VAR Thoughts?

[Mook]

It has completely ruined Football.

[Smell The Glove]

10 hours ago, an tha said:

It is absolutely dogshite.

 

That disallowed goal today was just an absolutely perfect example of how it is just sucking the joy out of football, a massive explosion of joy killed by the use of system being used in the worst manner possible....especially given as yet again nobody could properly keep the people in the ground watching game a proper idea of what was going on.

 

The big screens had checking for offside on them - then suddenly the ref is off to a pitchside monitor....they don't use pitchside monitors for offside - but there was zero communication of what was happening, just still screens saying checking for offside.

 

There VAR checked goal was given as offside by lino, but we have to endure an age whilst they 'check' and nobody in ground has a clue what is happening.

 

Just shite.

 

Clueless clowns sucking the joy out of the game.

 

It and how the idiots use it is just abysmal.

 

 

The thing with VAR is how easy in its current format it is to manipulate outcomes. John Brooks was on VAR yesterday who Klopp ran up to that time he twanged his hammy. Now if refs were petty, fussy cunts who held grudges and had control of VAR?

[Vincent Vega]

Even people who wanted VAR to be brought in surely didn’t think it would be used in the way it was yesterday? It was supposed to end the real howlers, that was how it was sold to us, but instead you’ve got the equivalent of the Bottom Inspectors from Viz running it and goals are being chalked off because you haven’t wiped properly. 

[magicrat]

1 hour ago, Mook said:

It has completely ruined Football.

It hasn’t though, it’s just shifted the controversy from Refs and Lino’s getting calls wrong to people upstairs interpreting the rules inconsistently.

The clock won’t be rewound so we a stuck with it . It wasn’t properly thought through but VAR needs much stronger guide lines about where and when it should intervene to disallow goals . 

[Mook]

4 minutes ago, magicrat said:

It hasn’t though, it’s just shifted the controversy from Refs and Lino’s getting calls wrong to people upstairs interpreting the rules inconsistently.

The clock won’t be rewound so we a stuck with it . It wasn’t properly thought through but VAR needs much stronger guide lines about where and when it should intervene to disallow goals . 

 

It has though.

 

You need to wait about four minutes for someone to decide if a goal in a cup final was a goal.

 

I'm amazed anyone still pays to watch that shite.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

I'd have preferred no VAR yesterday. I didn't celebrate either goal properly as I was too busy looking at possible reasons they might chalk them off. A tumble in the box, a Chelsea player appealing etc.

 

That said, they got both disallowed goal calls right. Both were offside. 

[Bob]

12 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

I'd have preferred no VAR yesterday. I didn't celebrate either goal properly as I was too busy looking at possible reasons they might chalk them off. A tumble in the box, a Chelsea player appealing etc.

 

That said, they got both disallowed goal calls right. Both were offside. 

I'm just not having that at all. Colwill made zero effort to get past Endo, he wasn't blocked off, if it was a block there would be been a reaction to it in real time, not a wave of the arms in complaint after. Human nature makes us respond to things as they happen and if your job on a set piece is to mark the most da serous opposition player and that gets genuinely hampered you would react, immediately.

 

That was a goal ruled out because of traffic warden officiating.

 

 

[Barnesey]

The bonkers thing about the disallowed goal, is that Fabian Schaar got a penalty last week for being fouled whilst stood in an offside position like Endo..

So Schaar isn’t interfering despite winning a penalty, but endo is interfering whilst standing still…

Which then suggests if Colwill had shoved endo over, rather than merely running into him, and the ball had sailed over Van Dijk’s head… we could have been awarded a penalty for a foul on the very player that supposedly committed the offside offence

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Just now, Bob said:

I'm just not having that at all. Colwill made zero effort to get past Endo, he wasn't blocked off, if it was a block there would be been a reaction to it in real time, not a wave of the arms in complaint after. Human nature makes us respond to things as they happen and if your job on a set piece is to mark the most da serous opposition player and that gets genuinely hampered you would react, immediately.

 

That was a goal ruled out because of traffic warden officiating.

 

 

 

Have to disagree. Endo's not even looking at the delivery, that's why he gets caught offside. He's looking at Colwill, his only concern is blocking him. Colwill is weak in trying to get past, it isn't a foul, so his reaction has no bearing. It wasn't disallowed for a foul, it was disallowed for offside. You can't start from an offside position and then influence play.

 

Colwill was supposed to cover Van Dijk. The second Endo so much as causes Colwill to take evasive action to get to his man Endo becomes an active participant, and he started from an offside position.

 

It's nit-picking, micro-managing etc. But it was the right decision.

[The wanderer]

5 minutes ago, Barnesey said:

The bonkers thing about the disallowed goal, is that Fabian Schaar got a penalty last week for being fouled whilst stood in an offside position like Endo..

So Schaar isn’t interfering despite winning a penalty, but endo is interfering whilst standing still…

Which then suggests if Colwill had shoved endo over, rather than merely running into him, and the ball had sailed over Van Dijk’s head… we could have been awarded a penalty for a foul on the very player that supposedly committed the offside offence

Webb tied himself in knots trying to justify that call . I think at one point he said something like you can be offside without being offside.

[Code]

Why did not VAR look at Caceido’s tackle, thats my main question after yesterday.

 

obvious red card offence. 

[Dave D]

I hate the way it can lift/deflate a team to the extreme opposite of the original scenario - we work hard to score, we do so, everyone gets a lift and confidence rises amongst both players and fans, the opposition are dejected, mentally up against it and can expect an onslaught- only for a drawn out process to literally flip the momentum on its head where the team that had conceded are now the ones with the extra energy that adrenalin provides                

[Bob]

19 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

 

Have to disagree. Endo's not even looking at the delivery, that's why he gets caught offside. He's looking at Colwill, his only concern is blocking him. Colwill is weak in trying to get past, it isn't a foul, so his reaction has no bearing. It wasn't disallowed for a foul, it was disallowed for offside. You can't start from an offside position and then influence play.

