mockery is right.

Association Mockery.

The Premier Mockery League.