Other Football - 2018/19 Season

[Brownie]

Just now, skaro said:

 

Wasn't the premise of video reviews in cricket to eliminate clear errors?

 

The vexed and even ethical (in a sporting sense) question about technology now, for me, is that it is being used to influence interpretation rather than simply to clarify.

 

Watching things in slow motion again and again to merely arrive at another interpretation - in other words, something still open to question - seems, well, very questionable to me.

That was the premise in cricket but it’s used tactically as you know. It’s actually far more advanced in cricket because the teams can choose to review decisions themselves rather than the 3rd umpire making that call.

 

I still find the huge ire at VAR amusing I have to say. 

[Trumo]

A shame they flogged Fellaini off to China. They could have had Screech and Chong in midfield.

[s(k)aturation]

21 minutes ago, Ronnie Whelan said:

Yeah exactly. The narrative that a draw there is a bad result is bullshit. I was happy with it.

 

I agree.

United's form - much as I hate to say it - is fucking fantastic under that little shit.

 

I think it's something like W 13 D 2 L 1 - including going deep into 2 Cup competitions now.

 

After 15 games, the "they're only playing shite teams" argument starts to wear thinner.

 

[Red House]

4 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Because where possible they want it to be the referee on the pitch who calls the game? I’d say a lack of interference is a good thing overall, in terms of direct decision making anyway.

 

But, the referee having to go to the monitor always occurs after interference from the video assistants anyway. So, if anything, it interferes even further with the flow of the game than if they simply had the video assistants make the call themselves. I can see plenty of advantages in video assistant referees making the final call on reviewed decisions, can barely see any in the match ref doing so.

[s(k)aturation]

29 minutes ago, Brownie said:

That was the premise in cricket but it’s used tactically as you know. It’s actually far more advanced in cricket because the teams can choose to review decisions themselves rather than the 3rd umpire making that call.

 

I still find the huge ire at VAR amusing I have to say. 

 

Mine's not ire.  

I'm more confused as to whether 3 minutes of video deliberation over a handball query - only to arrive at a "decision" which is still eminently disputable - is helpful to an important game of sport or not.

 

A bloke takes what is a clear dive on a video replay in a World Cup Final, gets a free kick and his team scores from it.

Video shows a bloke deliberately elbowing a goalkeeper to the head in a European Cup Final, and he doesn't even get a sanction after the match.

 

It's more confusion and perhaps contradiction than ire for me.

 

[an tha]

Shots from outside box.

 

Cunts took on two tonight that were poor efforts and one led to a keeper making a howler and dropping ball at Lukaku's feet and then the other a penalty for 'handball"

 

Low percentage as they come but turned up trumps for them...we really need to take a few more on especially on days like last Sunday.

[No2]

18 minutes ago, Red House said:

 

The throw in example was just in reference to the claim that only offside calls are not referred to the match referee. But, my main point is why is the match referee expected to deliver a 'more accurate interpretation of the law' (for lack of a better term) than the video assistant referees, taking into consideration that, unlike the match ref, (i) the latter do not have to face the pressure of the crowd, players and staff when reviewing the replays, (ii) they should be more lucid as they have not been sprinting all over the pitch and (iii) there are more than one of them and can even afford to take a vote in need to.

I am not really asking about the situations in which the match referee can be called upon to the make the call. I've got that down. What I am curious about is what benefit is there to be gained from him having to make the call instead of the video assistants?

There is no right or wrong decision on a football pitch, only the opinion of a referee. For example the linesman can flag for a penalty that the referee might not agree with, similarly with the guys watching on TV. The referee needs to make the final decision on everything, that one tonight (if you ignore the time of it), how can he ref the rest of that game having awarded a penalty he didn't see, a penalty only Dalot seen. Nobody else appealed, his authority would be shot.

 

I think each team should have one challenge, if they are correct they get another one. That way there is no blaming referees for things they didn't even see themselves. The current setup will kill football.

[No2]

3 minutes ago, an tha said:

Shots from outside box.

