I am finding weird this 'you need to be a Jedi to have those reflexes'. When I used to play basketball very often I have stolen balls (and other players stolen it from me) with much higher speed than that.Yea I used to play for my school.
I am finding weird this 'you need to be a Jedi to have those reflexes'. When I used to play basketball very often I have stolen balls (and other players stolen it from me) with much higher speed than that.Yea I used to play for my school.
I am finding weird this 'you need to be a Jedi to have those reflexes'. When I used to play basketball very often I have stolen balls (and other players stolen it from me) with much higher speed than that.
It is not every pundit, it is mostly English ones. Which might be because the rule is subject to interpretation (like fouls for example) and different leagues interpret them differently. Usually, Spanish and Latin American countries are a bit more Conservative to it (aka, more prone to give pens). Also, the fact that there have been similar pens awarded in this World Cup makes me believe that FIFA directed refs to give penalties in these circumstances.
How does it make sense to implement it from QF only rather than from the beginning of knock-out rounds?
1. Have a team of 5 TMO's (uneven number so there is no 50/50s)
2. Have the TMO's make the call after the ref ask for VAR. Saves so much time not having the ref to go off the pitch.
These are key for me. Take the responsibility away from a single referee ie a single point of failure. If 5 fully qualified referees agree on something it's probably correct.
I also think a manager should be allowed a set number of VAR requests per game, say 3.
If VAR decisions are completely in the hands of the ref then nothing changes.Im not fan of VAR in its current form but no one outside the officials should have anything to do with VAR, certainly not managers.
If VAR decisions are completely in the hands of the ref then nothing changes.
Subconscious bias by the ref (pressure from players, fans etc) may influence not only the decision to not give a foul/pen/offside, but also the decision to defer to VAR. If you put it in his hands alone, then much less changes than a system where ref decides but teams get challenges as well. See the Mitrovic decision during the WC. Held back by two opponents and somehow he suffers a foul. If the ref doesn't give a foul there and then, like Brych did, decides not to go to VAR, then nothing's changed.
I don't see how introducing VAR only in the later stages of a tournament would make sense.
Also, a challenge system would (or perhaps more accurately should) be pointless. As it was in the WC VAR officials were supposed to check every incident and make reccomendations for reviews accordingly. If they decide something isn't an offence or isn't worth reviewing then they're hardly going to change their mind just because a manager asks them to look at it once more. It's not like they've missed the incident, they've just interpreted it differently.
To my mind the most important change would be for us to get some sort of explanation for the decisions made. It could be something published post-game (like a summary of checks, reviews and calls the VAR team made throughout the game with a quick explanation for each decision) or perhaps more logically simply allowing us to hear the communication between the VAR team and the referee.
If you're going to introduce something like VAR which in theory should have a massive impact on the game then I think it makes sense to educate the audience about the rationale behind the decisions. Otherwise we're left trying to figure out what exactly happened ourselves, which will hardly make it easier for fans to embrace the changes.
Agree with most of this.
It’s also far too slow at the moment, and whilst it’s frustrating watching at home, it’s even worse if you are at the stadium, you have no clue what’s going on.
Unfortunately showing the incidents on a big screen is a no no, as there would be riots in the stands, as let’s be honest a big % of football fans are brainless morons. There isint even a screen at OT or Anfield.
I didn’t read the earlier comments, so don’t know what tournaments you reference - I suppose only having VAR in the latter stages saves money. Also if it’s the likes of the league cup or FA Cup, when you have a lower league team, it may be difficult/ impossible at their ground.
What ref's hear during VAR.
Crazy how chaotic it all sounds. I'd always imagined it would be a couple of guys giving calm advice from the background.![]()
What’s going on there!? I watched it twice and can make out the ref clearly at the end and hear young asking a question but that’s all.
Who the hell is DOGSO?
Who’s shouting oh no, not now?
And did the ref say “miss me Paul”?
It’s sounds so hectic
Ah ok, that makes more sense, I've seen it bracket that in the video now too on another watch.DOGSO = Denial of Goal Scoring Opportunity
Ah ok, that makes more sense, I've seen it bracket that in the video now too on another watch.
So the Chelsea players words are yellow, ref white. So someone on chelseas team is shouting dogso before there is even a hint of any contact in the box and that's why the ref is replying "not now, not now"
They're probably running along side or just behind already hounding the ref for a call.
Less chaotic now I'm making more sense of who is shouting what.
Edit: then again, is it the linesman worded in yellow? If so that's chaotic as hell again and theres no need for him to be shouting that while the ref is running and watching play.
It's actually the linesman in yellow - he's shouting DOGSO to make sure Oliver is aware that there is no covering defender - especially as Oliver was well up the pitch during the buildup of the incident. Pink is the VAR official.
Yea thanks I’ve made that much out now. Still, I don’t think there’s any need for the linesman to be shouting that, players were nowhere near each other at that time, seems Oliver didn’t want him shouting at that time either
There is for the fact the ref can only watch the two players in case of a foul and the linesman is watching the surroundings. I think he's shouting it so the ref knows whats at stake and how the decision should play. Had a red been given that'd be on the linesman and not ref. All in all I thought it played out quite well, ref was correct and VAR backed that up.
It is not actual use of VAR though but more trials is a good thing. It looks a bit reactive and panicky. We can all thank Moss & friends i guess...The Premier League will trial VAR at 15 matches this season – starting after the international break, Sky Sports News understands.
The Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) aim to prove the system is fit for purpose before presenting its findings to Premier League shareholders next year, with the aim of fully introducing it from next season.
The first trial will take place for five 3pm kick-offs on September 15 to see if the VAR hub at Stockley Park, near Heathrow, can cope with decisions arising from multiple matches.
Let's hope City and Arsenal get goals chalked off.It is not actual use of VAR though but more trials is a good thing. It looks a bit reactive and panicky. We can all thank Moss & friends i guess...
http://www.skysports.com/football/n...would-top-premier-league-if-var-had-been-used
Interesting from Skysports... well not really but pretty obvious for anyone who watched the Wolves City game but was VAR in the league City would be top.
City scored against Wolves after Sterling diving so, no they wouldn't. Again, Silva kick himself so it's not a penalty. 1:1 was most realistic result.