VAR Thoughts?

[VladimirIlyich]

The amount of time that Rory Delap, Fraser Foster, Tony Pulls, Julian Speroni, Jose Mourinho, David Moyes and Phil Neville have all collectively stolen from me would easily get my 3rd and 4th marriages back.

Well,maybe if we were 2 or 3 goals ahead against these teams it shouldn't matter. Time wasting is subjective and not something VAR is used for so would have no bearing on these situations.

[Kevin D]

Well,maybe if we were 2 or 3 goals ahead against these teams it shouldn't matter. Time wasting is subjective and not something VAR is used for so would have no bearing on these situations.

Afraid I can't agree Vlad.

 

WBA and Stoke, for example, start that shit in the first 5 minutes.

 

It's not necessary to discuss Mourinho, he has a well international earned reputation for this type of thing, he revolutionised the cheating business at Porto.

[Jennings]

It's shite. Get on with the game.

[Bob]

Perhaps going the way of cricket now is the go where the 4th official is mic'd up and the screens show what he is viewing.

 

It keeps everyone informed, though there is the issue of FIFA and replays.

And that most stadiums don’t have screens.

[Bob]

Afraid I can't agree Vlad.

 

WBA and Stoke, for example, start that shit in the first 5 minutes.

 

It's not necessary to discuss Mourinho, he has a well international earned reputation for this type of thing, he revolutionised the cheating business at Porto.

They’re still gonna, too.

[Pureblood]

Bring it in for all matches.

 

Incompetent motherfuckers.

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

Bring it in for all matches.

 

Incompetent motherfuckers.

 

Is the right answer.

 

Don't care if it means an extra 2 hours for a game for them to check every fucking decision.

[Captain Turdseye]

Lamela was offside for the second pen as well.

[Red House]

The fat cunt would have gone to the monitor and probably still awarded it.

[Bob]

I haven’t seen a proper replay of the build up and my stream went down and it had already been awarded when it came back on, but unless he was offside like CT says, what part of that replay would say it wasn’t a pen?

 

He went down theatrically, and there was no intent from van dyke, but he kicked him. It was a pen. An unfortunate one and a bit soft but a pen nonetheless.

 

The first one was definitely offside, but it looked like salah was for his second, too, as far as I could tell.

[G Richards]

Bring it in for all games. Give each bench one or two challenges per half, to keep some sort of timeliness on it. If the challenge is for something superfluous, and then something “bigger” happens and you have no more challenges, tough.

 

Efficiency will improve and the managers can contest the perceived worst decisions.

 

There’s no way I’d allow unlimited decisions. And timekeeping will become more important and might need looking at too. In the game against West Brom we were robbed of a good five minutes of playing time due to VAR. We were rubbish that day, but that was five minutes in which we might have got an equalizer.

[joe_fishfish]

If anyone's watching MOTD it looks like the refs have been using something like VAR for a while now anyway.

[Aventus]

 

 

Bring it in for all games. Give each bench one or two challenges per half, to keep some sort of timeliness on it. If the challenge is for something superfluous, and then something “bigger” happens and you have no more challenges, tough.

 

Efficiency will improve and the managers can contest the perceived worst decisions.

 

There’s no way I’d allow unlimited decisions. And timekeeping will become more important and might need looking at too. In the game against West Brom we were robbed of a good five minutes of playing time due to VAR. We were rubbish that day, but that was five minutes in which we might have got an equalizer.

Only issue with it being in the hands of the teams is they could try to use it for tactical reasons and if you've not used one of your challenges yet, you might be a goal up with 5 minutes left and the other team has a lot of momentum and are threatening to score any minute, just chuck in a few nonsense VAR challenges to hold up play.

 

The other side is refs are shit bags and will over use it, only thing worse than making the wrong split second call in the heat of the moment would be to wrongly choose not to go to VAR when it would have changed the decision if he did.

[A_S]

The only way teething problems will be sorted is if it's put into place and actually used. Reviews can be left to the ref's discretion but clean up other areas of the game in terms of time wasting. 

