Sith Happens Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Andicis said: It would certainly make it less ridiculous, and hopefully stop the ref having his hand to his ear permanently. 1 or 2 checks a game seems fine, but if it's like last night, I don't want the system in the game at all. How many VAR was there last night? Crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Just now, Paul71 said: How many VAR was there last night? Crazy. Almost every slight decision, the ref was checking. Every tackle, he kept asking the VAR if he should have given a card or anything. Far, far too much. Genuinely needs to be just for game changing decisions, and they need to speed up the decision making time, why can't the ref run to the screen and watch the replay from a few angles and make the call? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 54 minutes ago, Andicis said: Isn't VAR meant to be used to overrule only clear and obvious decisions? I won't accept the first goal had a clear and obvious foul in the build up, looked like a 50/50 to me, so I fail to see how it can over rule that. It's all just a bit messy. This system really needs to be ironed out. It is used for ALL goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 10 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: It is used for ALL goals. I know it is. But it's only supposed to overrule the clear and obvious decisions. What was clear and obvious about the foul in the first goal? I can't see a foul from the TV replay? Should something subjective to opinion be overruled? Not for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 14 minutes ago, Paul71 said: I think in Tennis, they get 3 a set and if a challenge proves to be right then they get that challenge back. I wouldnt have an issue with that, give them 1 then if their challenge is right allow them another. The problem with that is that the 2 cases are asymmetrical. In tennis, it's a case of is the ball in or out. The hawkeye (or whatever it's called this week) comes on, shows the ball tracking and is taken as gospel and accepted. It is not a question of whether it is in or out in the opinion of the umpire. In football, the opinion of the referee is more central - whether it was a foul or handball etc. Whatever the referee decides, it will be based on his opinion. That is not going to please everybody. Especially the more 'demonstrative' managers. Gobshites like Warnock or Mourinho aren't going to accept the referee's opinion if it goes against them. They have shown time and again that they are incapable of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 17 minutes ago, Andicis said: I know it is. But it's only supposed to overrule the clear and obvious decisions. What was clear and obvious about the foul in the first goal? I can't see a foul from the TV replay? Should something subjective to opinion be overruled? Not for me. Almost all decisions made by a referee are based on their opinion. Re Goals - the 'clear and obvious' wording doesn't apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 18 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said: Feinting once the kicker has completed his run up is. See Law 14 The Penalty kick: '...except for the following when play will be stopped and restarted with an indirect free kick, regardless of whether or not a goal is scored: • a penalty kick is kicked backwards • a team-mate of the identified kicker takes the kick; the referee cautions the player who took the kick• feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up. The referee cautions the kicker' Laws of the Game 2017/18 p.112 Correct decision. A penalty kick is kicked backwards? I would send the player off for being so stupid if that happened. As for the feinting, id dont know if thats a sensible rule. Should be like cricket IMO, when the bowler stops in his run up if the batsman is backing up too much. Can catch the goalie out of he is moving too soon. If the goalie moves soonest anyway shouldn't they order a retake? Dunno what happened in the spurs game but the whole thing sounded a mess from the write ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 50 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: Almost all decisions made by a referee are based on their opinion. Re Goals - the 'clear and obvious' wording doesn't apply. Yes, by the match day referee, who is seeing it real time. Should that decision be overruled, even though you could ask two people their opinions and get different answers? Seems a poor reason to overrule a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said: The problem with that is that the 2 cases are asymmetrical. In tennis, it's a case of is the ball in or out. The hawkeye (or whatever it's called this week) comes on, shows the ball tracking and is taken as gospel and accepted. It is not a question of whether it is in or out in the opinion of the umpire. In football, the opinion of the referee is more central - whether it was a foul or handball etc. Whatever the referee decides, it will be based on his opinion. That is not going to please everybody. Especially the more 'demonstrative' managers. Gobshites like Warnock or Mourinho aren't going to accept the referee's opinion if it goes against them. They have shown time and again that they are incapable of that. I think it’s supposed to work for situations like Jerome’s dive. Where the referee has made a decision based on what he saw, but if he has chance to look from a different angle, then he would see the truth. So it should be used only when the ref isn’t sure. Refs shouldn’t ref the game like var isn’t an option. And only bring it out as a last resort when they’re really not sure, and their seems to be a good case on both sides. I think having one appeal per game is a good idea, cos in situations like that you can say ‘look, ref, I know you think you saw what you saw, but I was right in the middle of that, and I assure you if you take another look, there was significant contact.’ Okay, let’s take a look, and if I got it wrong, I hold my hands up. Sonit could be used more than twice in a game, one appeal from each team (or more if they are successful appeals) and any where the ref really can’t decide. The ref last night was clearly just really indecisive and using the vat like a crutch. What would he have done without var? Should’ve really just stuck with his first instinct on both occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 2 hours ago, Andicis said: Yes, by the match day referee, who is seeing it real time. Should that decision be overruled, even though you could ask two people their opinions and get different answers? Seems a poor reason to overrule a decision. It's a terrible reason to overrule. We have media who have spent many years denigrating referees and we as fans have bought into it right up to the point where we have joined the calls for video technology to be used. Not to support referees but to undermine them, to strip away the authority they have in the game. Now the media have what they want, all they want to do is to denigrate not just referees but also the FA, who were too feeble to stick up for referees and all too eager to suck up to the media. Like mediaeval court jesters humiliating themselves for their masters. And all the time the most audible voices and the ones given most credence are pundits, who 1. are invariably ex-players (with all the referee baggage that goes with that) 2. do not know the laws of the game. Football is going down the toilet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 3 hours ago, TigerTedd said: I think it’s supposed to work for situations like Jerome’s dive. Where the referee has made a decision based on what he saw, but if he has chance to look from a different angle, then he would see the truth. So it should be used only when the ref isn’t sure. Refs shouldn’t ref the game like var isn’t an option. And only bring it out as a last resort when they’re really not sure, and their seems to be a good case on both sides. I think having one appeal per game is a good idea, cos in situations like that you can say ‘look, ref, I know you think you saw what you saw, but I was right in the middle of that, and I assure you if you take another look, there was significant contact.’ Okay, let’s take a look, and if I got it wrong, I hold my hands up. Sonit could be used more than twice in a game, one appeal from each team (or more if they are successful appeals) and any where the ref really can’t decide. The ref last night was clearly just really indecisive and using the vat like a crutch. What would he have done without var? Should’ve really just stuck with his first instinct on both occasions. I am utterly convinced that has VAR been available to the ref for Jerome's dive, that he still wouldn't have given the penalty. If there is a shred of hope for VAR, it's that it will mean players will only fall when gravity dictates it. As far as indecision goes, the presence of video technology breeds indecision to the point where no goal will be awarded without reference to it. What self-respecting referee is going to risk the hate for want of a run through on the TV monitor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViewsFromTheMiddle Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViewsFromTheMiddle Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Another day, another brilliant free kick scored by Messi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andicis Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Man City whiping the floor with Arsenal. Expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViewsFromTheMiddle Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Boro stuffing Leeds 3-0. Bamford hat-trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Boro moving into a play off place tonight, pressure on Bristol City tomorrow at home to Sheffield Wednesday with United’s game against Burton postponed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouRams Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 4 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said: Boro moving into a play off place tonight, pressure on Bristol City tomorrow at home to Sheffield Wednesday with United’s game against Burton postponed. Pressure on us too need a win! 5 point cushion doesn’t look that safe at the minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grantona Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Boro looking good but looks certain the "Champions of Europe" will be plying their trade in the Championship again next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, YouRams said: Pressure on us too need a win! 5 point cushion doesn’t look that safe at the minute. February’s gone now, new month, back on track starting tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheresOnlyWanChope Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 3 hours ago, ViewsFromTheMiddle said: Boro stuffing Leeds 3-0. Bamford hat-trick. Really good striker Bamford, always wished we had signed him permanently. (striker not as a winger) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.