Running with arms in natural position, jesus.
This is Young a second before the ball hits is arm as the ball is crossed over him.
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Running with arms in natural position, jesus.
This is Young a second before the ball hits is arm as the ball is crossed over him.
Not only would the on field ref have to make the call, they would have to justify it to the captains. That bit should be mic’d up so everyone can hear it.
He’s clearly just trying to scare a flock of birds away? How is that unnatural?Running with arms in natural position, jesus.
This is Young a second before the ball hits is arm as the ball is crossed over him.
It would also be great entertainment if you introduced three corners = a penalty.
Or 15 throws in on the oppositions half resulting in a freekick on the edge of the box
Or how about if you maintain over 60% possession for over 45 minutes you get a penalty.
It would be entertaining, but fecking stupid.
Keith Hackett not a fan of Oliver
Even Dermott can't defend the third one, its such a blatant pen I don't know how they missed it.
Well you can't blame him for that given his history with birds.
All agreed AWB one shouldn’t be a penalty.
Which part of my suggestion would be stupid?
Agree with that too. It would also then in turn force the players to talk to the ref with respect as anything obscene would be picked up as it happens.
Everything.
Introducing a challenge system with a set amount of "tries" would be an utter farce.
All you have to do is get rid of "clear and obvious" and turn VAR into a system that fully collaborates with the referee on the pitch for the big decisions, you get rid of a meaningless threshold that prevents fairness.
Offside should be done from the basis of, has the linesman made an obvious error. Anything that is around level possibly just on/just off. Just gets left with the linesman decision. Anything where the linesman has clearly made an error then gets overturned. No lines or anything like that. The technology simply isn't accurate enough to give us reliable calls for very tight offsides.
Agree about giving captains/managers challenges. But it should be two referees compleatly disconnected from game who don't know what decision the onfield ref has made or who has made the challenge. They see the incident couple of times from couple of different angles then get 30 secs to make a decision. If they both go against the on field refs decision than the decision gets overturned. My worry about using just the ref and pitchside monitor is the affect of being bias towards original decision and being influenced by the crowd/players/managers.
You can tell it’s a bad weekend for VAR when Dermot essentially says three decisions were wrong (Grealish, AWB and the third Young one).
Not sure why Gallagher is pretending cross into AWB came from " a lot further away"
Surely you don't actually think there is a way to make VAR work with remote refs?
Not sure why you think a challenge system wouldn't work. It works in loads of sports without any issue.
That is the basis offsides are done from now. It's binary.
The technology is accurate enough to give more reliable calls than the linesmen.
I honestly have no idea whatsoever why people are so desperate to make this even worse than it is. You'd essentially have to create a new boundary for when the VAR gets involved for tight offside, then you start arguing if it was tight enough compared to what happened in a different match and so on and so on.
Why wouldn't VAR work with remote refs?
Just because it works in an unrelated sport it doesn't mean it's going to work in football.
Must still be having nightmares about when that bird shit in his mouth.
I kind of agree with the challenges being remote. The one thing that makes me uncomfortable about it is that by removing these decisions from the on field ref it makes them become passive and just give nothing, then wait to be corrected by somebody else. I prefer them to have the final say. I still think your suggestion is a million times better than the current setup though.
Offside for me is different. If you do it right then it's fact not opinion. I've no issue with offside being called for 0.00001mm if that's a fact. I think this level of accuracy can be reached with the Semi automated offside if we just use feet.
It can't be a penalty if VAR have looked at the Grealish one and decided that's not a pen, when it was more of an offence.
This whole business of not wanting to re-referee the game has to end. Either it's an offence or it isn't. It shouldn't matter what the ref called.
Exactly. There will always be a line whatever rule is applied.
I think you can, personally. If Forest specifically requested that he was replaced before the match, citing conflict of interest, and he proceeds to rule against them with 3 contentious decisions they have every right to be furious.
For all the reasons we see currently. They've too much time to slow down and find issues, it takes too long as there are too many communication channels, it means the on field ref becomes passive and just waits to be corrected by his remote safety net etc etc. It just doesn't work in my opinion.
Just because it works in an unrelated sport it doesn't mean it's going to work in football. - Well no, but it suggests it could and probably would.
Young is the master of denial
I think it all depends on the proof of conflict of interest which I don't believe there is yet.
How is the media debate around the offside? I could see it was offside as soon as I saw the replay anyway…but other than the Liverpool offside which was a different issue, when has the media ever questioned an offside? We had the Garnacho one that was actually arguable and also one a few years back where the lines were drawn by a four year old.
Imagine if these calls went the other way….We were losing 3-2 in the last minute of injury time and get THAT penalty and have that goal disallowed for offside.
Absolutely no chance that the conversation is the same, that’s not right.
Imagine if these calls went the other way….We were losing 3-2 in the last minute of injury time and get THAT penalty and have that goal disallowed for offside.
Absolutely no chance that the conversation is the same, that’s not right.
It takes time because it's being considered up against the almighty "clear and obvious" threshold. The very same threshold that results in random decisions for similar offences based on whatever the referee on the pitch decided. We've just had a weekend with three handball situations, where the two most obvious incidents resulted in "play on" and the least one resulted in a penalty, with VAR not getting involved due to "clear and obvious"
Nor do i understand how you're worried about things being slowed down, when you're arguing that we should introduce a challenging system.
It suggests nothing really. A challenging system in football would be fundamentally unfair on every level there is.
I’d be astonished if he isn’t a Luton fan given Forest’s statement. It should be easy enough to check by looking at whether he’s been involved in any Luton games this season anyway. The whole point is that PGMOL wouldn’t necessarily regard this as a situation where a conflict existed.
Jaysus, Ash Young has had a mare 
Absolutely this. Getting the decision correct is nowhere near the top of the priority list when it comes to media reporting of these decisions.
I think that's what makes VAR unsuccessful in English football. Everyone who watches or reports on football has a clear acknowledged agenda which allows them to argue that black is white and have hoardes supporting that view no matter how ridiculous it is.
You can generally predict which pundits will agree or disagree with a decision based on what team they used to play for or which player committed the alleged offence rather than the merits of the decision itself.
As a result, refs will make the decision which is less likely to get them destroyed in the media, being called cheats and called to be sacked.
It was actually better without VAR because it made it easier to believe that an incorrect decision was just human error.
Not that we'll hear anything about it though because Coventry had a goal correctly ruled out for offside..
Then why are there laws and policies against conflict of interest? That statement is daft.
And so what if they are saying it? The PGMOL either has to say, "Yeah, they're right," or "No, we just have incompetent refs." Penalizing Forest for that only proves them right. Everyone is watching, everyone knows, and PGMOL just keeps driving respect for themselves into the ground. It's laughable at this point. But Forest had already complained about the situation pre-match.
That's just disappeared completely.
Just depends what box you put it in. A bit like Dean just openly admitting that he avoided making the right decisions because he didn't want his mate to look bad. Before he made the admission it was just generally accepted as an honest mistake rather than something else. Not sure why people are so skeptic towards it. Just like media scrutiny will have an effect, to the point where a marginally, but correct, offside decision gets more media coverage than an incorrect penalty decision that sent the match into extra time. I reckon it's naive to think it doesn't have a major impact on the decision making of whoever is VAR.
Leave the offside rule alone. At least it’s the one clear cut rule in the game, that isn’t subjective. Who knows what‘s a handball or a red card anymore? It varies from ref to ref and VAR to VAR. Offside is the one consistent we have.
Because there is a possiblity of cheating and bias. Doesn't mean there will be.