England squad for the Holland & Italy game..

[Sith Happens]

Just now, Millenniumram said:

Not particularly and I don’t think VAR should have been used. It wansnt consulted straight away so why then delay and do it? 

Agree. This is why it's not working. It's being used for marginal decisions not obvious errors. 

[Sexydadbod]

I’m not sure what to make of this English team. The forwards are decent but other than that, I can’t see this team doing too well against teams who are possession based as we aren’t good enough in midfield. I expect that Kane will be heavily relied on in the summer 

[PistoldPete2]

2 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Agree. This is why it's not working. It's being used for marginal decisions not obvious errors. 

Exactly ... as I say with cricket it’s working fine but with football it’s not . Really no basis for overturning the ref decision on that one .

[G STAR RAM]

Really not arsed about the penalty decision, consecutive victories over Holland and Italy would have probably led to expectations getting ridiculously high.

Not sure why anyone is surprised that VAR is proving such a flop, just like everything FIFA has introduced in the last 20 years it has made the beautiful game worse.

What was the last thing they introduced that was genuinely good for the game? I would say introducing the back pass rule.

[ViewsFromTheMiddle]

Was a stonewall pen.

[eddie]

3 minutes ago, ViewsFromTheMiddle said:

Was a stonewall pen.

Yep. Stand on someone's foot, that's a foul.

[JoetheRam]

Don't agree it was a penalty, Itai is already going down under no contact when Tarkowski treads on his foot, not a clear and obvious error to give a corner, don't understand what the process is meant to be for VAR to be used... On balance a draw probably fair given the chances Immobile missed.

England played quite well in spells. Lost impetus when we took off the fast players that the 532 relies on.

[maxjam]

1 minute ago, JoetheRam said:

Don't agree it was a penalty, Itai is already going down under no contact when Tarkowski treads on his foot, not a clear and obvious error to give a corner, don't understand what the process is meant to be for VAR to be used... On balance a draw probably fair given the chances Immobile missed.

England played quite well in spells. Lost impetus when we took off the fast players that the 532 relies on.

Agree. 

It looks a penalty when slowed down but at real speed you can see he's going down before he was stamped on.  I don't like the VAR system, maybe in a couple of years when its been refined but at the moment no thanks.

I did enjoy the 2 England performances however - nothing to make me think we'll get anywhere near winning the World Cup, but they look young, fast and hungry which is more than you can say about previous teams.  Hopefully expectation will stay realistic and Southgate gets the chance to carry on building next season.

[JoetheRam]

Think I rate our chances of getting to the quarters slightly higher than I did before these two friendlies. That has to be a realistic best-case scenario.

[Van der MoodHoover]

7 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Agree. 

It looks a penalty when slowed down but at real speed you can see he's going down before he was stamped on.  I don't like the VAR system, maybe in a couple of years when its been refined but at the moment no thanks.

I did enjoy the 2 England performances however - nothing to make me think we'll get anywhere near winning the World Cup, but they look young, fast and hungry which is more than you can say about previous teams.  Hopefully expectation will stay realistic and Southgate gets the chance to carry on building next season.

They'll all be dropped by the summer and back will come henderson, lallana, and all the rest of the 10mph merchants 

[TigerTedd]

26 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

Exactly ... as I say with cricket it’s working fine but with football it’s not . Really no basis for overturning the ref decision on that one .

Maybe it’s cos it’s more clear cut in cricket. The ball either hit the wicket, or it didn’t. You can’t really debate it. 

Whereas a lot more decisions in football are more subjective. 

I think it should probably be a rule that if isn’t obvious after a replay, and there’s a still a fair argument to say it’s not a foul, the the rule should be to go in favour of the original decision. Even if it’s not 50/50, if it’s 60/40 or 70/30 in favour of it being a penalty, it should still go with the original decision. VAR should be about sorting out clear and obvious errors.

[MuespachRam]

33 minutes ago, Andicis said:

VAR is a shocking system. That's never a penalty. I've seen so many errors with it already I'd be tempted to scrap it. We didn't deserve to draw tonight, we deserved a win. That being said, is Marcus Rashford the most overrated footballer on the planet? I've not seen him do anything in an England shirt for a long time, and apart from the odd good performance he overall looks pretty woeful to me. Sterling my MOTM.

VAR is rubbish, it is ruining football...it will eventually take out all the spontaneity out of the game completely. 

