VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

So KDB can put his studs in to the keeper but they're going to disallow a goal for that?

Killing the game.
 
Just makes no sense to follow the sport when it’s decisions like this that decides game. A toenail offside and a penalty from a cross that was blasted to an arm from two yards. And that’s why Germany will proceed instead of us. No reason to keep watching.
 
Funny how there's only controversy when the prem refs get involved. Oliver and Atwell are fecking awful.
 
It should go back to handballs never being given unless extremely blatant. Also toenail offsides are fecking shit but that's another story.
 
One of the latest Official United podcast episodes Had Keith Hackett on. Former head of PGMOL, was the man who brought VAR to England. He's against it now even.

Candid interview that, did not hold back any punches.
 
Jev said:
Just makes no sense to follow the sport when it’s decisions like this that decides game. A toenail offside and a penalty from a cross that was blasted to an arm from two yards. And that’s why Germany will proceed instead of us. No reason to keep watching.
Click to expand...
FreakyJim said:
It should go back to handballs never being given unless extremely blatant. Also toenail offsides are fecking shit but that's another story.
Click to expand...


Toe nail offside is still an offside. Just like in cricket a toe nail run out is still a run out. Can't believe people argue this ridiculous points. Most cricket games are decided by such decisions, LBWs, run outs, catches. If its over the line its over the line.
 
Yeah, I’m bitter but football simply no longer makes sense as a spectator sports.

Some nerd in a gamer chair gets out his ruler to prove that a Danish player had a toe offside for our goal. Pre-VAR you would have laughed at that nerd but now he’s calling the shots so the goal is chalked off even though nobody would have complained about it back in the day because common sense prevailed back then.

Two minutes later, that same nerd pauses, rewinds and slows down the footage in order to convince himself that there may have been intent when a cross was blasted at an arm from two yards out. Again, no-one in the stadium has spotted anything, and certainly no-one is complaining because they’ve all played football and know that a ball occasionally hits an arm and it’s almost always accidental. But no, the nerd in the gamer chair is in charge.

How can anyone think that this makes sense from a spectator’s perspective anymore? There’s simply no point watching when that is what decides important games.
 
Sad thing about the handball decision is nobody else expected it. The players and fans didn’t appeal and the commentators were taken by surprise, stating hold on a minute, there’s a penalty check for something.

So frustrating when VAR sees something nobody else does.
 
Still cannot see how the feck is Stuart Atwell on VAR at an international tournament.
 
ArtetasHair said:
Toe nail offside is still an offside. Just like in cricket a toe nail run out is still a run out. Can't believe people argue this ridiculous points. Most cricket games are decided by such decisions, LBWs, run outs, catches. If its over the line its over the line.
Click to expand...

That’s because the purpose of offside is to stop players goal-hanging, not to try and disallow goals because of a few (debatable) centimetres here and there. Nobody complains about these fine margins when we’re dealing with a ball crossing the goal line, which really is comparable to the cricket scenarios you mention. This insane nit-picking about offsides goes completely against the spirit of the rule it’s supposed to enforce.
 
VAR
Handballs
Offsides

All three of those elements, their usages, and their applications are all a complete and utter mess.

When the ball hits the back of the net, the fans don't know any more if a goal will count. I would love to see the ratio between goals that are actually given against goals that are disallowed.
Nobody knows what handball is anymore. The 'excitement' that fans feel when goals are scored is nowhere near the same as it was pre-VAR.
Nobody knows what offsides are anymore. How can a player on the pitch possibly know if they're offside or not when the margins are down to literal millimetres? A player on the pitch can't possibly make those judgements with the speed at which the game is played. It's coming down to toenails and shoe sizes.
 
duffer said:
This American woman on itv is great. I bet the refs absolutely love her.
Click to expand...
Just said same on the match thread… the decisions are bollocks but she explains each part of the rule/the interpretation really clearly.

Its not the technology, it’s the morons who come up with the rules and the morons who officiate it
 
duffer said:
This American woman on itv is great. I bet the refs absolutely love her.
Click to expand...

