Definitely seems best idea now, I think.
Though the advantage of Stockley Park is that the on field ref isn't the one who is wrong, ever. Draw your own conclusions why we got Stockley Park. And very mainly backing the ref.
Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)
- Thread starter RedFish
- Start date
Though the advantage of Stockley Park is that the on field ref isn't the one who is wrong, ever. Draw your own conclusions why we got Stockley Park. And very mainly backing the ref.
Exactly.
Plus it sells the process better. If the person who made the initial decision is seen to change their own call then it becomes harder for fans to keep arguing that the initial call was correct. Whereas now you could have one subjective opinion overruling another, with no idea whether the on-field ref would actually agree that he made a mistake.
Completely agree.
Have Stockley Park do offsides and handballs leading to goals as they’re binary, everything subjective goes to the on-field ref.
Gets perceived as ref being questioned all the time? Stockley will not ask him if they think its tricky, ref starts getting intimidated, dissented, surrounded again.
Which has gone away to a large extent.
Think about the Maguire one for example.
I don't know.
Which has gone away to a large extent.
Think about the Maguire one for example.
I don't know.
Watford goal ruled out by VAR due to handball.
Love it!
Worth noting that we're one of the team that has benefited most from VAR interventions this season.
That means the ref on field has fecked us over more than everyone else.
How they missed that i do not know
Does VAR favour teams that like to play football over those who play percentages to get fouls and/or kick and rush goals?
Takes United to the top of the list of who have benefited most from VAR.
Which as pointed out means we've just been fecked over in the past by bad refereeing on the pitch
Well, it proves that we would've been fecked over this season without VAR. In previous/future seasons we may be on the other side of the coin.Which as pointed out means we've just been fecked over in the past by bad refereeing on the pitch
What it does suggest is that the old cliche of bad decisions evening themselves out over a season is nonsense (which simple logic would have suggested anyway).
No it doesn't. What it does is highlight the hypocrisy of people in here claiming that Liverpool have been lucky with/relies on VAR this season.Which as pointed out means we've just been fecked over in the past by bad refereeing on the pitch
It doesn’t though does it, more than one time can benefit from VAR.
Seriously the most precious fan base around.
That doesn't include bad decisions against United, where VAR didn't intervene. Classic example was when Martial was dragged down in the penalty area against Crystal Palace, without any intervention from either the on pitch referee or the VAR.
I believe that VAR will, over time, be shown to benefit teams who play expansive, skills based football. Those whose tactics involve trying to get players booked, out muscle their opponents and play 'kick and rush" at the margins of being offside in order to score will lose out due to VAR.
I don't think the data is extensive enough to show this yet, but I hope they don't change to laws of the game to accommodate the current complaints from certain teams.
The only problem with VAR at the moment is that premier league refs are sticking together to avoid undermining the ref on the pitch - rather than letting him be exposed by overturning his own mistake.
I don't think the data is extensive enough to show this yet, but I hope they don't change to laws of the game to accommodate the current complaints from certain teams.
The only problem with VAR at the moment is that premier league refs are sticking together to avoid undermining the ref on the pitch - rather than letting him be exposed by overturning his own mistake.
Some fecking huge foot on Martial. Did Keysey ‘shop this himself ffs.
I'm certain that without VAR we would've had three goals wrongly allowed against us in the last two games, so at least it allows the refs to fix some of their mistakes even though they still manage to make others
I thought it was off slightly in real time, then when it went to Var I thought the knee of the defender is further ahead than the defenders foot and that’s the part that is in line with martials foot (rather than the defenders foot.)
Jaysus Christ. Richard keys is such a moron. How has he made a career talking about football?
Bein sports 2 arabic studio pundits said Martial was onside.
while the funny thing Richard Keys and Andy Gray on Bein sport 11
the English studio showedthis picture
Martial is offside. But in this picture the ball is has already left Bruno's foot by a margin compared to the first picture.
I think it is a goal when I watched the analysis on the Arabic studio on Bein sports.
It is all about the frame.
I do not know how Celso was allowed to stay on the pitch after VAR, that has to be a straight red every day of the week.
More evidence of the anti United bias that some British pundits have
Bein sports 2 arabic studio pundits said Martial was onside.
while the funny thing Richard Keys and Andy Gray on Bein sport 11
this picture
Martial is offside. But in this picture the ball is has already left Bruno's foot by a margin compared to the first picture.
I think it is a goal when I watched the analysis on the Arabic studio on Bein sports.
It is all about the frame.
He’s an idiot. Amazing he’s still employed by anyone.
Then you read the twitter responses and the amount of people who actually agree with him..
was Martial even offside? Some of the pictures I've seen shows he is on
Can't believes Keys (a journalist) is posting edited photos and making them out as fact. I guess narrative trumps facts
Over two frames Bruno is still striking the ball. He's onside in one, off in the other. Just give the goal.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Just in case anyone was actually wondering whether Martial was offside.
Richard Keys is a jackass.
Nothing reckless about flying in at full speed and Superman punching someone in the neck. At least he tried to play the ball!
fecking morons the lot of them.
Exposing the 38cm margin of error depending on the frame used.
Personally think should use earliest frame time where boot touches ball.
Try and keep players onside.
If we bother to go through the decisions, do they always try use the same frame reference in every match?
I have my doubts.
Last edited:
That is already what they do.
The bold is what they do now.
I wondered for quite a long time about the Ederson one. I think I finally concluded the GK got close enough to be saying that he's entitled to have been going for the ball. But still not sure. Equally close to being reckless though isn't it? And you know you're punching someone in the head.
Even if he says he was close enough and going for the ball it doesn’t change the fact that he flew in with full force and punched the player in the head.
I believe the laws of the game say something about endangering the safety of an opponent and acting without regard for the opponent’s safety. We apply those standards to tackles showing studs even if they get the ball cleanly and don’t even touch the opponent, so why should keepers be allowed to act with such a disregard for the safety of other players? Especially since the injuries caused by keepers are usually to the head and neck, which can cause an awkward landing if the player’s knocked unconscious, which can lead to secondary injuries upon impact with the ground as opposed to a foot going through a leg.
The football authorities need to sort themselves out with regards to how they treat head injuries in the game. The lightest of headbutts? Off you go mate can’t do that! A punch in the head? Well can’t you see that he was trying to go for the ball?
They can piss off as far as I’m concerned. Absolute bollocks.
Yes, it's exactly all of that, basically. It's a bit like a player from a different sport arriving on the field and the rules are different for him. In certain situations, the GK is more dangerous too. It doesn't make a lot of sense, really.
I said a long time ago on this thread, that games aren't really refereed according to the rules, and a lot of people laughed at me. It doesn't seem quite so stupid nowadays, somehow.
“It won’t cause delays”
Get fecking rid of it.
Get fecking rid of it.
It’s a farce.