Rashford is rubbish, just another Danny Welbeck who is given a lot more plaudits and forgiven for being crap all the time because he is a local lad done good in United’s team....if they had bought him for 15 million from Palace they would have sold him again by now. 

[Sexydadbod]

VAR is a brilliant invention. If there was another decision like there was with the Lampard goal in 2010, I’m sure you’d all be moaning

[ViewsFromTheMiddle]

9 minutes ago, McLovin said:

VAR is a brilliant invention. If there was another decision like there was with the Lampard goal in 2010, I’m sure you’d all be moaning

I'm all for it. Would rather wait a little while for the correct decision than lose a game because of a wrong one.

Lampard comment is irrelevant though now they have goal-line technology.

[Mr Tibbs]

2 minutes ago, McLovin said:

VAR is a brilliant invention. If there was another decision like there was with the Lampard goal in 2010, I’m sure you’d all be moaning

Not yet it isn't. The example you have given has already been solved by goal-line tech, no subjective decisions to be had there - it's either in or it's not. 

I like the concept of VAR but it's know where near spot on yet. That Spurs FA cup game a few weeks back was a perfect example of it ruining a game. 

The more I watch the replay of tonights decision the more I disagree with it. He's literally going down (simulation?) before Tarkowski touches him and the ball has gone. Does it impede him from getting the ball? Scoring a goal? Creating a chance? Nah. I'd liken it to a late challenge on a striker that has just spurned a great chance infront of goal, they never get brought back for penalties, same bag for me. 

Plenty of positives from the couple of games we've just played regardless. Tonight will hopefully highlight to GS that we need to be much better with the ball against better opposition, we can't afford to give the likes of Belgium that much of the ball back. Tunisia and Panama will be completely different challenges where we'll be breaking down two banks of 4/5, much like most of our qualifying games. Roll on the summer. 

[Andicis]

2 hours ago, McLovin said:

VAR is a brilliant invention. If there was another decision like there was with the Lampard goal in 2010, I’m sure you’d all be moaning

Goal line technology? That could never happen again. The thing is, that isn't a subjective thing. Lampard's goal was categorically over the line. Penalty calls and other things are subjective. And so cause controversy way more frequently.

[Dimmu]

In Germany, VAR got about 20 % of the decisions wrong. The start should be better, no doubt. But there's no doubt the system will improve after people are getting some experience of it. Not seen the stats how many decision's normal refereeing gets wrong, must be more than that?

BTW, you should never forget that the decision VAR makes is just one ref's opinion more. So one is unsure and other gets a better view of it. Surely it's fairer than the current system? Not perfect, but much fairer.

Last time I spoke about how it kills the flow of the game and I still think it's the biggest problem. AI is definitely needed to speed the process up.

[PistoldPete2]

1 hour ago, Dimmu said:

In Germany, VAR got about 20 % of the decisions wrong. The start should be better, no doubt. But there's no doubt the system will improve after people are getting some experience of it. Not seen the stats how many decision's normal refereeing gets wrong, must be more than that?

BTW, you should never forget that the decision VAR makes is just one ref's opinion more. So one is unsure and other gets a better view of it. Surely it's fairer than the current system? Not perfect, but much fairer.

Last time I spoke about how it kills the flow of the game and I still think it's the biggest problem. AI is definitely needed to speed the process up.

VAR is a good thing if used properly but the whole idea is only to over ride the on field ref if there's an obvious error. Not to just substitute one ref's opinion with another's. Is the video ref better than the on field ref? Depends on the ref to some extent. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

VAR is a good thing if used properly but the whole idea is only to over ride the on field ref if there's an obvious error. Not to just substitute one ref's opinion with another's. Is the video ref better than the on field ref? Depends on the ref to some extent. 

How is 'obvious' defined here and who decides? By what mechanism is it decided? Obviously (sorry), it was obvious to the ref last night. In the end, that's all that matters, isn't it?

The first thing lawmakers should do is define their terms. I am not sure they have made it clear what 'obvious' means in this context.

[Gaspode]

1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

How is 'obvious' defined here and who decides? By what mechanism is it decided? Obviously (sorry), it was obvious to the ref last night. In the end, that's all that matters, isn't it?

The first thing lawmakers should do is define their terms. I am not sure they have made it clear what 'obvious' means in this context.

VAR would work if it was left to the discretion of the referee when to apply it - at the moment it seems the official is being 'advised' even when there's no need. There would initially be a flood of players demanding that the ref used VAR to change decisions, but judicious use of the yellow card would sort that out....