Quantcast
VAR Thoughts? - Page 54 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Lee909

VAR Thoughts?

Recommended Posts

Drawing lines on a flat 2d screen will never accurately represent the real life 3d scenario on the pitch. Defenders generally lean forward as they try and race out while the attacker will lean forward the opposite way as they look to get a break on the defenders.

 

I think all this talk of feet, arms, tee shirt line etc is bollocks and if the official want to deem a player offside, they'll use whatever body part grants them the wish.

 

There's absolutely no need for lines on screen and micro level analysis. Id prefer VAR just has a look at the screen, no lines and say does the attacker look level or not? If he does, then he's onside.

 

Too much micro level analysis has now crept into the game in the PL at least and, it's spoiling it. That fucking handball incident between Odoi and greenwood was a fucking joke. No one would have called that a pen before VAR. Frankly, I dont want pens awarded because the ball may have made contact with an outstretched finger of a player running and turning in the box.

 

That isnt within the spirit of the game. VAR should be looking at 'pens' like when Keita was hacked down in the box against Leicester 2 seasons ago or Kompany's leg breaker red card challenge was just punished with a yellow. That's what people want VAR used for, not some slight innocent ball hitting hand shite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have alluded, there are several separate issues here going under one banner.

 

There's the Technology itself. It's good for helping certain decisions, not so much for others. Nobody surely has any confidence in those dodgy offside lines? The technology simply doesn't appear to be sophisticated enough to determine offside as definitively as PGMOL are suggesting it does. If it's too close to call to the naked eye from a freeze frame, then it's level, therefore a goal.  Having a second set of eyes, armed with replays from mutliple angles ought to cut out a lot of blatantly wrong calls - sending off the wrong Arsenal player, the ball being a good yard over the ManU goal line, Vincent Kompany's red card tckle on Mo at the Etihad etc. 

 

Then there's the Protocol - when, where and how to use VAR.  Is 'Clear and Obvious' still a thing anymore? Was VAR actually in a position to definitively rule on our first goal yesterday? It certainly wasn't in position to rule out the ManU equaliser at West Ham, even though they tried to apply it..... and even though MotD were able to produce a graphic proving the ball had clearly gone out. If VAR is to stay, they need to go back to square one with the protocols.

 

Then, the Users - i.e. the PGMOL boys. These were an atrocious bunch of officials before VAR, frequently incompetent and in some cases biased, consciously or otherwise. The availability of the VAR technology has merely given them the opportunity to double down on their crapness. Until there's a change of leadership, greater transpareny and accoutability and the overhaul of the currently not-fit-for-purpose system, things won't get any better.

 

Lastly, the actual laws........(not to mention the 're-interpretations'!). It used to be a failry simple game. Now I'm not sure I understand what's a foul tackle, what's a handball, what's 'reckless' or 'excessive' anymore. Stop trying to micro-define the laws and making it more complicated.

 

Personally, in the short term I'd suspend VAR for the rest of the season, have a major re-think and decide if and in what form to bring it back next season. As for the issue of the current officials and their organisation, that's not going to get resolved anytime soon, maybe not until Riley moves on. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Too much micro level analysis has now crept into the game in the PL at least and, it's spoiling it. That fucking handball incident between Odoi and greenwood was a fucking joke. No one would have called that a pen before VAR. Frankly, I dont want pens awarded because the ball may have made contact with an outstretched finger of a player running and turning in the box.

 

Correct in that it wouldn't have been given before VAR but they've set their standard out and by their barmy laws its a penalty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Handballs really get my fucking goat these days. Literally any and every time a ball touches any part of the arm regardless of context is given a penalty most of the time. Handball should be deliberate or obvious. The Hudson incident? Never a handball. Sissoko in the European Cup final? Blatant handball. Suarez in the World Cup vs Ghana? Definitely deliberate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott_M said:

 

He gave a goal before VAR got involved. The issue was the lack of communication on why VAR had decided what it decided

I thought he blew for the 2nd time and indicated the free kick to be taken again. Then Brighton players kicked off, VAR confirmed he blew his whistle before it was kicked by Dunk, he awarded the goal. Then VAR told him he blew the 2nd whistle before it hit the back of the net, so he went back to the free kick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aws said:

It's here to stay so just limit its toxicity. Let the ref make the calls, let the linos flag and let VAR only get involved 

1. for red card offences/ penalty calls where the ref thinks he didn't have a good view and asks VAR for a second opinion.

