• 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

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.

Any rule that requires additional timing is useless. The refs can't time the six seconds the goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball, how on earth should they be able to count twenty seconds on every throw in?
 
Any rule that requires additional timing is useless. The refs can't time the six seconds the goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball, how on earth should they be able to count twenty seconds on every throw in?
As I said in my original post, a play clock.
If they can come with goal line tec to mms a clock can't be that difficult.
 
bad Var weekend in Spain & Italy with Real keeping a penalty that's a stone wall dive and the more watching tv than playing (slight exaggeration) and a dodgy handball penalty not overturned in the Fioretina game (football weekly Guardian has the details).
 
bad Var weekend in Spain & Italy with Real keeping a penalty that's a stone wall dive and the more watching tv than playing (slight exaggeration) and a dodgy handball penalty not overturned in the Fioretina game (football weekly Guardian has the details).
lol
 
FIrst one no way, second yes
look in real time (second one) and it isn't, refs are meant to base decisions on real time (took 5 minutes to make the decision) - most outlets I have seen / listened to say no handball. A goal scored in 17 seconds and one in 101 minutes in that game.
 
Which one is RM? Watching on phone can only see colours.
First one, wild swing in pen box, contact made, pen. Soft but yeah a pen for me.
Second one clearly dips shoulder to block with his arm, stonewall pen.
contact was so slight it (if at all) that it would not have impeded the player in anyway, contact does not equal penalty.

Second, he dips his shoulder it hits his chest where he dipped his shoulder and then brushes his arm. One where it only looks intentional in slow motion, real time (as the ref should make the decision) and it is nothing like one.
 
as i said watching on my phone so not totally clear.
if you make a wild swing like that and make contact thing i think its reasonable to any contact is going to impede.
second one doesn't look to be slowed down that much and its quite a considerable dip of his shoulder, looks to me like it strikes his arm.
 
as i said watching on my phone so not totally clear.
if you make a wild swing like that and make contact thing i think its reasonable to any contact is going to impede.
second one doesn't look to be slowed down that much and its quite a considerable dip of his shoulder, looks to me like it strikes his arm.
he doesn't make contact and if he did its so slight and in no way would make anyone go down like they are shot - each to their own I guess.
 
he doesn't make contact and if he did its so slight and in no way would make anyone go down like they are shot - each to their own I guess.

In my opinion I wouldn't want to get hit like that as I imagine the studs would stab you like a motherfudger, and it actually made me feel pain watching it! But as you say each to their own. :D
 
In my opinion I wouldn't want to get hit like that as I imagine the studs would stab you like a motherfudger, and it actually made me feel pain watching it! But as you say each to their own. :D

That was my thought too, a set of blades raked across the ankle like that, ouch.
 
Back