• 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

scaramanga said:
That precedence only came about because we couldn't spot all of the fouls. Now we can do that, we can apply the law properly.

Let's not forget the added bonus that VAR will relegate Leicester and end the career of Andy Carroll (if he hasn't done that himself by now).
Click to expand...
That precedence occurred because that's how the game was played, even now they can see some of it happening decide not to penalise due to the precedence.

Either way it's changing the game, I don't like it, i like the battles within reason.
 
r-u-s-x said:
There are two camps and I don't think there is any coming back, I will never like it but what makes me feel aggrieved is the fact there was no real demand for its introduction from the fans (all polls I saw pre WC had 60+ against) and the fact it wasn't perfected before bringing it in, goal line technology needed to be 400% accurate before the PL started using it. Keep getting told it would get better but why not perfect it in League 1 first.

I like football, I am worried about the direction it is going in.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely an advocate of VAR, I think it is necessary. The speed of the game alone is simply too much for one man on the field to keep up with. And while we have the technology to make things more accurate, decisions more correct, I think we should use it. Here I suspect we disagree, it seems you prefer the romanticism of the game, warts and all and all that.

I do absolutely agree though that if it is to come in, it needs to be done properly. And at the moment it veers somewhere between "ok" and "fudging abysmal". There is massive room for improvement.

Not least in enforcing the consistency that it was supposed to bring, and improving the speed with which decisions are made.

If its as quick as your average pundit is with a few replays, I think there is nothing to complain about. 5 minutes the other night at Shalke was ridiculous!
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I am absolutely an advocate of VAR, I think it is necessary. The speed of the game alone is simply too much for one man on the field to keep up with. And while we have the technology to make things more accurate, decisions more correct, I think we should use it. Here I suspect we disagree, it seems you prefer the romanticism of the game, warts and all and all that.

I do absolutely agree though that if it is to come in, it needs to be done properly. And at the moment it veers somewhere between "ok" and "fudging abysmal". There is massive room for improvement.

Not least in enforcing the consistency that it was supposed to bring, and improving the speed with which decisions are made.

If its as quick as your average pundit is with a few replays, I think there is nothing to complain about. 5 minutes the other night at Shalke was ridiculous!
Click to expand...
My opinion on offsides has always been that if it needs a line to go across and 15 replays then whatever the linesman decides is right, back the spirit of the law its to stop an unfair advantage, half a foot wont do that. If you really want to bring it in it needs to be for the stone cold fudgeups you can see easily, mission creep will happen though and more and more will be included.

As I said I understand some people want it and understand the reasons, I do not agree with them and I think the way it has been done has been brick. In the next decade I can either see the game changed as they change the rules to suit VAR or it gone (including in game adverts on TV) or it having a greatly reduced scope.
 
Agree about offsides, all that drawing lines across the pitch etc is cobblers. Clear and obvious, and all that.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Offsides are actually one of the ones where you can be absolute about it.

Worth checking if a goal is scored and its tight, IMO.
Click to expand...
We don't have the technology to be absolute at the moment, its still coming down to angles, when the ball was struck vs leaving foot and the human eye. form what I have seen.
 
r-u-s-x said:
We don't have the technology to be absolute at the moment, its still coming down to angles, when the ball was struck vs leaving foot and the human eye. form what I have seen.
Click to expand...

Which much much more reliable than a lino who isnt in line and gets one look across when a ball is played from 30 yards away...

...and so worth doing, IMO. It offers a definite and tangible improvement.
 
Yes, perhaps absolute wasnt the best choice of words - but I would suggest we can be as near as. Very high 90's % correct. Damn near absolute.

Compared to a fatty linesman huffing up the line and not being able to see everything in detail? Its night and day.

And Im not suggesting it be the case to scrutinise EVERY offside, rather the ones that have real consequence, IE - is that goal valid?
 
i was the biggest fan of goalline technology, nothing more important than ball crossing the line, ref can check in 2 seconds, i was very hesitant about VAR and it worked pretty well in the world cup because it was sparsely used, from what we see in the CL, this is going to be a nightmare, ruling out goals for an iffy tackle 50 yards away is not what VAR was meant for, nor is calling someone offside when their hand/foot is the only part of their body offside, what happened to the attacker having benefit of the doubt/level is onside etc. Football is a beautiful flowing game, i've said it before and said it again, the NFL is a 1 hour game with 17 minutes of action and takes 3 hours to play, football is slowly heading that way.
 