2. where an instant replay shows a player was clearly offside without drawing any lines and with any doubt given to the attacker. 

you know what the problem with this is though? You are assuming they would make fair judgements on this without drawing lines. We are seeing week after week the issue isn't just they use an etcha sketch. The issue is they use the etcha sketch to place the lines where they want them to get the outcome they want. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, No2 said:

How many instances in the last 2 years has there been where someone would have gotten away with a shocker but for VAR?  I don't recall many, Chelsea got a penalty at Sheff Utd was a diabolical non-call, Manè scored at Brighton where the lino shouldn't have missed that. Can't think of many more but I could tell you 50 were they they got involved in miniscule events and made drama out of them. 

 

It has to go, the negatives far outweigh the positives. If it must stay then only for missed serious foul play or over ruling a dive for a penalty. This handball yesterday was technically a penalty but thats not football, stopping a game for 2 minutes for a nothing situation. 

I keep saying it. 1 call per game per side. If your call is upheld, you keep your appeal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve not read through the thread yet but I think the incompetence argument was strengthened massively at the weekend. An important point I think is how it’s been introduced in other European leagues with minimal controversy.

I mean...

Wba v Brighton, the whistle etc-

This has to be a watershed moment, no? Look at the pundits reaction on SSN website. Professionals laughing hysterically at the referees performance. This effects people’s lives ffs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

I keep saying it. 1 call per game per side. If your call is upheld, you keep your appeal. 

This weekend Utd use their call on the handball, Sheff Utd use one for Trents cross, Brighton or WBA use theirs for the free depending on what way fatso is thinking at that moment. So nothing really changes, the magnifying glass still comes out just a maximum of twice in a game. That's about the average anyway and I assume you get another one if you're correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, No2 said:

This weekend Utd use their call on the handball, Sheff Utd use one for Trents cross, Brighton or WBA use theirs for the free depending on what way fatso is thinking at that moment. So nothing really changes, the magnifying glass still comes out just a maximum of twice in a game. That's about the average anyway and I assume you get another one if you're correct?

Lots changes I think. Right now every goal is reviewed while they look for something microscopic. So that would stop and we could go back to enjoying goals. If you only have one (and yes, if you're right, you keep it), then you don't get any more. So take the pen Brighton got against us - if Brighton have already used their appeal, tough shit. If that same incident happens after 10 mins, would they use it? I don't think so because only wellbeck even appealed for it. Same with these microscopic offsides. Would anyone burn off an appeal if they weren't sure? And they can't just say "review some stuff" they have to specifically call what they're appealing - so they can't chance on something touching a hand when they've appealed offside. The only exception I would make are for straight red decisions and the VAR can intervene on that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between football and rugby union is chalk and cheese. This is one of the reactions to controversial decisions in Satruday's match........ Honesty, transparency, common sense....... all glaringly absent with PGMOL

 

Joël Jutge, World Rugby’s Head of Match Officials, says Pascal Gauzere (the referee) has acknowledged to him that he got both contentious first-half incidents wrong in Saturday’s Six Nations clash between Wales and England............

 

“But the reality is that if [Gauzere] had blown up for a knock-on, no one would have been able to complain... it’s one of the perverse effects of the TMO (rugby's VAR), that we sometimes have a tendency to look too hard with a microscope. There is a balance to be struck and in this case, a simple bit of common sense would have sufficed. There is a loss of control, the ball goes forward, so it’s a knock on. Pascal looked at the situation on Sunday morning and he is the first to admit it. When you make a mistake, it’s best to own up and be transparent. It doesn’t change the fact that he is an excellent international referee.”

 

 

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveT said:

The difference between football and rugby union is chalk and cheese. This is one of the reactions to controversial decisions in Satruday's match........ Honesty, transparency, common sense....... all glaringly absent with PGMOL

 

Joël Jutge, World Rugby’s Head of Match Officials, says Pascal Gauzere (the referee) has acknowledged to him that he got both contentious first-half incidents wrong in Saturday’s Six Nations clash between Wales and England............