[The Guest]

When you’ve got bell ends like that Dermot Gallagher saying that the first penalty wasn’t offside I don’t know how VAR will help. Everyone in the studio just sucking each other over the decision as well. How can a pass be played to a player who is fucking offside not be flagged because an opposition player who doesn’t know if he’s offside or not tries to intercept it and kick it away and it still goes to the player. It was honestly unbelievable that no cunt at Sky doesn’t highlight it. It’s taken Hackett to write an article in the fucking telegraph to point this out. I’m honestly baffled. Even in the “phase of play” shit they used to ramble on about its offside.

 

If the ref and the linesman say it’s offside you can guarantee that gobshite Gallagher sits in his fucking 18 tellys room and says yeah the refs got it right there he’s offside.

[A_S]

From the FIFA handbook on the offside rule-

 

“Interfering with an opponent” means:

 

Making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

 

 

One could make a very strong case that Lovren's decision to stretch for that ball is due to Kane's positioning closer to goal. So before the ball is even near enough to hit Lovren or not on its path through to Kane, Kane's ILLEGAL positioning means it is offside the second Lovren goes for the ball. 

 

Or am I missing something?

[The Guest]

You’re missing the part where they make the decision and then argue the rules back that decision whatever the rules actually say and nobody bothers to question them on it.

[Moo]

When you’ve got bell ends like that Dermot Gallagher saying that the first penalty wasn’t offside I don’t know how VAR will help. Everyone in the studio just sucking each other over the decision as well. How can a pass be played to a player who is fucking offside not be flagged because an opposition player who doesn’t know if he’s offside or not tries to intercept it and kick it away and it still goes to the player. It was honestly unbelievable that no cunt at Sky doesn’t highlight it. It’s taken Hackett to write an article in the fucking telegraph to point this out. I’m honestly baffled. Even in the “phase of play” shit they used to ramble on about its offside.

 

If the ref and the linesman say it’s offside you can guarantee that gobshite Gallagher sits in his fucking 18 tellys room and says yeah the refs got it right there he’s offside.

Doesn't Hackett say that Kane was offside only because Lovren didn't intentionally play the ball? And that Lovren didn't intentionally play the ball because if he had intended the ball would have been cleared up field?

I think Hackett underestimates how shit Lovren, the fucking dope, is.

 

I may have read it wrong though.

[Moo]

Keith Hackett in The Telegraph after yesterday's match :

 

"On the first one, Harry Kane was clearly in an offside position and should have been flagged by the referee's assistant, Edward Smart. Moss talked to Smart who told him he was not sure so the referee gave the penalty.

 

If Dejan Lovren, the Liverpool defender, had been deliberately trying to clear the ball, he would have been deemed to have been playing Kane onside. In my view, however, Lovren did not play the ball deliberately – if he had been, the ball would have been cleared upfield – so it should have been immediately ruled offside."

[dirk grout]

From the FIFA handbook on the offside rule-

 

“Interfering with an opponent” means:

 

Making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

 

 

One could make a very strong case that Lovren's decision to stretch for that ball is due to Kane's positioning closer to goal. So before the ball is even near enough to hit Lovren or not on its path through to Kane, Kane's ILLEGAL positioning means it is offside the second Lovren goes for the ball. 

 

Or am I missing something?

 

 

Keith Hackett in The Telegraph after yesterday's match :

 

"On the first one, Harry Kane was clearly in an offside position and should have been flagged by the referee's assistant, Edward Smart. Moss talked to Smart who told him he was not sure so the referee gave the penalty.

 

If Dejan Lovren, the Liverpool defender, had been deliberately trying to clear the ball, he would have been deemed to have been playing Kane onside. In my view, however, Lovren did not play the ball deliberately – if he had been, the ball would have been cleared upfield – so it should have been immediately ruled offside

 

This highlights the main issue with football refs and assistants which is that they are all spectacularly thick. Of course Lovren played the ball deliberately, he was trying to clear it. However, as quoted by Aussie scouser, the relevant rule is the 'interferring with an opponent'. The only way anyone could think that wasn't offside is if they don't think that Harry Kane being where he was has any impact on Lovrens actions. Lovren is only trying to clear the ball to stop it getting to Kane who is in an offside position. Therefore, its fucking offside.

