montpelier
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 10,637
It's kind of interesting why these are the 2 grounds with no massive telly facility.
It's going to be like Riverdance at set pieces.It's still open to interpretation? Pens going to be given for aiming ball at players arms in box, this is going to happen, and it already has.
Look out in prem next season, every player will have to learn how to keep there balance with arms behind there back.
It's going to be a shambles
Not all contact is a foul. Not all fouls need contact. Why do people keep forgetting this?The touch was obvious and made the striker stumble in a very promising situation. It clearly was not a dive, cannot believe posters above believe the striker forced anything.
I agree that the referee should have stopped the game before the foul on the other side of the pitch, especially since the uproar of the Swiss attackers was suggesting something relevant just happened - but this is how VAR works I guess. They have to wait to check the videos and change a decision until there is a natural interruption during the game. However giving the penalty to Switzerland was the only right thing to do.
Last but not least: this does not change anything to the fact that Portugal beat us and deserve to play the final.
Yep, with flattley on the Whistle! Going to be funIt's going to be like Riverdance at set pieces.
It says they’re looking at people being able to use an app to see the replays. Of course they’ll need to get a way for you to get a signal inside Old Trafford first.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
More good news. You won’t even see replays when VAR is being used at Old Trafford or Anfield.
Agreed.VAR can help referees, but in the end the final decision is human based, and that means error prone.
Also, VAR won't hide some stupid football rules, but expose them. So, in general I don't think the fans will be much satisfied.
When football gets simpler rules and lesser involvement of referees it will be better, otherwise I don't see such a big difference.
The play must go on though, otherwise you might be killing a valid counter. Of course there'll be bizarre incidents like this one but they're the exception rather than the rule.VAR is meant to change clear and obvious mistakes. That was a 2 goal swing decision and it was most definitely not a clear and obvious one. It was a very slight touch and the Swiss player forces the trip. Guerreiro got tripped exactly the same way in the 80th minute inside the box and VAR didn’t do anything. If they think it might be a penalty then tell the ref to stop the game before the team has the chance to get to the other side of the pitch and score. To go from a 2-0 to 1-1 like that is as harsh as it gets.
We got fecked by VAR at the World Cup too, Fernando Santos had pretty harsh words in the post match interview.
That's ridiculousVAR is beautiful.
No such thing. Either you're offside or you're not.That's ridiculous
100%. It's football, but just not as we know it/I want it to be.Whoever decided a toenail being offside is a legitimate reason to overturn a given goal just doesn’t understand football.
I think it is a good change. One referee will allow a goal because "only a toenail offside" while another referee will disallow a goal because "a toenail offside".Whoever decided a toenail being offside is a legitimate reason to overturn a given goal just doesn’t understand football.
Its not ridiculous, its perfect, the right outcome and the right decision. It's one of the reasons VAR will vastly improve football.That's ridiculous
It’s just a shit interpretation of the rule. Benefit of the doubt should always go to the attacker in those situations.I think it is a good change. One referee will allow a goal because "only a toenail offside" while another referee will disallow a goal because "a toenail offside".
They used software to make the decicion 100% fair and no room for human error.
It might not be fun for live football but it is fair. No more argueing about offside or not. With the VAR and the software it will be offside or no offside. No discussion possible anymore.
The VAR is also used if a goal was scored whenYeah, no way that's a clear and obvious error. I support VAR but this is not one of those cases it should be used.
With this VAR system, where there is no room for human error, there is no doubt about it being offside or not. I do agree that attacker should get the benefit of the doubt in normal situations but the VAR takes away any doubt.It’s just a shit interpretation of the rule. Benefit of the doubt should always go to the attacker in those situations.
It takes a special kind of genius to implement a change in the game that’s sole purpose is to reduce the number of goals.
It's not software. It's another referee looking at a replay of a poor camera angle on TV with some imprecise MS Paint lines thrown in.I think it is a good change. One referee will allow a goal because "only a toenail offside" while another referee will disallow a goal because "a toenail offside".
They used software to make the decicion 100% fair and no room for human error.
It might not be fun for live football but it is fair. No more argueing about offside or not. With the VAR and the software it will be offside or no offside. No discussion possible anymore.
The commentator said the Lingard goal was being checked by software instead of a human.It's not software. It's another referee looking at a replay of a poor camera angle on TV.
Nah, there's gonna be loads more goals. Mainly penalties to start with, but wait until the defences push out a little bit.It’s just a shit interpretation of the rule. Benefit of the doubt should always go to the attacker in those situations.
It takes a special kind of genius to implement a change in the game that’s sole purpose is to reduce the number of goals.
The software produces the calibrated lines, based on the best available camera angles, and the lines are then projected onto the replay image, and then the referee makes a decision. That's very different to e.g. goal-line technology.The commentator said the Lingard goal was being checked by software instead of a human.
I meant it was ridiculous how close it was, not that it was wrong. My bad.Its not ridiculous, its perfect, the right outcome and the right decision. It's one of the reasons VAR will vastly improve football.
Oh sorry, my bad. 100%. I mean its horrid luck and no doubt it would have went with the attacker in seasons gone by. Are you happier to be playing Holland or would you have preferred England in the final. I think Ronaldo would have taken this England back 4 to the cleaners, think the Dutch will be a tougher game.I meant it was ridiculous how close it was, not that it was wrong. My bad.
Yeah, same.The software produces the calibrated lines, based on the best available camera angles, and the lines are then projected onto the replay image, and then the referee makes a decision. That's very different to e.g. goal-line technology.
The bigger question is would I rather accept marginal decisions and a flowing game, or would I rather have constant delays while marginal decisions are re-interpreted? Easy decision for me.
I do despise this.Yeah, same.
And that’s not getting into the stupidity of repeatedly watching play getting waved on when someone is a mile offside - risking injuries and yellow/red cards - knowing that we’re just going to end up with yet another booooooring VAR break.
It’s unavoidable though. From now on, if a linesman ever flags incorrectly he’ll be fecking crucified so they’re just not going to bother. Other than in the most extreme cases.I do despise this.
If it's an obvious offside call(like plenty happen), the assistant should raise the flag right away and play stopped.
Yea I think it's such a fundamental shift in the way football is played/managed. I don't see that the benefits of continual review of marginal decisions outweighs the costs to the flow of the game. I'm fine accepting the odd mistake, because to me that's a lesser evil that a stop-start flow. One of my favourite parts of football is how it flows compares to other sports. But I realise plenty of others disagree with that opinion.It’s unavoidable though. From now on, if a linesman ever flags incorrectly he’ll be fecking crucified so they’re just not going to bother. Other than in the most extreme cases.
If your toenail is actually offside then you're offside. Unless "understanding football" means literally ignoring the rules of football.Whoever decided a toenail being offside is a legitimate reason to overturn a given goal just doesn’t understand football.
Deciding that somebody is offside is offside means you don't understand football? I wasn't aware there was a rule that said that a certain amount of offside is ok but not too much.Whoever decided a toenail being offside is a legitimate reason to overturn a given goal just doesn’t understand football.
Deciding that somebody is offside is offside means you don't understand football? I wasn't aware there was a rule that said that a certain amount of offside is ok but not too much.