 

“But the reality is that if [Gauzere] had blown up for a knock-on, no one would have been able to complain... it’s one of the perverse effects of the TMO (rugby's VAR), that we sometimes have a tendency to look too hard with a microscope. There is a balance to be struck and in this case, a simple bit of common sense would have sufficed. There is a loss of control, the ball goes forward, so it’s a knock on. Pascal looked at the situation on Sunday morning and he is the first to admit it. When you make a mistake, it’s best to own up and be transparent. It doesn’t change the fact that he is an excellent international referee.”

 

 

 
 

no, no, no. the best thing to do is say fuck all publicly and leak out a defence to the media. then line up other ex-refs to bombard the media with messages of "nothing to see here, it's a perfectly normal decision", because only refs know what is a foul and what isn't. you need to be grateful PGMOL takes it's role as custodians of the laws of the game so seriously. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Scott_M said:


I’m still in favour of it but for me there are 2 key parts of it...

 

1) To many rules are trying to be shoehorned into being black or white - see handball. 
 

2) Similarly offside. Nobody likes these millimetre calls, make an area of tolerance so there is no doubt when a player is outside the parameter, they are offside. 

 

3) Probably the key part - the VAR process relies on an official telling another official to review. The issue is the quality of our officials are garbage. 


I blame Mike Riley for standards slipping - and they were never great to begin with. He was a snivelling little shit as a referee and he’s a snivelling little shit now.

I'm inclined to agree. I think it's the way it's being used that's the problem. There should be some basic principles. 

1. The referee on the pitch should be like the Captain of a ship: give him information, but it's his decision and his responsibility. 

2.  If it takes more than, say, 20 seconds to find a reason to overturn the referee's original decision, then let the original decision stand: it's clearly not so egregiously incorrect that anyone should moan about it.

3. Get better referees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, No2 said:

This weekend Utd use their call on the handball, Sheff Utd use one for Trents cross, Brighton or WBA use theirs for the free depending on what way fatso is thinking at that moment. So nothing really changes, the magnifying glass still comes out just a maximum of twice in a game. That's about the average anyway and I assume you get another one if you're correct?

The united handball is, to a degree subjective whereas Trent's ball over the line isnt. We all know the whole of the ball has to be over the whole of the line so even if Sheff United had been able to appeal, it would have been dismissed.

 

I dont know what the outcome of the odio handball could be. VAR said it was, the ref said no. To me, it doesnt fall into 'deliberate' nor is it unatural position when you consider both players are running, stopping then turning. Their arms are going to be all over the place.

2 hours ago, DaveT said:

The difference between football and rugby union is chalk and cheese. This is one of the reactions to controversial decisions in Satruday's match........ Honesty, transparency, common sense....... all glaringly absent with PGMOL

 

Joël Jutge, World Rugby’s Head of Match Officials, says Pascal Gauzere (the referee) has acknowledged to him that he got both contentious first-half incidents wrong in Saturday’s Six Nations clash between Wales and England............

 

“But the reality is that if [Gauzere] had blown up for a knock-on, no one would have been able to complain... it’s one of the perverse effects of the TMO (rugby's VAR), that we sometimes have a tendency to look too hard with a microscope. There is a balance to be struck and in this case, a simple bit of common sense would have sufficed. There is a loss of control, the ball goes forward, so it’s a knock on. Pascal looked at the situation on Sunday morning and he is the first to admit it. When you make a mistake, it’s best to own up and be transparent. It doesn’t change the fact that he is an excellent international referee.”

 

 

 
 

It's night and day, isnt it? Riley comes out with Mason is 'injured' so not 4th official while Dean decides he wants taking out of the schedule for a game. No sanction and no clear explanation. And our refs are still shite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I'm inclined to agree. I think it's the way it's being used that's the problem. There should be some basic principles. 

1. The referee on the pitch should be like the Captain of a ship: give him information, but it's his decision and his responsibility. 