[Moo]

The only way anyone could think that wasn't offside is if they don't think that Harry Kane being where he was has any impact on Lovrens actions. Lovren is only trying to clear the ball to stop it getting to Kane who is in an offside position. Therefore, its fucking offside.

Dermot Gallagher basically implies this is no longer relevant under the "current interpretation". How long this current interpretation has been in place who knows, but he also claims clubs and players were briefed on it, presumably at the start of the season this so-called interpretation was introduced.

Why there needs to be further interpretations of an already unclear rule who knows? That's the main problem with officiating these days, the rules could and should be more black and white but they're constantly introducing grey areas and new interpretations

[Moo]

I've decided that these days in the PL the advantage or benefit of the doubt no longer goes to either the defending or attacking team, it's always goes to the officials.

I heard a commentator, or ex-ref not sure, recently say something along the lines of "he's touched him so the referee was within his rights to give it". I mean fuck off with that shit, either it was the correct decision or not. Not any more it seems.

[dirk grout]

Dermot Gallagher basically implies this is no longer relevant under the "current interpretation". How long this current interpretation has been in place who knows, but he also claims clubs and players were briefed on it, presumably at the start of the season this so-called interpretation was introduced.

Why there needs to be further interpretations of an already unclear rule who knows? That's the main problem with officiating these days, the rules could and should be more black and white but they're constantly introducing grey areas and new interpretations

 

Please stop taking any notice of what someone who is an an utter moron says about anything. Hers the quotes from Gallagher, which are so wrong its untrue. And he doesn't say that what I sadi is no longer relevant.

 

"Regarding the offside, Kane is in an offside position, there's no doubt about it. However, once Lovren takes ownership of the ball, which he does without doubt, that begins a new phase of play.

"What the assistant has to do, Eddie Smart, he has to make up his mind whether Lovren has played the ball and whether Kane moved towards him and interfered with play, which he didn't."

 

His claim that Kane hasn't interfered with play because he hasn't 'moved towards him' is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Also, whether Lovren played the ball deliberately or not can only be considered once the initial decision has been made as to whether or not Kane was interfering with play. Which he obviously was.

[Moo]

Please stop taking any notice of what someone who is an an utter moron says about anything. Hers the quotes from Gallagher, which are so wrong its untrue. And he doesn't say that what I sadi is no longer relevant.

"Regarding the offside, Kane is in an offside position, there's no doubt about it. However, once Lovren takes ownership of the ball, which he does without doubt, that begins a new phase of play.

"What the assistant has to do, Eddie Smart, he has to make up his mind whether Lovren has played the ball and whether Kane moved towards him and interfered with play, which he didn't."

His claim that Kane hasn't interfered with play because he hasn't 'moved towards him' is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Also, whether Lovren played the ball deliberately or not can only be considered once the initial decision has been made as to whether or not Kane was interfering with play. Which he obviously was.

I'm not sure when you're quotes are from but after making similar comments this morning on Sky he was challenged by David Provan about Kane interfering with play as Lovren wouldn't have touched the ball if it wasn't for knowing Kane was behind him. Gallagher basically brushed this off with the new interpretation being the overriding factor. He even went on to say "we may not like it but we're bound by it". Now I'm not saying Gallagher is correct, but I'm amazed he's not being challenged on this if it's bullshit.

[The Guest]

This highlights the main issue with football refs and assistants which is that they are all spectacularly thick. Of course Lovren played the ball deliberately, he was trying to clear it. However, as quoted by Aussie scouser, the relevant rule is the 'interferring with an opponent'. The only way anyone could think that wasn't offside is if they don't think that Harry Kane being where he was has any impact on Lovrens actions. Lovren is only trying to clear the ball to stop it getting to Kane who is in an offside position. Therefore, its fucking offside.

Is the correct answer.