Love the Championship, none of that useless game destroying V A R nonsense,,,,,,,,,,C O Y W.
I must agree with you, I know it's making sure the decisions are correct but I don't like it , it seems alien to our lovely game, an invasion, and it was swings and roundabouts before. MONEY is definitely the reason behind it.
There I've said my bit.
VAR & Hawkeye are fine in Rugby, Cricket & Tennis all of which have natural stoppages of play. Football is a more flowing game & it is not suited.
I thought Huddersfield's goal last night was a result of goal line technology. Is there a difference between goal line technology and VAR.
Quote from: filham on August 17, 2019, 12:42:46 PM
I thought Huddersfield's goal last night was a result of goal line technology. Is there a difference between goal line technology and VAR.
yes you're right but we were just discussing VAR separately .
I also come down against VAR. I forget which one, but I saw a match two weeks ago where VAR called back a goal as offside when the replay showed that you'd need a micrometer to determine if it was offside. Besides, an attacker who fakes a defender into going the wrong way can be called offside for making a fine play. As imperfect as they are, I prefer refs making the calls. Besides, we'll always need some questionable calls to stir the debate in the pub afterwards.
VAR thus far has ruined most games its been used in that I've seen. Not a fan .. it takes ownership away from officials... and should be only used for clear and obvious errors. .. its not.
Catch 22 situation. Enjoy flowing football but also want the correct result at the end of the day. Had VAR been in use last season FFC would be playing EPL. Either way, it's here to stay and will improve over time.
We had a penalty shout last week not given for a much more deliberate handball than the one Man City did which lead to their goal being disallowed against Spurs yesterday.
Not very consistent then .. or getting clear cut decisions right .
It is still a human being calling the shots using two dimensional VAR as distinct from a referee or assistant calling them in three dimensions. And frankly many of the decisions in VAR I have seen have been highly controversial. I don't think it solves anything since a TV broadcast monitor has nowhere near the resolution of the naked eye even if a still camera does have sharper resolve. It is a folly to believe a camera does not lie because a human eye is fallible. Both are equally fragile and fallible when it comes to what is correct. Technology is not the answer to better decisions - consistency is. Train referees in numbers sufficiently large to ensure only the true competent gets to officiate the better games. VAR is another avoidance of the individual responsibility that society seems so frightened of in this day and age.
Offside is offside whether it is 1mm or 12 inches. VAR is there to get the decisions right and it is getting them right. Unintentional handball which leads to a goal being disallowed as in the Spuds game yesterday does seem harsh but thems the rules.
If VAR had been around a few years ago then there wouldn't have been the "hand of God" goal. Would anyone have complained about VAR then?
Quote from: cookieg on August 18, 2019, 09:22:02 AM
Offside is offside whether it is 1mm or 12 inches. VAR is there to get the decisions right and it is getting them right. Unintentional handball which leads to a goal being disallowed as in the Spuds game yesterday does seem harsh but thems the rules.
If VAR had been around a few years ago then there wouldn't have been the "hand of God" goal. Would anyone have complained about VAR then?
The handball was pretty obvious to our goalie at the time and judging from the decisions I have seen even VAR at that time there's no telling what decision would have been made. Some of the greatest events ever human beings have recorded still have controversial accounts when it comes to the truth about them.
The disallowed goal last night was strange. No one saw the hand ball. The defenders didn't appeal, the ref as far as I could tell, hadn't asked for a review. Surely when it's that slight and is not seen at all on first look it should not go to VAR.
Personally I like VAR. Decisions have all been correct with the rules from what I've seen. So no probs there.
I do have a worry for the future tho.
The rule about hand ball that leads to a goal is an unnecessary rule. I really don't understand why it was brought in. It only works against attacking play. Not if it's a defensive action as far as I'm aware.
So my worry is... How many more unnecessary rules will be brought in to "spice up the game" for the armchair viewer. We could end up with the garbage computer game sport of F1 in football before long if stupid rules are brought in like this. The rules that have changed the sport of F1 all help the strongest teams win and stop small teams getting anywhere. It's a dead sport now imo.
I worry football may go the same way.
Does anyone know where this rule originated from?
Or whether the club's were consulted? It's a major rule change that appears to have come from nowhere imo.
It's the offsides that get me, last week it was Stirling's shoulder, it should be on feet as if a striker is leaning towards goal and the defender leaning away it should make no difference.
I think VAR will kill the game, it's supposed to be to stop clear and obvious errors not a check on everything IMHO
Quote from: Skatzoffc on August 18, 2019, 11:11:26 AM
Personally I like VAR. Decisions have all been correct with the rules from what I've seen. So no probs there.
I do have a worry for the future tho.
The rule about hand ball that leads to a goal is an unnecessary rule. I really don't understand why it was brought in. It only works against attacking play. Not if it's a defensive action as far as I'm aware.
So my worry is... How many more unnecessary rules will be brought in to "spice up the game" for the armchair viewer. We could end up with the garbage computer game sport of F1 in football before long if stupid rules are brought in like this. The rules that have changed the sport of F1 all help the strongest teams win and stop small teams getting anywhere. It's a dead sport now imo.
I worry football may go the same way.
Does anyone know where this rule originated from?
Or whether the club's were consulted? It's a major rule change that appears to have come from nowhere imo.
All the clubs voted for VAR I think this summer having rejected it last year.
Not sure about the rule itself but does seem to be pretty harsh and petty.