2.  If it takes more than, say, 20 seconds to find a reason to overturn the referee's original decision, then let the original decision stand: it's clearly not so egregiously incorrect that anyone should moan about it.

3. Get better referees.

1. Yep, but... see 3. I wouldn’t want to be on their ship for my Caribbean cruise.

 

2. Law of unintended consequence. In the NFL I’ve seen it mentioned as being a given that the headset communicators worn to allow coaches and coordinators to send play calls into the QB and defense will “go down” at some stage of a game when playing away to the Patriots; it’s simply a matter of when. It’s cheating, but they would call it gaining an edge. They’re Ferguson’s United. The 20 second rule makes a loaf of sense until you find there’s a VERY different angle that shows a VERY different outcome available after the 20 seconds is up from time to time and they’re still able to screw things however they want to. Into the realms of conspiracy now rather than ineptness, but...

 

3. Yep. Probably lots of this is the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

1. Yep, but... see 3. I wouldn’t want to be on their ship for my Caribbean cruise.

 

2. Law of unintended consequence. In the NFL I’ve seen it mentioned as being a given that the headset communicators worn to allow coaches and coordinators to send play calls into the QB and defense will “go down” at some stage of a game when playing away to the Patriots; it’s simply a matter of when. It’s cheating, but they would call it gaining an edge. They’re Ferguson’s United. The 20 second rule makes a loaf of sense until you find there’s a VERY different angle that shows a VERY different outcome available after the 20 seconds is up from time to time and they’re still able to screw things however they want to. Into the realms of conspiracy now rather than ineptness, but...

 

3. Yep. Probably lots of this is the answer.

If we forced them to make a decision based on time, they'd have probably ruled out our 1st goal on Sunday. The only way to get fewer bad decisions by VAR is to reduce the number of decsions they have to make. As I said before, let the bench have 1 appeal (which would be time limited), call what they want looked at and let the VAR check it. If the appeal is upheld, you keep the appeal. The fewer times the VAR is involved the better as far as I'm concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

If we forced them to make a decision based on time, they'd have probably ruled out our 1st goal on Sunday. The only way to get fewer bad decisions by VAR is to reduce the number of decsions they have to make. As I said before, let the bench have 1 appeal (which would be time limited), call what they want looked at and let the VAR check it. If the appeal is upheld, you keep the appeal. The fewer times the VAR is involved the better as far as I'm concerned. 

I agree, but it won’t happen that way. I’m absolutely sure it won’t.

 

the fundamental problem with this is replicated elsewhere in society these days, and it’s that we now want accountability for all things and no allowance of a mistake - unless you’re the prime minister when no accountability is required at all.

 

in our search to eradicate the relatively small number of egregious mistakes made by officials we’ve got this answer where just as many mistakes are happening, only they’re now happening over tiny things that nobody used to be arsed about, while still having occasional egregious mistakes like that maguire non-penalty in Daves roundup go unpunished and the mess with Mason’s free kick etc.

 

Id have no issue at all with all goals being subject to review for an obvious offside, and a VAR there for bad challenges that are missed and nothing else - not even  a challenge system - just a non invasive use of an extra pair of video aided eyes to get rid of howlers.

 

if - like sterling vs city which we come back to often - a flag was wrongly raised and it’s obvious on second viewing, overturn it. If the opposite is clearly the case, disallow an incorrectly awarded goal.

 

beyond that, keep your gob shut, leave your etch a sketch in its box and get on with the fucking game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't look like it's going to improve any time soon.

https://spiritofshankly.com/fsa-discussion-with-pgmol/?fbclid=IwAR1Z9hUIjwrPNIqIGjZzXcl5-nRY9muttuUaevIGkkVQsCc6T0ytF1vGLZM

 

PGMOL presentation on VAR 

 

Earlier this month, the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) invited Spirit of Shankly and representatives of other fans’ groups to attend a presentation on VAR. It was given by Mike Riley, former referee and general manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) group.

Before the meeting we asked members and non-members for their opinions and we published our summary here Your Views on VAR.

The FSA have reported back on the meeting and you can read their report here FSA Report.

SOS are now in a position to publish what we were able to say to Mike Riley (PGMOL) and the responses he gave to us.

