VAR shit show 19/20

[JohnnyH 7,326]

Genuine question for the people saying we need to scrap it -

 

If it was scrapped in December, would you have been ok with what happened in the Wolves game with no VAR?  I.e. the initial decisions of our perfectly good goal being disallowed and the Wolves offside goal been given are allowed to stand and we lose?  You think us losing the game would have been better than having VAR?

[goose 242]

1 hour ago, JohnnyH said:

Genuine question for the people saying we need to scrap it -

 

If it was scrapped in December, would you have been ok with what happened in the Wolves game with no VAR?  I.e. the initial decisions of our perfectly good goal being disallowed and the Wolves offside goal been given are allowed to stand and we lose?  You think us losing the game would have been better than having VAR?

I’m happy the handball was over turned in that game but so far I would say that the benefit of a small number of incidents being rightly corrected by VAR is hugely outweighted by all the negatives the process brings. So would I sacrifice the odd bad decision in a season for being able to celebrate goals properly again? Yes, absolutely.

[Mook 20,541]

1 hour ago, JohnnyH said:

Genuine question for the people saying we need to scrap it -

 

If it was scrapped in December, would you have been ok with what happened in the Wolves game with no VAR?  I.e. the initial decisions of our perfectly good goal being disallowed and the Wolves offside goal been given are allowed to stand and we lose?  You think us losing the game would have been better than having VAR?

Football doesn't work like that, Johnny. If Wolves had been one nil up at half time we would've pummelled them second half and got at least a draw.

 

In answer to your infantile hypothetical question though, yes - I would happily take a Liverpool defeat if it meant we were rid of this fucking abomination for good.

[JohnnyH 7,326]

4 hours ago, Mook said:

Football doesn't work like that, Johnny. If Wolves had been one nil up at half time we would've pummelled them second half and got at least a draw.

 

In answer to your infantile hypothetical question though, yes - I would happily take a Liverpool defeat if it meant we were rid of this fucking abomination for good.

“Infantile hypothetical question”. Jesus mate, you need to calm down. 

[Mook 20,541]

42 minutes ago, JohnnyH said:

“Infantile hypothetical question”. Jesus mate, you need to calm down. 

Quite possibly.

 

To be honest, I've gone past the stage of being diplomatic about it. Everybody will be sitting here nodding their heads in 10 years while they spend 5 minutes going for a Coca Cola advert break while some bellend in a studio decides if it was a goal or not.

 

The TV is killing the beautiful game here & (generally speaking) we're all just putting up with it. It's fucking sickening.

[3 Stacks 3,405]

I'll always be amazed that there are supporters out there with the super human sharpness of mind to decide in a split second they can't celebrate a goal in the moment because there is the possibility it could be overturned by VAR. Despite the fact that's not at all how emotional reactions work in human beings, I wish I had that mental capacity. 

[TheDrowningMan 720]

48 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

I'll always be amazed that there are supporters out there with the super human sharpness of mind to decide in a split second they can't celebrate a goal in the moment because there is the possibility it could be overturned by VAR. Despite the fact that's not at all how emotional reactions work in human beings, I wish I had that mental capacity. 

Indeed. VAR is a good thing that has been better implemented elsewhere than it currently is in the Premier League.

[dockers_strike 4,131]

7 hours ago, goose said:

I’m happy the handball was over turned in that game but so far I would say that the benefit of a small number of incidents being rightly corrected by VAR is hugely outweighted by all the negatives the process brings. So would I sacrifice the odd bad decision in a season for being able to celebrate goals properly again? Yes, absolutely.

Like I keep saying, it is the way riley has implemented VAR that is the shitshow, not VAR itself. But the intention of VAR isnt to correct any decision. It is intention is to confirm the correct decision is made where there is a potential error. But I accept it will never sit right with some.

 

I can think of a number of our games where VAR would have resulted in us having won at least 3 more league titles: Alan Smith's 'touch' on the indirect free kick for arsenals first goal in the 1989 title decider. Sterling offside that wasnt in 2014 away against city. Sadio's 'offside' goal at arsenal, kompany's red card challenge at city and Naby's penalty that wasnt against Leicester at Anfield last season.

[Jose Jones 3,260]

8 hours ago, JohnnyH said:

Genuine question for the people saying we need to scrap it -

 

If it was scrapped in December, would you have been ok with what happened in the Wolves game with no VAR?  I.e. the initial decisions of our perfectly good goal being disallowed and the Wolves offside goal been given are allowed to stand and we lose?  You think us losing the game would have been better than having VAR?

Wolves goal wasn't offside though was it?  That was a complete bullshit decision, that our fans are just backing because it went for us and because we had a worse shit one at Villa.  The offside shit from VAR is an absolute nonsense, and should leave any right thinking person wanting it binned until they at least come up with a workable version.

