parklane1
Tony Galvin
It's a bit difficult to respond to conversations that you have away from here. On here no one has made the point you are arguing against.
Sigh.
It's a bit difficult to respond to conversations that you have away from here. On here no one has made the point you are arguing against.
it was a clear and obvious foul. var shouldve picked it up when the ref didnt. its obviously a huge and clear error - how can it be otherwise when a striker bearing down on goal is pulled back?
Pah. Too long. Didn't read.
It's one that regularly wouldn't be given
disagree. its one that would be given the vast majority of times had it occurred in the middle of the pitch. isnt the whole point of var to give referees a second look at a high pressure decision such as this - so that they can correctly award the foul, where in the past they have bottled it.
also its not about whether a foul is "regularly given" or not. surely var is about enabling officials to make correct decisions regardless of the past.
Ben Youssef for Tunisa
Each team should be given an appeal time out, maybe even one each half. Then when there are incidents like Harry's non pens they can ask the ref to watch it back, if he stills says no pen the ref has to explain why.
The problem with that is that you'd get managers using them to disrupt play.
Each team should be given an appeal time out, maybe even one each half. Then when there are incidents like Harry's non pens they can ask the ref to watch it back, if he stills says no pen the ref has to explain why.
At the moment the refs are still not accountable for their decision, they can stil just ignore what they want to.
I don't think having four potential breaks in play are going to stretch the game to long. But would it not be a price worth paying if it "encouraged" refs to take more responsibility. If refs were to be called out and had to explain there actions more these incidents would decrease.GHod help us. I know you are a fan of American football but the is not the same and nor should it be. A one hour game that lasts for 3 hours. I despair i really do what some want to do with the greatest game in the world.
I don't think having four potential breaks in play are going to stretch the game to long. But would it not be a price worth paying if it "encouraged" refs to take more responsibility. If refs were to be called out and had to explain there actions more these incidents would decrease.
Look at the breaks we already have at direct shot FK’s, it can be 2/3 mins. 30s for a rollback won’t make much difference.
I agree with @milo any kind of challenge will be used tactically by smarter coaches.
In my mind I've got Mourinho, his team 1-0 up with five minutes left on the clock and on the back foot.
Took two and a half minutes or something before Kane could take his penalty and it had nothing to do with VAR.
So because of Panama's excruciating nonsense that makes it okay to bring in a whole raft of other delays?Took two and a half minutes or something before Kane could take his penalty and it had nothing to do with VAR.
So because of Panama's excruciating nonsense that makes it okay to bring in a whole raft of other delays?