 

Cunts took on two tonight that were poor efforts and one led to a keeper making a howler and dropping ball at Lukaku's feet and then the other a penalty for 'handball"

 

Low percentage as they come but turned up trumps for them...we really need to take a few more on especially on days like last Sunday.

The other side of that coin is PSG defended horrifically 3 times and deserve to suffer the consequences.  You could say Utd were lucky but you couldn't say PSG were unlucky. 

[Red Phoenix]

Have just seen what happened for that penalty, that's fucking unbelievable. When I got in the thread I thought people were going over the top with it being Utd, but after seeing that I'm amazed. The shot was sailing over the bar, how can that be allowed? Between shit like this and billionaire owners making such a mess of things I really wonder what the fucking point is half the time now.

[Jose Jones]

44 minutes ago, Brownie said:

That was the premise in cricket but it’s used tactically as you know. It’s actually far more advanced in cricket because the teams can choose to review decisions themselves rather than the 3rd umpire making that call.

 

I still find the huge ire at VAR amusing I have to say. 

It's probably because you haven't watched matches with VAR with your eyes closed.  There have been loads of worse decisions made under VAR, both at the World Cup and in the Champions League, than made without VAR.

It basically has been proven to do the opposite of what it's intended purpose is, whilst ruining the flow of the game. 

 

There is not a single thing that is positive about it.

[Red House]

7 minutes ago, No2 said:

There is no right or wrong decision on a football pitch, only the opinion of a referee. For example the linesman can flag for a penalty that the referee might not agree with, similarly with the guys watching on TV. The referee needs to make the final decision on everything, that one tonight (if you ignore the time of it), how can he ref the rest of that game having awarded a penalty he didn't see, a penalty only Dalot seen. Nobody else appealed, his authority would be shot.

 

I think each team should have one challenge, if they are correct they get another one. That way there is no blaming referees for things they didn't even see themselves. The current setup will kill football.

 

There are already plenty of (most, in fact) penalty decisions that the referee completely missed that have been awarded by VAR without sending the referee to review the decision on the on-pitch monitor. Never stopped the referees from keeping on refereeing the game. By the same token, does that mean linesmen who are overturned for offsides they did not see cannot carry on adequately for the remainder of the game, as the officials are not consulted by VAR for these either? So, that argument does not stand for me.

Also disagree about there not being any right or wrong decisions on a football pitch. Just because the game is refereed in the opinion of the referee does not change the fact that there are factually right and wrong offside calls, clear fouls, clear dives, balls that over the line or not. That's why goal line technology has been so successful. And, that's what VAR has been introduced to help with.

That said, I quite like the idea of challenges myself. I suggested something along similar lines on here previously.

[Red House]

And, for the record, this will be the new handball 'rule' as from next season. That's definitely going to make it better. What the fuck is a natural silhouette?

"Another change to the laws of the game means that if the player's arms extend beyond a "natural silhouette", handball will be given, even if it is perceived as accidental."

[3 Stacks]

31 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

It's probably because you haven't watched matches with VAR with your eyes closed.  There have been loads of worse decisions made under VAR, both at the World Cup and in the Champions League, than made without VAR.

It basically has been proven to do the opposite of what it's intended purpose is, whilst ruining the flow of the game. 

 

There is not a single thing that is positive about it.

I mean you don't get more biased than this. Of course there have been positives, mainly the loads of clear cut refereeing mistakes that have been rectified and there are way too many to name. 

 

The only real problem with VAR is that they're currently using it partly to look at subjective incidents like borderline penalty decisions. They should fine tune to correct only the real black and white obvious decisions and it will be a quality addition. These decisions would also take far less time. 

[Jose Jones]

Just now, 3 Stacks said:

I mean you don't get more biased than this. Of course there have been positives, mainly the loads of clear cut refereeing mistakes that have been rectified and there are too many to name. 

 

The only real problem with VAR is that they're currently using it partly to look at subjective incidents like borderline penalty incidents. They should fine tune to correct only the real black and white decisions and it will be a quality addition.