[TheDrowningMan 720]

5 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

Wolves goal wasn't offside though was it?  That was a complete bullshit decision, that our fans are just backing because it went for us and because we had a worse shit one at Villa.  The offside shit from VAR is an absolute nonsense, and should leave any right thinking person wanting it binned until they at least come up with a workable version.

That’s literally the offside rule. You’d have to change the rule itself to change how it’s dealt with under VAR.

[3 Stacks 3,405]

7 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

Wolves goal wasn't offside though was it?  That was a complete bullshit decision, that our fans are just backing because it went for us and because we had a worse shit one at Villa.  The offside shit from VAR is an absolute nonsense, and should leave any right thinking person wanting it binned until they at least come up with a workable version.

A millimetre offside is offside. It's a black or white decision. If people don't like that, they should want the rule to be changed. The rule should defo be changed, by the way. I'm all for that. 

[JohnnyH 7,326]

12 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

Wolves goal wasn't offside though was it?  That was a complete bullshit decision, that our fans are just backing because it went for us and because we had a worse shit one at Villa.  The offside shit from VAR is an absolute nonsense, and should leave any right thinking person wanting it binned until they at least come up with a workable version.

It was offside. And 99.999% of the decisions given by VAR have been correct. The Firmino armpit nonsense is the exception. There is absolutely no question it is improving the decision making. It’s daft to suggest otherwise. The argument that it’s spoiling celebrating of goals, or whatever, is fair enough. I can see how it can spoil it for fans if they let it get on top of them. 

[aws 8,074]

VAR is staying so they need to clarify exactly what is offside and then say who gets the benefit of the doubt. The linesman flags and the ref decides. VAR checks but only gets involved if it's obvious a clear error has been made.  No need to draw any lines because it's covered by the benefit of doubt rule. 

[Brownie 3,941]

There’s definitely a version of VAR out there that we can live with I think. We’re nowhere near that stage yet though. The current version is fucking shit.

[Jose Jones 3,260]

16 minutes ago, JohnnyH said:

It was offside. And 99.999% of the decisions given by VAR have been correct. The Firmino armpit nonsense is the exception. There is absolutely no question it is improving the decision making. It’s daft to suggest otherwise. The argument that it’s spoiling celebrating of goals, or whatever, is fair enough. I can see how it can spoil it for fans if they let it get on top of them. 

99.999% have been right?  You are off your rocker Johnny.  Even Mike Riley doesn't think that.

[coachpotato 697]

It’s the excessive level of accuracy that I feel is causing VAR to be so controversial.
VAR brings everything down to tiny fractions where common sense or gut feelings don’t count.

We’ve never had the game dissected so much.

That Wolves goal we conceded, regardless of the shit celebration, had me, and everyone around me in the SKD lower dumbfounded as to why it was disallowed, (as did the Firmino goal at Villa) yet most around me felt the Mane goal against Wolves was never a handball and if anything, was a penalty for a shove on Lallana before Sadio scored.

I actually felt a bit sorry for Wolves when I saw the replays after the game of their disallowed goal. Yes, the player was, by a minuscule amount, offside, but in the flow of the game he never looked as though he was, and none of ours appealed at the time either.

But offside it was even if thousands didn’t see it straight away.

The problem is that what is “clear and obvious” to somebody watching the game at it’s normal speed, is nowhere near as “clear and obvious” to someone with multiple angles and replays in a sterile studio.

Does that make VAR wrong? No it doesn’t, it means each decision is surgically analysed, but still by a human, who can still be wrong too, unless the incident is “ clear and obvious”.

So are we any more likely to get the right result?
Well, yes we are, because sometimes referees and lines people will still miss clear and obvious decisions for whatever reason and at least they should be picked up.
I can’t help but think, though, that the custodians of VAR had some kind of an agenda at the back of their minds that the technology wouldn’t be used to show up officials and their shortcomings, and that’s where it falls down for me, if it is being manipulated at all then it’s no more of an improvement than what we had before.

Still, if it pisses off City and Everton fans then it can’t be such a bad thing.

 

 

 

 

[A_S 2,178]

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

There’s definitely a version of VAR out there that we can live with I think. We’re nowhere near that stage yet though. The current version is fucking shit.

Correct. You look back at the DRS in cricket from a decade ago and just cringe at the absolute stupidity of the guidelines used for it back then. It still isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was. I imagine this will be something similar. 

[Jennings 4,219]

16 hours ago, JohnnyH said:

Genuine question for the people saying we need to scrap it -

 

If it was scrapped in December, would you have been ok with what happened in the Wolves game with no VAR?  I.e. the initial decisions of our perfectly good goal being disallowed and the Wolves offside goal been given are allowed to stand and we lose?  You think us losing the game would have been better than having VAR?

Yes.

 

However I'd like to see the football authorities work on improving decision making in real time. I would accept that humans are fallible and that some mistakes will be made. 