Here is a summary of our conversation.

John Nicolson, on behalf of Spirit of Shankly

Thank you for your presentation on VAR issues, procedures and processes.

Spirit of Shankly asked members and non-members, and supporters of different teams what they thought about VAR. We collected the information via a ‘tell us what you think’ free form, collated and then published a summary.

We collated the comments and published a summary of what supporters said to us.

There were five main points.

  • The introduction of VAR was welcomed by supporters. However, it has changed football for the worse. The spontaneous joy of goal celebrations has been lost.
  • VAR was originally intended to be used to correct clear and obvious errors. Instead, it has created another official making a subjective, often inconsistent, call. Similar incidents in different games are judged differently. You said, in your presentation, VAR had been consistently objective with offside decisions. This is not the case for supporters. For example, some offside decisions have been called due to the leading arm of an attacking player, in similar situations the leading arm has been ignored.
  • VAR should be used minimally. If the analysis takes more than a short period of time and requires excessive use of slow-motion replays, multiple camera angles or drawing lines to determine shirt-sleeve alignment, the decision called by the on-pitch officials should stand. You said the time taken by VAR to decide is typically less than a minute, but supporters argue it is much longer.
  • Match officials should explain the reasons for changes to any decision during a game. I note you said there is a FIFA instruction that referees cannot do this.
  • Post-match, the game and VAR officials should be subject to interview by TV and press. Supporters want VAR and its decisions to be transparent and open to scrutiny after the final whistle. You said you regularly report to the PL but it is a few days later. By then you have had time to review incidents and hold discussions to agree your explanation.

Mike Riley, on behalf of PGMOL

The former referee argued VAR offers a second chance of reaction after a goal, citing Manchester City v Tottenham’s Champions League tie. City thought they had scored in the last minute and their fans celebrated, but then when it was overturned, the Spurs supporters went from despair to celebration.

 

He said PGMOL understood the comments and they were part of the discussion they want to have with all stakeholders. He said it may take five years to get it right with VAR, but many people they had spoken to were happy with ‘offside being offside’ even if by 1mm.

The ‘clear and obvious’ rule does not apply to positional decisions, he said, for which there is no tolerance. These are decided by a 1-pixel margin on the best available camera angles, but they aren’t visible on a TV screen meaning thicker, less accurate lines are shown to the viewers.

Riley said VAR does not get involved with 90% of goals, but they would rather take time to consider everything and many people were happy with that. TV companies with increased manpower can sometimes find better angles than VAR officials do in the time required.

He went on to say that referee’s performances are continually assessed. Dermot Gallagher has a program on Sky after each round of fixtures where he explains why the decisions were made

The Future

The FSA have committed to improving communication between the football authorities and supporters, particularly around refereeing decisions and VAR. They have created a VAR working group, made up of supporter representatives, to consult on the issues, build FSA policy in this area and improve the use of technology from the point of view of match-going fans.

SOS hope to remain involved and will keep you updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Dermot Gallagher has a program on Sky after each round of fixtures where he explains why the decisions were made

And there you have it. It's no issue, we are being held to account by one of our own. However, if Gallagher can't find a way to defend them, it doesn't matter as at that point he's still just a bloke on the telly. 

 

As for that shit it gives a second chance of celebration..who gives a fuck? The joy has gone. I genuinely can't remember the last goal I celebrated. It certainly wasn't this season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Doesn't look like it's going to improve any time soon.

https://spiritofshankly.com/fsa-discussion-with-pgmol/?fbclid=IwAR1Z9hUIjwrPNIqIGjZzXcl5-nRY9muttuUaevIGkkVQsCc6T0ytF1vGLZM

 

PGMOL presentation on VAR 

 

Earlier this month, the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) invited Spirit of Shankly and representatives of other fans’ groups to attend a presentation on VAR. It was given by Mike Riley, former referee and general manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) group.

Before the meeting we asked members and non-members for their opinions and we published our summary here Your Views on VAR.

The FSA have reported back on the meeting and you can read their report here FSA Report.

SOS are now in a position to publish what we were able to say to Mike Riley (PGMOL) and the responses he gave to us.

