• 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

Robspur12 said:
I think they were both ludicrous. The Son one was so crucial. Had we got that one we would have gone 2-0 up, probably gone on to win the game, got the away win monkey off our backs and perhaps built some confidence. Instead Leicester are the ones who have not looked back.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But whereas our players let it affect them, Sheffield United to their credit, knuckled down and used the injustice to 'spur' them on to a deserved point.

At Leicester once they equalised I think we all knew what was coming
 
Spur of the moment said:
The VAR should be required to give a verdict on offside within 60 seconds. If by then he is still not sure then it's too close to call so the decision should be 'not offside.'

All this playing back and forth with replays is sheer nonsense. Football is meant to be something you enjoy not suffer, so ffs just make a decision and get on with the game, put us all out of our misery.
Click to expand...

60 seconds is far too long. It should be 20 seconds, max. If the slow motion replays are inconclusive, after 20 seconds you give the attacking team the benefit of the doubt.

No sensible, football loving individual ever wanted these nonsense decisions based on whether or not a players nose was 2 millimeters ahead of the defenders index finger or not. We just wanted sensible use of existing technology to rid the game of the clear and obvious refereeing errors.

I can't believe how much of a mess has been made of this. VAR is dysfunctional way, way beyond belief.
 
Robbo said:
60 seconds is far too long. It should be 20 seconds, max. If the slow motion replays are inconclusive, after 20 seconds you give the attacking team the benefit of the doubt.

No sensible, football loving individual ever wanted these nonsense decisions based on whether or not a players nose was 2 millimeters ahead of the defenders index finger or not. We just wanted sensible use of existing technology to rid the game of the clear and obvious refereeing errors.

I can't believe how much of a mess has been made of this. VAR is dysfunctional way, way beyond belief.
Click to expand...
It is unbelievable when you think about it. The back pass rule and goal line technology all made minor enhancements to the game with little fuss, then when there is the opportunity to use another set of eyes or a replay to correct woeful incompetent decisions, discourage diving or aid an unsighted official it gets used to make marginal decisions that takes minutes to decide.
Then again this is the same sport that has decided to award Qatar a World Cup and rearrange the traditional global schedule to accommodate them...
 
I'm still angry about the penalty in the CL final.

The fact that they escaped a way worse handball today is a total joke.

Is there really any point playing a game where the rules are different every week?
 
Think of our game last week v Everton, and how long VAR took to review the Dele ' handball' claim.
How does VAR today some to such a quick conclusion?
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Think of our game last week v Everton, and how long VAR took to review the Dele ' handball' claim.
How does VAR today some to such a quick conclusion?
Click to expand...

"The VAR checked the penalty appeal for handball against Trent Alexander-Arnold and confirmed the on-field decision that it did not meet the considerations for a deliberate håndball", apparently.

And "the Premier League have explained that a penalty was not awarded as Alexander-Arnold's arm was not in an unnatural position", plus "there was not enough reaction time for the defender to move his arm out the way".

https://twitter.com/x/status/1193576111411793921
 
Personally I think Sky's Twitter caption says it all: "do you agree?"

They just love the controversy and talking points they get from this clusterfudged system.
 
Robbo said:
"The VAR checked the penalty appeal for handball against Trent Alexander-Arnold and confirmed the on-field decision that it did not meet the considerations for a deliberate håndball", apparently.

And "the Premier League have explained that a penalty was not awarded as Alexander-Arnold's arm was not in an unnatural position", plus "there was not enough reaction time for the defender to move his arm out the way".

https://twitter.com/x/status/1193576111411793921
Click to expand...

What infuriates me is that referee and PL representatives consistently fail to refer to the actual rules / guidelines when explaining decisions. Like the statement above referring to AA’s hands not being in an ‘unnatural position’ - I thought the guidelines had been changed to refer to ‘making the body bigger’ and a player’s ‘natural silhouette’? The people in charge seem to create poorly worded rules / guidelines in the first place, and then fail to actually refer to them when making / justifying their decisions. It’s an utterly bizarre level of amateurishness for the highest profile and most lucrative sport in the world.
 
elltrev said:
What infuriates me is that referee and PL representatives consistently fail to refer to the actual rules / guidelines when explaining decisions. Like the statement above referring to AA’s hands not being in an ‘unnatural position’ - I thought the guidelines had been changed to refer to ‘making the body bigger’ and a player’s ‘natural silhouette’? The people in charge seem to create poorly worded rules / guidelines in the first place, and then fail to actually refer to them when making / justifying their decisions. It’s an utterly bizarre level of amateurishness for the highest profile and most lucrative sport in the world.
Click to expand...


Or a deliberately vague set of rules that they can have any nterpretation of they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back