[Dingle-Dingle]

Say no more.........



DD    

As much as I'd like to believe this, DD, I think it's been proven to be a fake

---

And this is why I am beginning to really HATE football. Didn't think my interest in and following of football could sink much lower. Another nail in the coffin.      

I thought VAR would level the playing field and make decisions more equal, open and transparent but no, the big six bias still continues to destroy the beautiful game.

And what's with the penalty retake ..... If a striker runs up kicks the ball and the keeper moves too soon or is off his line then yes retake but if the striker runs up, hops, jumps, skips, does his hair in order to dupe the keeper into moving too soon then that's not fair. The keeper already has a disadvantage, why not remove the keeper altogether or just award the goal and cut out the middle man. Better still give the FA's elite gentlemen's members club a one or two goal lead start cuts out the need for the effing ref to CHEAT.

Rant over .... This could be my final farewell. Take care everybody. Albion til I die

I totally agree with you, 4Eva. My understanding is that VAR, like DRS in cricket, was brought into eliminate the really shockingly incorrect decisions - absolute howlers by the referee or umpire. In both cases, it seems to have gone way beyond that and now questions every decision by the official, to the point where you begin to wonder what his/her purpose is (I suppose someone has to toss the coin in football!). Goals are now being ruled offside for the most ridiculous, marginal reasons; instead of identifying a glaring issue which required a technological solution, the footballing authorities seem to have been given some technology and looked around to find a problem upon which they could use it. At the risk of sounding like an old fart, I'm struggling to know what the major problem was that required this solution: football has always been full of post-match debate and disagreement on decisions, that was part of the fun. Like a lot of people, I'm rapidly losing interest.

If it`s a fake then I apologise for copying it from a reputable football news site. No offence meant. DD

[Ska'dForLife-WBA]

My understanding is that VAR, like DRS in cricket, was brought into eliminate the really shockingly incorrect decisions - absolute howlers by the referee or umpire. In both cases, it seems to have gone way beyond that and now questions every decision by the official, to the point where you begin to wonder what his/her purpose is (I suppose someone has to toss the coin in football!)

The thing is, though DRS in cricket has obviously moved beyond its initial remit, it's still used within a clear framework that only allows a limited number of challenges and puts a time limit on them. Plus, on marginal calls, the umpire's on-field decision is deferred to. Football doesn't have any framework like that, and on-field decisions get overturned willy-nilly with little logic and zero consistency.

[drewks]

My understanding is that VAR, like DRS in cricket, was brought into eliminate the really shockingly incorrect decisions - absolute howlers by the referee or umpire. In both cases, it seems to have gone way beyond that and now questions every decision by the official, to the point where you begin to wonder what his/her purpose is (I suppose someone has to toss the coin in football!)

The thing is, though DRS in cricket has obviously moved beyond its initial remit, it's still used within a clear framework that only allows a limited number of challenges and puts a time limit on them.  Plus, on marginal calls, the umpire's on-field decision is deferred to.  Football doesn't have any framework like that, and on-field decisions get overturned willy-nilly with little logic and zero consistency.

OH I don't know Ska'd, the logic and consistency is there for all to see -
LOGIC.... a pre set objective of favouring the big boys
CONSISTENCY..... you betcha

[Blue Baggie]

The VAR technology works exactly as it should. It's the idiots using it that's the problem.

[Stairs]

I am happy with VAR for goal line and offside. No matter how painful some decisions can be when a toe nail makes a difference but it can be defined and ruled by.

The fact they use it to review violent conduct is also another great thing. the head butt by the Arsenal player is a great example (despite the theatric by the Leeds player, it was violent conduct and should not be tolerated).

But then, penalties. These people watch different video to what we see - how they conclude things the way they do is astounding.

It would be interesting to see what you guys thought of these following incidents and if we all agree:

1. Villa v Brighton Penalty not given: My view, correct decision. (But I am confused why the Villa player was not booked for 'simulation')
2. West Brom v Man Utd Penalty not given. My view wrong decision. (In the modern world there was clear contact and it should have been a penalty. I hate the modern world and 'there was contact' as in the old days it would not have been given and Gallagher deserved to be booked for falling over).
3. Man Utd v West Brom Penalty given. My view wrong decision. (penalty retake I can live with)
4. Arsenal v Leeds Penalty Not given. My view wrong decision. This was identical to the Man Utd pen v west Brom!!

[talkSAFT]

The new 'handball' definition is ridiculous. Handball used to mean deliberate handball, and the ref's decision on deliberate was final...full stop.
If I was a Coach I'd be coaching attackers, now, how to just chip the ball at a defender's arm, and get a penalty. F-f-f-farcical.

[BaggieSteve]

The new 'handball' definition is ridiculous.    Handball used to mean deliberate handball, and the ref's decision on deliberate was final...full stop.
If I was a Coach I'd be coaching attackers, now, how to just chip the ball at a defender's arm, and get a penalty. F-f-f-farcical.

