Those ones are tough. He was impeded and I don't think he could've stayed on his feet, either getting clattered or jumping out the way. Both warrant a foul I think. I'd have to see it again to confirm he couldn't stay on his feet though.
Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)
- Thread starter RedFish
- Start date
The biggest fault yesterday was the not letting that Martial play run on. I don't know whether he was offside or not but I'm sure they can't have been certain either.
Maybe, but its current form it ruins the games.
Please take this VAR experiment somewhere else. When (or if) they find the perfect solution, it can be implemented. But the fact is that football has been played for quite some time without VAR and it has worked out fine (with the exception of some dubious referee calls, but those are also a part of the game and what makes it interesting).
There is nothing interesting about a big mistake changing the outcome of a game.
Teams winning due to incorrect goals ruins the game more.
With this kind of thinking no benefitial changes would ever be made in this world and we'd still be stuck in the stone age.
The sport worked fine without the backpass rule for 130 years.
I still think VAR should be similar to tennis challenges, like each team had three calls per half. If the call is correct, they remain the three challenges, otherwise they would loose a challenge.
This way the clubs would had the expense of employing people to analyze the match in real time, and the VAR would only have to confirm the appeal.
This way the clubs would had the expense of employing people to analyze the match in real time, and the VAR would only have to confirm the appeal.
Ah yes the classic Stone Age argument. Technology is good in many areas of life. Not good in football- too hard to grasp?
The back pass rule is nothing like the game changing system that VAR is.
Big mistakes are still changing the outcomes of games only now we have to sit through even more tedious shite to get to the point.
I keep seeing this suggested as an alternative but it would obviously be terrible. Three challenges is a hell of a lot (every goal would still probably be reviewed as the average number of goals in a football match is very low). You'd also get tactical challenges ruining the flow of the game even further. VAR is already far too intrusive but is still not stopping the game fourteen or fifteen times for minutes at this point. Most VAR reviews are taking place during play with no interference. With a challenge system (where I assume teams would keep their challenges if proven to be correct) the game would become unwatchable.
Last edited:
This seems a good idea, until we consider what happens in the Martial situation last night. There is then an appeal, Martial was onside, and... what?
Yeah I don't get this idea either, it sounds horrible. Clubs should be kept as far away from the officiating part of the game as possible. The comparison with tennis challenges is silly as well, as any call following a challenge in tennis is black and white and doesn't involve the human decision making process you'd get in football.
About the VAR: it could also be solved by a even better technology, by implementing a AI / Machine Learning system that learns how to detect infractions. This is not sci-fi anymore, there are far more complex implementations of AI / Machine Learning nowadays (one just needs to google to check), and to implement a system that will be analyzing a controlled environment like a football field, makes things easier.
You could actually achieve this in months if you had the budget for it.
IMHO this would be the way to go, and using human refs to analyze video should be a quick fix while we don't have automated systems that don't ruin the flow of the game. We would still need a ref to analyze complex cases and give the output into the system, so the machine can learn how to solve those kind of problems next time.
My point still stands, if one is against VAR then fair enough. You do you but when it gets to point of justifying the preference of offside goals, handball leading to goals etc etc I don't get it anymore.
United lost the chance to win some titles (Porto CL, Drogba offside goal) because of huge mistakes. Thinking about it pisses me off
Regarding offside situations and the hilarious MS paint line drawing to determine whether a part of a player is off, I wonder why they don't do it like they do it in tennis or how the goal line technology works in football? Just set up cameras all over the pitch, at ground level like every meter or so, then do the same and put cameras on the roof of the stadiums(or at the top end of the stands in case the stadiums don't have roofs) and get a perfect picture of the whole pitch. Surely it would be easier to determine an offside this way instead of having cameras placed in wrong angles and the blokes in the VAR room having to play stick man drawing with paint.
That's a great suggestion. (So much so that I used my last post to say it.)
They could use a video analyzing system that would calculate the line in real time. This is actually pretty easy to do with the technology available (in fact, the technology to do this is available since many years)
Accidentally... Clearly biased, it looks intentional. Look at the way he lifted his studs. This is a textbook foul, we learn how to do these kind of fouls since youth football. It stops the play immediatly and as it is made in the natural movement the ref cannot judge how serious the challenge was. We were encouraged to do things like this and worst: little annoying things in set pieces, like sticking fingers on the other's guy ass, etc.
Good old days?
I am not in position to take it anyway, if i was, would introduced idea of it way earlier. If it worked fine without VAR, nobody would be for it. There is nothing interesting being fecked by incompetent and more and more arrogant pricks of referees, who are absolutely untouchable.
System isnt worse, thats such a nonsense thing to say.
I am not even gonna waste my time with you.
Well good job as you can’t come back with any valid argument to the fact that this great technology of VAR is some other guy looking at a replay. Cannot get quicker
Can't find any video of the James one, seems to have been expunged from any highlights... to me it looked similar to the two videos I posted though seeing it replayed on TV during the game. Don't think you can get a second yellow from VAR. Surprised though VAR didn't call Moss to go to the monitor to check it at least. Not sure if that is a thing with the EPL use of VAR though or not?
Accidentally... Clearly biased, it looks intentional. Look at the way he lifted his studs. This is a textbook foul, we learn how to do these kind of fouls since youth football. It stops the play immediatly and as it is made in the natural movement the ref cannot judge how serious the challenge was. We were encouraged to do things like this and worst: little annoying things in set pieces, like sticking fingers on the other's guy ass, etc.
Good old days?
