Quantcast
VAR shit show 19/20 - Page 5 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
φαίνω

VAR shit show 19/20

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

I don't understand why the controversy today is about VAR.

 

VAR isn't relevant here - all it did was allow the referee to have a video to spot a violation of the rules in the buildup to Jesus' goal.

 

The problem is the change in the handball rule. Has nothing to do with VAR, you could have VARred that all day long last season and it would have been a goal. The issue is the rule change, not the system that allows us to more accurately enforce it.

Totally this and people are missing the obvious, VAR is ruling out goals that shouldnt be.

 

I agree the time taken over VAR reviews is too long. Even nobs like neville can say in a couple of seconds of watching sky review offside etc whether the call is right or wrong. Yet VAR and refs take simply ages. If they cannot make a decision quickly, in my book it is not a 'clear and obvious' error so whatever the decision was should stand.

 

Neither do I think VAR should be going down to the width of a gnat's cock whether a player is offside or not. But that is a reasonable conundrum once you open the decision to is it offside or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If var was being that fucking great, why did it turn down our pen on Wednesday when it couldn't have been a clearer handball under the new rules? You didn't even need a replay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a ball touches an attackers hand on the way to a goal, VAR will check that and overturn it if necessary. If the ball is smacked at a defenders arms and they are in a roughly natural position, var won’t overturn the referees on field decision because it wasn’t clearly and obviously erroneous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people might be a little more accepting of VAR reviews (in the ground especially) if they broadcast the conversation between the ref and control room to everyone, like cricket and rugby. All they'd need to do is say what was being reviewed, why and who was involved.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

I think people might be a little more accepting of VAR reviews (in the ground especially) if they broadcast the conversation between the ref and control room to everyone, like cricket and rugby. All they'd need to do is say what was being reviewed, why and who was involved.

Yeah, but they're not going to do that as refs in football believe they're above question. In addition to that, grounds with big screens they don't even trust people to watch replays of controversial moments, let alone verbally spell out why the decision went against them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/08/2019 at 19:50, moof said:

If a ball touches an attackers hand on the way to a goal, VAR will check that and overturn it if necessary. If the ball is smacked at a defenders arms and they are in a roughly natural position, var won’t overturn the referees on field decision because it wasn’t clearly and obviously erroneous

Yes, sorry, you replied to me about this on another thread the other night. I think you're right about this - there's been a change in approach somewhere along the line that, unless I missed it, hasn't really been communicated very clearly.

 

Previously, during the World Cup, Champions League, etc, they seemed to be checking every penalty decision and potential penalty decision and giving/altering a lot of decisions. It seems now that, as you say, they're very rarely going to give a penalty or overrule a ref's decision to give a penalty unless it's very obviously wrong - pretty much indisputably so, if that's even possible. That's where the difficulty now lies - what are the circumstances under which VAR is going to intervene to change a penalty decision? That one City should've had against Spurs when the City player was manhandled in the box, for example - if the ref had given it, it would've stood, but seeing as the ref didn't give it, VAR didn't intervene. On the other side of the coin is the penalty the ref gave against us in the Super Cup, which probably wasn't a penalty, but stood presumably because she'd given it.

 

So, there are still some questions that I have. How "clear and obvious" does it have to be? Is the "clear and obvious" threshold different for penalties that have been given by the ref and situations where a penalty hasn't been given? Ie - if a penalty is given, there's a natural stoppage point at which to perform a VAR check - does that make a difference in the sense that it's more likely that penalties (like Abraham) will be disallowed by VAR rather than given by VAR (the City one)? Is VAR even a universal system or does it vary by competition, etc? To be fair, these questions may have been answered somewhere and I just haven't been arsed to find them.

 

And those examples above aren't even "handball penalty" examples, where the situation is probably even muddier again. There was one I saw this weekend (possibly in the Chelsea v Leicester game) where the ball was hit at a defender's arm from quite close to the origin of the shot during what appeared to be the ball's trajectory towards hitting the target - it wasn't given and VAR didn't step in and give it. What would've happened had the ref given it?

 

I've always said that I don't like VAR making decisions on penalties because it's so subjective and that it wouldn't clear up controversy but would create a different set of controversies. I actually quite like where this new approach to penalties seems to be heading.

 

The checking of every goal for offside and possible infringements, including handball, is pretty clear. If the ball hits an attacking player's hand in the lead-up to a goal, the goal is going to be disallowed, like Jesus's was on Saturday. As someone else said, that's nothing to do with VAR as such - it's a new rule and VAR is just the system that's being used to make what, in the vast majority of cases, is going to be an objective decision. I wonder how close to the goal being scored though that this clause extends. If a player is found to be offside, however marginally, it's going to be disallowed. Every goal is going to be checked for this type of thing, it's got nothing to do with how "clear and obvious" it is. However, even though it's reaching the correct decisions, the negative aspect is that it's unfortunately reducing fans' ability to live in the moment and celebrate properly, which is definitely taking something away from the game.

Share this post


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

Ian Holloway is a fucking idiot.

