• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

VAR: Sponsored by Chelsea

thfcsteff said:
Overpaid tossers ruining the concept of an idea which is executed in other sports. One challenge per team. Get it right you get one more. Get it wrong, over. Or just don’t have it. THIS version is a giant fudging farce.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

Just accept that decisions can be subjective, like everyone has for the past 600 odd years of the sport
 
Gutter Boy said:
I honestly think it's designed to create the opportunity to get advert breaks into games. It's destroying everything sporting
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the Ice Hockey when I watched it in New York.

I blame people like Ferguson and Wenger, the bad sports who could never take a bad decision against them and who put pressure on refs to give bad decisions for them.
 
What a fudging embarrassment. Even when we score, you don't see the passion of the players celebrating, just a referee stood like a lemon with a finger in his ear.
 
mjc23 said:
What a fudging embarrassment. Even when we score, you don't see the passion of the players celebrating, just a referee stood like a lemon with a finger in his ear.
Click to expand...
ear-plugs.jpg
 
Use of technology is fine and improves the sport - they've just applied it wrongly. Best solution would be to give each team 1 or 2 appeals per game and if your appeal succeeds, you keep it. And the decision is only changed if something is clearly wrong. In most games, managers wouldnt make crazy appeals given that they'd want to keep their right to appeal for something obviously wrong

The problem this evening is that the ref checked it for everything, and even then interpreted things wrong. The problem wasnt the technology per se
 
It's bollox, football is good any change still has refs making judgement calls so still open to accusing bent etc.

What you gain is not worth what you lose.
 
AdamB said:
Use of technology is fine and improves the sport - they've just applied it wrongly. Best solution would be to give each team 1 or 2 appeals per game and if your appeal succeeds, you keep it. And the decision is only changed if something is clearly wrong. In most games, managers wouldnt make crazy appeals given that they'd want to keep their right to appeal for something obviously wrong

The problem this evening is that the ref checked it for everything, and even then interpreted things wrong. The problem wasnt the technology per se
Click to expand...

It's football, not a circus show. The technology doesn't improve it, it's a gimmick. Like 3D glasses or smellovision

Goalline technology is fine, but there's nothing else that won't detract from the sport.
 
galeforce said:
If decisions can be subjective the laws are too ambiguous
Click to expand...

Not in a contact sport - there will always be a grey area around how much is too much contact

Similarly when they messed with the offside rule a few years ago, they introduced loads of ambiguity and interpretation there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back