I do think it hasn't helped that certain managers and players berated officials for getting even the most minor thing wrong meaning they've all felt so under pressure that they need some help and have no confidence in their own ability to decide for themselves.
Quote from: cookieg on August 18, 2019, 09:22:02 AM
Offside is offside whether it is 1mm or 12 inches. VAR is there to get the decisions right and it is getting them right. Unintentional handball which leads to a goal being disallowed as in the Spuds game yesterday does seem harsh but thems the rules.
If VAR had been around a few years ago then there wouldn't have been the "hand of God" goal. Would anyone have complained about VAR then?
1mm isnt clear and obvious 12 inches is. Var is still down to human judgement 1mm you may have paused a frame to soon
I hate the new rules re handball. Worst new rule in a long time.
I love it.
Win some decisions and lose some.
Worst thing ever,will kill the passion in the game.
As one Burnley player said,"Why don't they just make us play with our hands tied behind our backs"
Quote from: Watford_fc on August 18, 2019, 08:37:56 AM
We had a penalty shout last week not given for a much more deliberate handball than the one Man City did which lead to their goal being disallowed against Spurs yesterday.
Not very consistent then .. or getting clear cut decisions right .
Yeah, that Man City "handball" was really a miscarriage of justice, imho, but, that is how the "rules" read, and therefore disallowed goal, per rule. Totally unavoidable and happenstance touch. Too bad for City, but they don't need any tears shed on their behalf.
I see alot of commentary against VAR in this thread. Personally, I think it is appropriate, it's all about getting questionable calls "right". Nothing wrong with that, I should think.
Quote from: toshes mate on August 18, 2019, 09:05:05 AM
It is still a human being calling the shots using two dimensional VAR as distinct from a referee or assistant calling them in three dimensions. And frankly many of the decisions in VAR I have seen have been highly controversial. I don't think it solves anything since a TV broadcast monitor has nowhere near the resolution of the naked eye even if a still camera does have sharper resolve. It is a folly to believe a camera does not lie because a human eye is fallible. Both are equally fragile and fallible when it comes to what is correct. Technology is not the answer to better decisions - consistency is. Train referees in numbers sufficiently large to ensure only the true competent gets to officiate the better games. VAR is another avoidance of the individual responsibility that society seems so frightened of in this day and age.
As a good example of camera v human eye, in Mitro's oscar performance on Friday, my initial thought was that he had been kicked in the face. The replays first showed no contact at all and a different angle showed that the opponent might have raked his fingers across Mitro's eyes. I became convinced there was no contact when I noted a split second delay in Mitro's reaction before he did his Neymar.
No ,I am against VAR unless we can wind the clock back to 55/56 season and apply VAR to that Vic Keeble goal for Newcastle against us in the 4th round FA Cup match at the Cottage.
Keeble bundled our keeper over the goal line for an equaliser when our keeper was in the air, I am sure Var would confirm the keepers feet were a foot of the ground.
Would love to see that decision reversed, it is one that is hard to forget for us old timers.
Quote from: YankeeJim on August 18, 2019, 05:21:46 PM
Quote from: toshes mate on August 18, 2019, 09:05:05 AM
It is still a human being calling the shots using two dimensional VAR as distinct from a referee or assistant calling them in three dimensions. And frankly many of the decisions in VAR I have seen have been highly controversial. I don't think it solves anything since a TV broadcast monitor has nowhere near the resolution of the naked eye even if a still camera does have sharper resolve. It is a folly to believe a camera does not lie because a human eye is fallible. Both are equally fragile and fallible when it comes to what is correct. Technology is not the answer to better decisions - consistency is. Train referees in numbers sufficiently large to ensure only the true competent gets to officiate the better games. VAR is another avoidance of the individual responsibility that society seems so frightened of in this day and age.
As a good example of camera v human eye, in Mitro's oscar performance on Friday, my initial thought was that he had been kicked in the face. The replays first showed no contact at all and a different angle showed that the opponent might have raked his fingers across Mitro's eyes. I became convinced there was no contact when I noted a split second delay in Mitro's reaction before he did his Neymar.
You spotted the one real piece of evidence that I am sure the assistant, if he was sharp and had been concentrating, would have noticed too. Unnecessary IMO, but a stock item in much football when players fear the wrath of a referee. I think both players may have thought 'hey, this is getting out of hand' and made it look worse by feigning damage instead of just getting up and getting on with it.
In cricket the decision review system looks at many situations to judge whether the ball has touched the bat and one view may convince you it has while another contemporaneous angle will show the distance between bat and ball at that moment. Likewise the distortions of the telescopic lens fails to resolve into whether or not a ball touched the ground before it was caught. When a decision goes our way we may be convinced the technology works and when it doesn't we may be convinced the decision maker is wrong which is the exact same situation as when an umpire gives an immediate response to an appeal.
If we had holograph technology we may better served but until that comes (if ever) I think VAR has the same smell that humans have always had.
Quote from: filham on August 17, 2019, 12:42:46 PM
I thought Huddersfield's goal last night was a result of goal line technology. Is there a difference between goal line technology and VAR.
There is without a doubt a difference between the two.
I think the clubs themselves only have themselves to blame for VAR being introduced.
Now that the stakes are so high financially, it has fostered a 'win at all costs' mentality. This has spawned the diving and cheating from players, trying to get decisions to their advantage, or to have an opponent sent off. The added pressure of refs to change a decision, by being harangued by a group of players, has also become the norm. That's ruined the game for me.
Ya reap what ya sow.