[Bob Spunkmouse 3,214]

9 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

I'll always be amazed that there are supporters out there with the super human sharpness of mind to decide in a split second they can't celebrate a goal in the moment because there is the possibility it could be overturned by VAR. Despite the fact that's not at all how emotional reactions work in human beings, I wish I had that mental capacity. 

that’s drivel.

 

pre var I could not celebrate fully if I expected a linesman’s flag to go up.

 

stood in the kop in December I didn’t really celebrate Gini’s icing on the cake goal against Everton because I thought bobby was offside.

 

 

[Chairman Meow 4,524]

18 hours ago, Russ Atmosphere said:

I don't want to see a gang of ex-pro pundits embarrassing themselves on every highlights package with their wank bad knowledge of football laws.

They did that before VAR and if it is scrapped they will still do it.

[Bob Spunkmouse 3,214]

8 hours ago, TheDrowningMan said:

That’s literally the offside rule. You’d have to change the rule itself to change how it’s dealt with under VAR.

 

8 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

A millimetre offside is offside. It's a black or white decision. If people don't like that, they should want the rule to be changed. The rule should defo be changed, by the way. I'm all for that. 

for as long as I’ve been watching footie until in the introduction of var, the offside rule has existed.

 

its been changed or modified multiple times. It can be changed again if required.

 

the issue is, that in all that time 1mm offside has technically meant offside, but not practically.

 

the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker. That’s been the phrase.

 

hes level. That’s been another.

 

now, level probably means offside, and benefit of the doubt has been removed. The law hasn’t changed.

 

change it. Introduce a means of assessing offside that is consistent with how it’s been ruled for decades previously.

 

above all, stop pandering to internet virgins who have to be right, and care about the accuracy of a mm.

[Mook 20,541]

 

[VladimirIlyich 9,636]

18 hours ago, JohnnyH said:

Genuine question for the people saying we need to scrap it -

 

If it was scrapped in December, would you have been ok with what happened in the Wolves game with no VAR?  I.e. the initial decisions of our perfectly good goal being disallowed and the Wolves offside goal been given are allowed to stand and we lose?  You think us losing the game would have been better than having VAR?

You are underestimating our 'mentality monsters' of a team. We'd have found a way to get points out of the game despite VAR,like Villa away or United away.

[TheDrowningMan 720]

59 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

 

for as long as I’ve been watching footie until in the introduction of var, the offside rule has existed.

 

its been changed or modified multiple times. It can be changed again if required.

 

the issue is, that in all that time 1mm offside has technically meant offside, but not practically.

 

the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker. That’s been the phrase.

 

hes level. That’s been another.

 

now, level probably means offside, and benefit of the doubt has been removed. The law hasn’t changed.

 

change it. Introduce a means of assessing offside that is consistent with how it’s been ruled for decades previously.

 

above all, stop pandering to internet virgins who have to be right, and care about the accuracy of a mm.

It has never been written that you give “the benefit of the doubt” to attackers. Same as the long held idea of “daylight”. Never existed as a rule, more as a simplistic interpretation of the guidance that if you’re not sure it’s offside, your flag down should stay down. Now offside can be judged more accurately, hence the decisions that are being made.

 

I get the point about the nitpickyness, but the rule makers need to think carefully about how to address this. Suggestions of a sort of buffer zone are absurd and effectively ruin defending by making an actively offside player onside. The best compromise I can think of is, perhaps, only invoking where the VAR officials can determine the offside within, say, 30 seconds. Outside of that window and any error is unlikely to be 'clear and obvious'.

[Bob Spunkmouse 3,214]

28 minutes ago, TheDrowningMan said:

It has never been written that you give “the benefit of the doubt” to attackers. Same as the long held idea of “daylight”. Never existed as a rule, more as a simplistic interpretation of the guidance that if you’re not sure it’s offside, your flag down should stay down. Now offside can be judged more accurately, hence the decisions that are being made.

 

I get the point about the nitpickyness, but the rule makers need to think carefully about how to address this. Suggestions of a sort of buffer zone are absurd and effectively ruin defending by making an actively offside player onside. The best compromise I can think of is, perhaps, only invoking where the VAR officials can determine the offside within, say, 30 seconds. Outside of that window and any error is unlikely to be 'clear and obvious'.

That’s my point fella. It’s not been written in the rules, but was understood and acceptable to everyone as the application of the rule.

 

the games rules were not written with the intent of ruling to the millimetre. Mostly because it wasn’t possible but also because the intent of the rule didn’t need it.

 

offsides came in to stop goalhanging, not to rule out goals by a heel, toe or armpit.

 

if rules are going to change, then they should think back to the intent of the rule.

 

i don’t like the new rule about accidental handball in the build up to goals, but I understand it’s intent and it’s clear and straight forward to officiate.

 

offside is currently not in line with the intent, nor clear or straight forward to officiate. The rule hasn’t changed, but VAR has changed how it’s applied.

 

id be ok with the rule changing, and to me the sensible option would be defenders back foot vs attackers front foot or something like that, but until it’s changed the way VAR is used is rubbish.