They won’t fine tune it though, that’s the point.

Pretty sure I could point out a fair number more bad VAR decisions though than you could good ones.

[s(k)aturation]

14 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

Pretty sure I could point out a fair number more bad VAR decisions though than you could good ones.

 

Agree.

As much bad as good for me.

 

Let's take the World Cup Final, for instance... that "Greaseman" makes an outrageous dive on the edge of the area.

 

The resultant free kick ends in a goal.

 

Why doesn't VAR interrupt the ref there (a stoppage), the goal gets disallowed and Greaseman get a yellow card?

 

Instead, they also get a VAR hand-ball penalty a bit later for a much, much, much more questionable call... that wasn't any more or less accidental after VAR, and practically invisible and unnoticeable before it.

 

More questions than answers about the value and veracity of VAR... and that's after a World Cup Final.

 

 

[sir roger]

I think clarifying handball rules is the first step if VAR is going to judge it. Absolutely no way some of the pens given in the WC and tonight were correct decisions. 

 

Can’t blame the Griezman free kick on VAR as free kicks weren’t in their remit as far as I remember. 

 

I thought the new rule Red House talks about was just for chances or goals influenced by attackers handballs ( like Solanke against WBA ) but I might have misunderstood the article I read it in . 

[s(k)aturation]

35 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Can’t blame the Griezman free kick on VAR as free kicks weren’t in their remit as far as I remember. 

 

That's where I'm confused about its worth though.

 

A case of simulation and cheating missed by the ref, and clearly obvious on video, is not in the VAR remit.

But a contentious decision like "accidental" handball - that we're subsequently no surer about after VAR - is.

I don't get how this is progress and improvement.

 

Is VAR there for "yes" or "no"... or is it there to bring something to the ref's attention for him to then interpret?

 

It seems to be much more of the latter for me, which potentially brings it back full circle to human error. The commentator with Tyler tonight was "amazed" by the decision, for instance.  Even Manc-lover Tyler seemed incredulous.

 

Dunno.  

If it weren't about Man United today, maybe I wouldn't be giving a fuck.

 

[s(k)aturation]

Hate United, me.

[Bobby Hundreds]

5 hours ago, an tha said:

I hate saying it and they were unbelievably lucky tonight - but if we put a side out there with as many changes tonight as they did/be missing as many starters there is no way we'd have won.

 

Not sure if that reflects squad depth for them or a lack of it for us.

 

Our first 11 cunts them in the bastard and dead hard...but after that it is a different story.

 

 

Our first 11 doesn't though does it because we show them too much respect and shit the bed.

 

I'm just pissed off. I spend so much time around mancs these days even when they are shit their arrogance is just fucking dripping.

[razor]

7 hours ago, DimReaper said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - VAR for penalty decisions doesn't solve anything - it merely opens up up a different set of controversies...

 

So true.

 

But, and trust me on this, in 10 years' time, it will be an algorithm making the decision.  I say 10 years, it will probably be less...

[Bobby Hundreds]

Is it true they are the first team too go through after being 2 nil down in the first leg. With a weakened team too.

[s(k)aturation]

 

Unfortunately, they could be a huge factor in the rest of our season, in two competitions.

 

Be just like them to fuck us around in the CL, if we progress next week, and lose to City in the fucking League.

 

 

[Grinch]

22 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

Unfortunately, they could be a huge factor in the rest of our season, in two competitions.

 

Be just like them to fuck us around in the CL, if we progress next week, and lose to City in the fucking League.

 

 

A better team got knocked out last night.  If anything, it's benefited us.

[s(k)aturation]

7 minutes ago, Grinch said:

A better team got knocked out last night.  If anything, it's benefited us.

 

Yeah, perhaps.  

[Creator Supreme]

8 hours ago, aRdja said:

Creator Supreme and The Drowning Man. Kudos lads.

I wouldn't have backed that! I thought they'd end up with nowt too!