Here is a summary of our conversation.

John Nicolson, on behalf of Spirit of Shankly

Thank you for your presentation on VAR issues, procedures and processes.

Spirit of Shankly asked members and non-members, and supporters of different teams what they thought about VAR. We collected the information via a ‘tell us what you think’ free form, collated and then published a summary.

We collated the comments and published a summary of what supporters said to us.

There were five main points.

  • The introduction of VAR was welcomed by supporters. However, it has changed football for the worse. The spontaneous joy of goal celebrations has been lost.
  • VAR was originally intended to be used to correct clear and obvious errors. Instead, it has created another official making a subjective, often inconsistent, call. Similar incidents in different games are judged differently. You said, in your presentation, VAR had been consistently objective with offside decisions. This is not the case for supporters. For example, some offside decisions have been called due to the leading arm of an attacking player, in similar situations the leading arm has been ignored.
  • VAR should be used minimally. If the analysis takes more than a short period of time and requires excessive use of slow-motion replays, multiple camera angles or drawing lines to determine shirt-sleeve alignment, the decision called by the on-pitch officials should stand. You said the time taken by VAR to decide is typically less than a minute, but supporters argue it is much longer.
  • Match officials should explain the reasons for changes to any decision during a game. I note you said there is a FIFA instruction that referees cannot do this.
  • Post-match, the game and VAR officials should be subject to interview by TV and press. Supporters want VAR and its decisions to be transparent and open to scrutiny after the final whistle. You said you regularly report to the PL but it is a few days later. By then you have had time to review incidents and hold discussions to agree your explanation.

Mike Riley, on behalf of PGMOL

The former referee argued VAR offers a second chance of reaction after a goal, citing Manchester City v Tottenham’s Champions League tie. City thought they had scored in the last minute and their fans celebrated, but then when it was overturned, the Spurs supporters went from despair to celebration.

 

He said PGMOL understood the comments and they were part of the discussion they want to have with all stakeholders. He said it may take five years to get it right with VAR, but many people they had spoken to were happy with ‘offside being offside’ even if by 1mm.

The ‘clear and obvious’ rule does not apply to positional decisions, he said, for which there is no tolerance. These are decided by a 1-pixel margin on the best available camera angles, but they aren’t visible on a TV screen meaning thicker, less accurate lines are shown to the viewers.

Riley said VAR does not get involved with 90% of goals, but they would rather take time to consider everything and many people were happy with that. TV companies with increased manpower can sometimes find better angles than VAR officials do in the time required.

He went on to say that referee’s performances are continually assessed. Dermot Gallagher has a program on Sky after each round of fixtures where he explains why the decisions were made

The Future

The FSA have committed to improving communication between the football authorities and supporters, particularly around refereeing decisions and VAR. They have created a VAR working group, made up of supporter representatives, to consult on the issues, build FSA policy in this area and improve the use of technology from the point of view of match-going fans.

SOS hope to remain involved and will keep you updated.

 

These 'many people' must be the same people who constantly tell Donald Trump he's the bestest of the bigliest.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved this bit, too.

many people they had spoken to were happy with ‘offside being offside’ even if by 1mm

 

Who the fuck are these "many" people they've spoken to?  I've never met anyone who doesn't think it's fucking ridiculous and to the detriment of the game.

 

 

[Edit] Great minds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I loved this bit, too.

many people they had spoken to were happy with ‘offside being offside’ even if by 1mm

 

Who the fuck are these "many" people they've spoken to?  I've never met anyone who doesn't think it's fucking ridiculous and to the detriment of the game.

 

 

[Edit] Great minds!


Probably people who’ve been asked about it just after we’ve been shafted 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stickman said:


Probably people who’ve been asked about it just after we’ve been shafted 

 

"Many people" they've asked. They mean each other? 

The reality is, do you really know anyone who wants that to be offside? The only people who want that to be offside are referees and linesmen as it get them off the hook with making decisions, that even though they're still subjective, they can blame on the technology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That response from PGMOL...just...wow. 
 

They’re clearly not a listening organisation.
 

I really hope that VAR impacts the PL brand. Things will change very suddenly should that happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×