Mr_B said:
i was the biggest fan of goalline technology, nothing more important than ball crossing the line, ref can check in 2 seconds, i was very hesitant about VAR and it worked pretty well in the world cup because it was sparsely used, from what we see in the CL, this is going to be a nightmare, ruling out goals for an iffy tackle 50 yards away is not what VAR was meant for, nor is calling someone offside when their hand/foot is the only part of their body offside, what happened to the attacker having benefit of the doubt/level is onside etc. Football is a beautiful flowing game, i've said it before and said it again, the NFL is a 1 hour game with 17 minutes of action and takes 3 hours to play, football is slowly heading that way.
Click to expand...

It will be the final nail in the coffin for me. :(:(
 
Mr_B said:
i was the biggest fan of goalline technology, nothing more important than ball crossing the line, ref can check in 2 seconds, i was very hesitant about VAR and it worked pretty well in the world cup because it was sparsely used, from what we see in the CL, this is going to be a nightmare, ruling out goals for an iffy tackle 50 yards away is not what VAR was meant for, nor is calling someone offside when their hand/foot is the only part of their body offside, what happened to the attacker having benefit of the doubt/level is onside etc. Football is a beautiful flowing game, i've said it before and said it again, the NFL is a 1 hour game with 17 minutes of action and takes 3 hours to play, football is slowly heading that way.
Click to expand...

I don't watch much NFL but 17 mins, is that correct? Does seem like it.
One lesson we really could take from them is the play clock, time wasting is a much bigger and more common problem than dodgy offsides or pens.
 
glasgowspur said:
I don't watch much NFL but 17 mins, is that correct? Does seem like it.
One lesson we really could take from them is the play clock, time wasting is a much bigger and more common problem than dodgy offsides or pens.
Click to expand...
Problem with the stop clock is it doesn't address the issue of breaking up the flow / momentum by time wasting which is larger issue than the wasted time imo, and a stop clock could make this larger issue as it will normalize it (no big deal the clock is stopped). There is a load of unforeseen circumstances with changing the rules.
 
Mr_B said:
i was the biggest fan of goalline technology, nothing more important than ball crossing the line, ref can check in 2 seconds, i was very hesitant about VAR and it worked pretty well in the world cup because it was sparsely used, from what we see in the CL, this is going to be a nightmare, ruling out goals for an iffy tackle 50 yards away is not what VAR was meant for, nor is calling someone offside when their hand/foot is the only part of their body offside, what happened to the attacker having benefit of the doubt/level is onside etc. Football is a beautiful flowing game, i've said it before and said it again, the NFL is a 1 hour game with 17 minutes of action and takes 3 hours to play, football is slowly heading that way.
Click to expand...

VAR worked well in the World Cup because the World Cup had very good referees. Note the absence of English referees in Russia last summer. VAR could be a good thing, but bad refs will make bad decisions no matter how much technology you equip them with.

There is no good reason why the referee should be in charge of timekeeping, just put someone with a stopwatch somewhere. Make football a one hour game that takes one hour forty five minutes to play including a half time break, and I'm on board.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Problem with the stop clock is it doesn't address the issue of breaking up the flow / momentum by time wasting which is larger issue than the wasted time imo, and a stop clock could make this larger issue as it will normalize it (no big deal the clock is stopped). There is a load of unforeseen circumstances with changing the rules.
Click to expand...

Rather than stop the clock they 20 secs to get the ball back in play or the ball is turned over.
Think how quick the keeper in particular would play the ball if the goal kick becomes a corner if time he fudges about.
20 secs after he touches it or the ball touches the pitch.
 
glasgowspur said:
Rather than stop the clock they 20 secs to get the ball back in play or the ball is turned over.
Think how quick the keeper in particular would play the ball if the goal kick becomes a corner if time he fudges about.
20 secs after he touches it or the ball touches the pitch.
Click to expand...
We should use the ball boy from Watford!! - as with most things the best solution is probably enforce the rules, give a yellow to the keeper early and it stops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back