Talksaft, I think you're right. It's becoming like hockey - if the ball hits your foot, it's automatically an infringement so, as you say, aim at the defender's arm and then appeal like crazy

---

I am happy with VAR for goal line and offside.  No matter how painful some decisions can be when a toe nail makes a difference but it can be defined and ruled by.

The fact they use it to review violent conduct is also another great thing. the head butt by the Arsenal player is a great example (despite the theatric by the Leeds player, it was violent conduct and should not be tolerated).

But then, penalties. These people watch different video to what we see - how they conclude things the way they do is astounding.

It would be interesting to see what you guys thought of these following incidents and if we all agree:

1. Villa v Brighton Penalty not given:  My view, correct decision.  (But I am confused why the Villa player was not booked for 'simulation')
2. West Brom v Man Utd Penalty not given. My view wrong decision. (In the modern world there was clear contact and it should have been a penalty. I hate the modern world and 'there was contact' as in the old days it would not have been given and Gallagher deserved to be booked for falling over).
3. Man Utd v West Brom Penalty given. My view wrong decision. (penalty retake I can live with)
4. Arsenal v Leeds Penalty Not given. My view wrong decision. This was identical to the Man Utd pen v west Brom!!

Stairs, I agree with you over the use of VAR for line calls, except that I still struggle with the 'toenail/elbow' offside. I think I'm right in saying that the assistant refs get a good 90+ per cent of the calls correct. Where the offside is so miniscule - toenail/elbow/ nose etc - I don't think these provide any advantage to the attacker so I think ruling offside on that basis is a bit ludicrous. Are we saying that if the centre-forward's left bollock hadn't been in front of the centre-half's right bollock, he would never have reached that cross? The fact that they often spend a few minutes going over the film footage before they can make a decision makes me think that this is so marginal that it's irrelevant. I appreciate that the counter argument is "what's acceptable and what isn't then? Is an arm offside but not an elbow and, if so, why?". VAR makes it a clear binary decision, I get that but, for me, it's just taken the joy out of the game.

[drewks]

The new 'handball' definition is ridiculous.    Handball used to mean deliberate handball, and the ref's decision on deliberate was final...full stop.
If I was a Coach I'd be coaching attackers, now, how to just chip the ball at a defender's arm, and get a penalty. F-f-f-farcical.

Talksaft, I think you're right. It's becoming like hockey - if the ball hits your foot, it's automatically an infringement so, as you say, aim at the defender's arm and then appeal like crazy

---

I am happy with VAR for goal line and offside.  No matter how painful some decisions can be when a toe nail makes a difference but it can be defined and ruled by.

The fact they use it to review violent conduct is also another great thing. the head butt by the Arsenal player is a great example (despite the theatric by the Leeds player, it was violent conduct and should not be tolerated).

But then, penalties. These people watch different video to what we see - how they conclude things the way they do is astounding.

It would be interesting to see what you guys thought of these following incidents and if we all agree:

1. Villa v Brighton Penalty not given:  My view, correct decision.  (But I am confused why the Villa player was not booked for 'simulation')
2. West Brom v Man Utd Penalty not given. My view wrong decision. (In the modern world there was clear contact and it should have been a penalty. I hate the modern world and 'there was contact' as in the old days it would not have been given and Gallagher deserved to be booked for falling over).
3. Man Utd v West Brom Penalty given. My view wrong decision. (penalty retake I can live with)
4. Arsenal v Leeds Penalty Not given. My view wrong decision. This was identical to the Man Utd pen v west Brom!!

Stairs, I agree with you over the use of VAR for line calls, except that I still struggle with the 'toenail/elbow' offside. I think I'm right in saying that the assistant refs get a good 90+ per cent of the calls correct. Where the offside is so miniscule - toenail/elbow/ nose etc - I don't think these provide any advantage to the attacker so I think ruling offside on that basis is a bit ludicrous. Are we saying that if the centre-forward's left bollock hadn't been in front of the centre-half's right bollock, he would never have reached that cross? The fact that they often spend a few minutes going over the film footage before they can make a decision makes me think that this is so marginal that it's irrelevant. I appreciate that the counter argument is "what's acceptable and what isn't then? Is an arm offside but not an elbow and, if so, why?". VAR makes it a clear binary decision, I get that but, for me, it's just taken the joy out of the game.

Steve, you make a great point there, and surely that's what it SHOULD be about - whether the slimmest of margins (for offside) makes a difference; whether the lightest of contact on an attacker has made a difference (for a penalty).
So obvious it's unreal!

[Dingle-Dingle]

VAR should be giving lots more penalties. I understood the football authorities were going to crack down on players holding in the box at corners, or is this cheating not important to the game.

DD

[talkSAFT]

VAR should be giving lots more penalties. I understood the football authorities were going to crack down on players holding in the box at corners, or is this cheating not important to the game.

DD    

Absolutely!!

And another thing with VAR:
Not that I'll be going in the near future but.....my train used to leave at 17:10, and I'd run (East Stand to Hawthorns Halt), which was an ordeal for a bloke of my age. But can British Rail please change their timetable to accommodate the extra 10 mins Extra Time??!!!