Her explanations of the rules of the game and applying it to the action are first class. She does it unerringly without a hint of hesitation or stuttering. As she alluded to at the end there, these aren't her opinions and she probably thinks the handball is a load of shite too, but those are the rules.
 
I like that she's there basically to kind of bury it even further. Like they just want it ref'd from a robotic point of view, forgetting they are humans.

Ange nailed it, the refs should ref the game unless it's an absolute calamity, a millimetre isn't that, and neither is that kind of handball.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
Just said same on the match thread… the decisions are bollocks but she explains each part of the rule/the interpretation really clearly.

Its not the technology, it’s the morons who come up with the rules and the morons who officiate it
Click to expand...

Long and short of it is John Terry took the piss and we all have to suffer because the administrators in charge went too far in trying to stop that sort of cheating
 
The American woman is 'great' in the same way a very slick politician is great. Her job seems to be to explain the decisions, but also to arrive at the conclusion that the refs are always right and justified. She speaks well and explains well but is ultimately boring as her conclusion will always be that the decisions are correct


As for Oliver, he shouldn't be a championship ref.
 
ArtetasHair said:
Toe nail offside is still an offside. Just like in cricket a toe nail run out is still a run out. Can't believe people argue this ridiculous points. Most cricket games are decided by such decisions, LBWs, run outs, catches. If its over the line its over the line.
Click to expand...

Feck off with this pretentious crap. The offside rule was created so that players don't hang around behind the defensive line and wait for the ball to be lobbed to them turning the game into a tennis match. It was not created for microscopic "offside" positions that offer no one any advantage. Positions that a human being can't even tell at a glance, so you need some uber-duper special system to measure it. Because a human can't. That's what's actually ridiculous.

VAR is crap that has no place in the game in its current iteration. I was initially for it because I assumed it would be used for... clear and obvious errors, like the Hand of God, or unsportsmanlike conduct that goes unnoticed. Not for measuring whether or not someone's toe was in an offside position. I imagine 30 years ago if you told someone this, they'd laugh in your face. It's absurd.

VAR should be completely scrapped, or kept only for the most egregious cases. It's a shame the clubs voted to keep it.
 
VAR should go back on trial, it should be scrapped at the highest levels.

It's killing the game, as is. Wolves were right.
 
I’m fine with the offside rule, I mean if the argument is to allow goals if it’s close, where do you draw the line? A toe nail is fine but a whole foot isn’t? A close call is a tough one to take but ultimately so be it, at least it’s not arbitrary

the handball rule is absolutely bullshit though. Taking proximity out is ridiculous as is this expectation that defenders should be running around with their hands behind their backs - something not expected of attackers. Just ridiculous
 
One of problems with VAR is wanting the accuracy but also having to accept that the accuracy sometimes overrides common sense or the spirit of the game, as ambiguous as that may be..

I would have no issue with hairline offside calls being allowed to go, the spirit of the offside law was never about calls that close, but once you start talking about allowing a margin of error then what happens with calls that are just on the borderline of that, you just end up back in the same spot.

I hate that how the professional game is officiated is now so far apart in interpretation from the rest of the sport.

FIFA should have concentrated on ways to improve the standard of on pitch officiating before going so far in on VAR.
 
VAR is fine. You can still celebrate if the goal stands and it's not even needed for every goal.

People saying "VAR sucks" will inevitably complain about the lack of VAR when an illegal goal is scored against them.
 
ArtetasHair said:
Toe nail offside is still an offside. Just like in cricket a toe nail run out is still a run out. Can't believe people argue this ridiculous points. Most cricket games are decided by such decisions, LBWs, run outs, catches. If its over the line its over the line.
Click to expand...

Well in terms of run outs the line doesn't move and is visible in the field of play. The offside line moves constantly and isn't visible so there is a huge question of accuracy.

For LBWs they use umpires call as a margin of error for Hawkeye technology.

But football believes a naturally flawed system is fit enough to call a toenail offside, and that's before we talk about the current interpretation of the offside rule. It was never meant to be used in this manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.