 

Colwill was supposed to cover Van Dijk. The second Endo so much as causes Colwill to take evasive action to get to his man Endo becomes an active participant, and he started from an offside position.

 

It's nit-picking, micro-managing etc. But it was the right decision.

How can you be certain Colwill was suppose to be covering van dijk other than assuming he probably ought to have been? He was in front of him, not behind him, and he made no effort to get past Endo.

 

I've just watched the highlights again now ob my lunch break and there's no reaction at all from Colwill to suggest he was trying to get past Endo so I don't see how Endo has influenced play.

 

I'll clip a video of the angle I think best sums it up.

[Bob]

15 minutes ago, Code said:

Why did not VAR look at Caceido’s tackle, thats my main question after yesterday.

 

obvious red card offence. 

They looked. They just decided it was careless not reckless and to be honest I tend to agree. 

 

Ref or lino should have seen it and should have booked him, but VAR can't do anything unless it's a red and I don't think it is.

[Torvald Utne]

14 minutes ago, Code said:

Why did not VAR look at Caceido’s tackle, thats my main question after yesterday.

 

obvious red card offence. 

They did, they said caicedo slipped.  There was, of course, no slip but it was the best they could come up with.

[Torvald Utne]

2 minutes ago, Bob said:

How can you be certain Colwill was suppose to be covering van dijk other than assuming he probably ought to have been? He was in front of him, not behind him, and he made no effort to get past Endo.

 

I've just watched the highlights again now ob my lunch break and there's no reaction at all from Colwill to suggest he was trying to get past Endo so I don't see how Endo has influenced play.

 

I'll clip a video of the angle I think best sums it up.

Colwill was behind van dijk as the block happened so best he could have done would have been to tug him back

[Bob]

1 minute ago, Torvald Utne said:

Colwill was behind van dijk as the block happened so best he could have done would have been to tug him back

You're right, when I said he wasnt behind I meant he wasn't goal side so not defensively in position to defend him.

[Bjornebye]

Worked for us yesterday but it’s a load of bollocks 

[Kevin D]

29 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

 

Have to disagree. Endo's not even looking at the delivery, that's why he gets caught offside. He's looking at Colwill, his only concern is blocking him. Colwill is weak in trying to get past, it isn't a foul, so his reaction has no bearing. It wasn't disallowed for a foul, it was disallowed for offside. You can't start from an offside position and then influence play.

 

Colwill was supposed to cover Van Dijk. The second Endo so much as causes Colwill to take evasive action to get to his man Endo becomes an active participant, and he started from an offside position.

 

It's nit-picking, micro-managing etc. But it was the right decision.

Can you recall seeing a goal ruled out like that, before they brought in VAR?

[Mook]

24 minutes ago, Code said:

Why did not VAR look at Caceido’s tackle, thats my main question after yesterday.

 

obvious red card offence. 

 

VAR isn't there to get decisions right, it's there to ruin our enjoyment of goals.

 

I have four and a half years worth of evidence to back this up.

[Torvald Utne]

7 minutes ago, Bob said:

You're right, when I said he wasnt behind I meant he wasn't goal side so not defensively in position to defend him.

Oh I wasn't correcting anything you said, just providing another reason for the decision being bullshit

[Babb'sBurstNad]

9 minutes ago, Bob said:

How can you be certain Colwill was suppose to be covering van dijk other than assuming he probably ought to have been? He was in front of him, not behind him, and he made no effort to get past Endo.

 

I've just watched the highlights again now ob my lunch break and there's no reaction at all from Colwill to suggest he was trying to get past Endo so I don't see how Endo has influenced play.

 

I'll clip a video of the angle I think best sums it up.

 

When Van Dijk begins to run he has a handful of Colwill's shirt, indicating he wants to know where he is. Chelsea wouldn't have left Chilwell to mark Van Dijk on his own. 

 

I don't think Colwill does enough, but if Endo isn't there he has a clear run towards the flight of the ball.

 

It really isn't about whether Colwill was marking Van Dijk though, or if he did enough to get past Endo. The second Endo starts from an offside position he can't do anything to influence a Chelsea player who might've got to the ball.

 

7 minutes ago, Kevin D said:

Can you recall seeing a goal ruled out like that, before they brought in VAR?

 

Nope. Doesn't mean it's incorrect though.

[Carra_is_legend]

Colwill was never going to get to the ball, with or without Endo. 

[Carra_is_legend]

18 minutes ago, Torvald Utne said:

They did, they said caicedo slipped.  There was, of course, no slip but it was the best they could come up with.

 

Yup, there was no fucking slip. The reasons these corrupt cunts come up with!

 

Same slip excuse was spouted out when Odegaard decided to play volleyball in the penalty box. 

 

Referee on both occasions? Yup, Chris Kavanagh, the Manc cunt.

[Carra_is_legend]

6 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

 

When Van Dijk begins to run he has a handful of Colwill's shirt, indicating he wants to know where he is. Chelsea wouldn't have left Chilwell to mark Van Dijk on his own. 

 

I don't think Colwill does enough, but if Endo isn't there he has a clear run towards the flight of the ball.

 

It really isn't about whether Colwill was marking Van Dijk though, or if he did enough to get past Endo. The second Endo starts from an offside position he can't do anything to influence a Chelsea player who might've got to the ball.

 

 

Nope. Doesn't mean it's incorrect though.

 

There was also a clear shirt pull from Chilwell on Virgil. 

And Chelsea left Mudryk on Virgil for the 2nd goal.