 

 

 

Well Mr Hollaway. If you want to remain part of FIFA/UEFA and have English teams representing the country in various competitions then you'll just have to abide by the rules which are set out by the orginistaions which run the game. What an absolute fuck ferret. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we’re heading to a position where VAR is rarely used to interfere in a ref’s penalty calls but is used to check most goals then that’s probably the best of a bad situation.  But someone should come out and clearly say that’s what’s going to happen and then they should stick to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there should be an umpires call element to offsides.

 

we've gone from “the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker” to “this boot is 5mm closer to the goal that that boot, after 5 minutes of looking at it”.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, aws said:

If we’re heading to a position where VAR is rarely used to interfere in a ref’s penalty calls but is used to check most goals then that’s probably the best of a bad situation.  But someone should come out and clearly say that’s what’s going to happen and then they should stick to it. 

It checking the goals is the worst of the worst for me. It's creating the situation where's there's no point in celebrating a goal, because just about every single one will be reviewed and ruled out for the tiniest thing as we saw at the weekend. Nobody in the stadium thought that was handball, it didn't even cross anyone's mind. Well once I stop celebrating goals, I might as well stop watching the game, I'm sure I won't be alone with that. VAR will kill football as a fan in the stadium and to any partisan fan sitting at home. It is another step to ensuring the best experience is for neutral watcher at home and the corporates in the stadium, who care little about who scores and get the benefit of the Sky footage the rest of us in the stadium are denied. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/08/2019 at 13:12, Butch said:

Funny while it happens to someone else. Hope we don't have our turn. 

We’ll inevitably have our turn, and all the cunts crying about it now will suddenly do a 180 and laugh about it, so fill your boots until it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes: VAR makes its first appearance. Referee Anthony Taylor has a check for an off-the-ball incident involving David Luiz and Mohamed Sala. After two minutes came the verdict – nothing untoward. Play continues with a corner to Liverpool. If Luiz had been found guilty by video, it would have been a red card.

 

41 minutes: Joel Matip leaps to head home a corner from Trent Alexander-Arnold. Referee Taylor checks there is nothing amiss. Goal stands.

 

48 minutes: VAR had to be used after Mohamed Sala was pulled back by Luiz. Penalty. No video needed by referee Taylor for the decision, just the formality of confirmation from VAR required after every goal.

 

59 minutes: again a customary check after a goal as Salah left Luiz gasping and helpless on the touchline as he accelerated through for Liverpool’s third. Arsenal manager Unai Emery might ask for a copy to show his players how not to defend against pace.

 

84 minutes: Lucas Torreira scores a consolation. VAR check but never a doubt.

 

87 minutes: Taylor calls on VAR for a handball check in the Liverpool penalty area. Liverpool given the all-clear.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Champions of Europe said:

32 minutes: VAR makes its first appearance. Referee Anthony Taylor has a check for an off-the-ball incident involving David Luiz and Mohamed Sala. After two minutes came the verdict – nothing untoward. Play continues with a corner to Liverpool. If Luiz had been found guilty by video, it would have been a red card.

 

That should read VAR official couldn't hold it for another 15 minutes and invented a scenario where he could nip out for a piss.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Champions of Europe said:

59 minutes: nothing for VAR to check after a goal, but it was worth watching and re-watching the hilarious way Salah left Luiz gasping and helpless on the touchline as he accelerated through for Liverpool’s third. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with it is the quality of the fuckwits who are making the judgments. The only one that I would even vaguely trust is Sian Massey.

  Unfortunately the only reason the misogynistic old dinosaurs at the FA would give her the job is because she could carry on with the ironing while she watches the telly.

Share this post


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

The biggest problem with it is the quality of the fuckwits who are making the judgments. The only one that I would even vaguely trust is Sian Massey.

  Unfortunately the only reason the misogynistic old dinosaurs at the FA would give her the job is because she could carry on with the ironing while she watches the telly.

Poor stereotype there mate, neither sex has magical multitasking abilities apparently. Although I'd agree she couldn't do a worse job, Var was destined to be shite when the shit officials are still calling the shots. 

 

https://hbr.org/2018/09/research-women-and-men-are-equally-bad-at-multitasking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Champions of Europe said:

Poor stereotype there mate, neither sex has magical multitasking abilities apparently. Although I'd agree she couldn't do a worse job, Var was destined to be shite when the shit officials are still calling the shots. 

 

https://hbr.org/2018/09/research-women-and-men-are-equally-bad-at-multitasking

My intent was to show the sexist attitude of the FA. Sorry if it was a bit obtuse for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Champions of Europe said:

abstruse?

 

 

More or less synonymous in common usage.

Obtuse vs. Abstruse  Obtuse, which comes to us from the Latin word obtusus, meaning "dull" or "blunt," can describe an angle that is not acute or a person who is mentally "dull" or slow of mind. The word has also developed a somewhat controversial sense of "hard to comprehend," probably as a result of confusion with abstruse. This sense of obtuse is well established, and it is now possible to speak of "obtuse language" and "obtuse explanations," as well as "obtuse angles" and "obtuse readers"; however, it may attract some criticism. If you're hesitant about using new meanings of words, you should probably stick with abstruse when you want a word meaning "difficult to understand."

I was being polite, rather than suggesting you go and look down the back of the sofa for your sense of humour and comprehension skills.

  • Downvote 1

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

×