Guess the ref's are on it now though, and it's going to be a red, and no escape as VAR always watching. Guess we'll see quite a few red cards in La Liga this season!The big one for me with VAR is that huge injustice can be stopped now. Just like how Goal Line technology has completely ended those questions about the ball being over the line.
The interesting thing that should happen is that rules may need to be adapted to reflect the accuracy of decision making now. For example, the offside rule is supposed to stop goal hanging. I would argue it isn't meant to stop a player having 2cm of his toe closer to the goal. As such now that technology exists to determine offside accurately we should adapt the rule.
Personally, I think it should read something 'A player is offside if no part of their body is behind or level with the last defender'. This gives the advantage back to the attacker and means 'leaning' offside isn't a thing anymore. It is essentially the old 'daylight' rule they trialled back in the mid/early 2000's but the officials were not capable of applying back then.
If you look at other sports the first few years are always a bit of trial and error and rapid development of the technology. In cricket, umpires became much more ready to give LBW out as the technology showed more of the appeals were hitting the stumps than had been assumed. That was a positive development for the sport and the umpires adapted to the technology.
The interesting thing that should happen is that rules may need to be adapted to reflect the accuracy of decision making now. For example, the offside rule is supposed to stop goal hanging. I would argue it isn't meant to stop a player having 2cm of his toe closer to the goal. As such now that technology exists to determine offside accurately we should adapt the rule.
Personally, I think it should read something 'A player is offside if no part of their body is behind or level with the last defender'. This gives the advantage back to the attacker and means 'leaning' offside isn't a thing anymore. It is essentially the old 'daylight' rule they trialled back in the mid/early 2000's but the officials were not capable of applying back then.
If you look at other sports the first few years are always a bit of trial and error and rapid development of the technology. In cricket, umpires became much more ready to give LBW out as the technology showed more of the appeals were hitting the stumps than had been assumed. That was a positive development for the sport and the umpires adapted to the technology.
Yea thats it, you nailed it, now move along.
There's always been different rules for attackers & defenders - or at least through the interpretation of the rules.
(And I'm honestly not just posting this to be silly)
Attackers are given a penalty, defenders can't be offside - the ''standard of proof'' required was always higher for defenders
You can't have attacking sides providing assists with their arms whether it's accidental or otherwise & you never really did because 99 % of the time the referee used to blow his whistle. Defenders used to get some benefit of the doubt - causing the starfish problem - leading to a rewrite.
At a small tangent ids the idea that decisions reached via VAR are supposed to be foolproof.
Who believes that anymore, just out of interest?
As proven. You missed out the facts I said after that haha- those in favour of it are so precious about having the truth told about it. Weird
Completely different.
James was facing the opponent and the ball was there to be won, he also slips forwards and catches him with a stud, but it wasn't malicious or dangerous.
Those 2 red cards the players are fouling from behind, and clearly standing on the opponents heel in the INTENT to stop/injure them. Small but very clear differences.
That sounds like La Liga messed up those calls then. A straight red card is supposed to be for serious foul play or endangering an opponent.
I might do a bit of insulting - although I don't really mind being called a dinosaur, I think there is some truth in that being part of the opposition.
Those that are SO in favour though, I often feel that a lot of you (not all) have no feel for the game - it's all black & white for you. Or you want it to be.
Those that are SO in favour though, I often feel that a lot of you (not all) have no feel for the game - it's all black & white for you. Or you want it to be.
I've spoken to a number of City fans since the game, and they've all echoed Gary Neville's "clear and obvious" comment regarding the earlier non-penalty when Michael Oliver chose to ignore the VAR alert that Rodri had been fouled inside the area.
We used to be told that poor decisions would "balance-out" over a season.
Now, we're told that VAR (which was supposedly installed to eradicate poor decisions) will "balance-out" over a season.
However, the main issue is the match-day experience, which so far has only affected City and Wolves.
When it happens at Old Trafford you will find a huge gulf between those who watched it on the sofa, and those who spent £100 to travel/attend the match
These “offsides” and “handballs” have only been considered such for about 6 months. Blatantly obvious wrong decisions like those are not exactly comparable to the two goals City have had disallowed recently. If you went back far enough you’d surely find multiple important United goals that wouldn’t have stood if subject to VAR in its current iteration.
Personally I thought they were pretty harsh reds, at least consistent though between games though.
Was surprised when ref had a look on monitor then got red out. Both given yellow originally iirc.
Would be good to see the James one again. Just remember watching and thinking it would surely be reviewed at least on monitor by Moss.
Or you could just let the bloke in the middle get on with his job and give the fourth official the option to have a word with him if he sees something blatantly wrong on the monitor like a hand of god or Zidane nutting someone in the ribs.
Count me out for the kind of weird sci-fi hellscape you’re proposing.
VAR wasn’t this bad at the 2018 World Cup. It’s become more pedantic and ludicrous since it came into the CL this year.
I think the memory of the World Cup has faded. The whole tournament was VAR penalty after VAR penalty.
Yellows cant be reviewed, only straight reds. Clearly wasn't anywhere near a red.
Standing on somebodys achilles is a red straight away.
Which isn't happening. They are spending more time playing football imo. Which is a plus.
Oliver gives that handball & the penalty & narrative is about what a top referee he is. I'd have put ££££ on him being the centre of it going pear-shaped.
The penalties haven’t actually been the issue with VAR though. At the World Cup they were clamping down holding in the area which seems to have gone out of the window in the PL. Laughable that people are defending this shitshow by saying it’s making things fairer when accidental “handballs” are now being penalised but actual deliberate cheating is just ignored.
They weren't straight red were they?
Last edited: