You're right if you're going to compare 1-2 game scenarios perhaps at the end of the season where the stakes are great. (although your example of two bad decisions going against them in 2 games is very rare in a scenario like that, but I'll still go with it) Then I can see in that sense VAR being amazing and useful.
Apparently it wont.
Yep. We sure are seeing players not celebrating goals. Look at McGinn and the Villa players not celebrating...
Most of the defence of the stupid "offside" calls are basically people saying "but it's the rule!" even though it's clearly not a rule that's fit for purpose when applied to the letter. It's basically like those people who defend ICE raids and concentration camps because "they broke the law".
How was he ever going to be offside?
We’re only 1/2 way through the 1st weekend. And so far it’s worked out. Yeah, I get the fact it kills part of the atmosphere but I’m more about getting it right. You can’t please everyone.
You may have taken what @SteveJ said a tad too seriously there
England were absolute garbage at that World Cup.
Yes, it was a bit subtle - after all, there are three letters in 'VAR'.
You should never take @SteveJ seriously. He's nearly always taking the P'
Stupid comment. So one can't comment about an issue in football unless it directly impacts a team you support?I think it's great move myself.
And why does it bother you if viewing figures are going to go down or if bloody City can't sell out. Unless it's related to United I don't really see why you need to get so invested in it. Right up there with slowing 'football growth'.
Then do that, no one's going to stop you. People will throw a fuss about anything these days.
There is one in the other thread. I think it's 3:1 in favour of VAR. At least it was the last time I checked.
Tbh I just wanted to rant about nerds who use the rules to defend things that are clearly a load of bollocks. His post provided a convenient segue.
You'd have thought, but it just sort of died down.
Yeah but your segue is a bit extreme. Rules in sports and the law being applied strictly in immigration situation have nothing in common. One is about life/death situation and the other is sports.
So you are saying the vast majority of the time VAR will have zero impact on goals and goal celebrations
Are you doubting that Liverpool and City had more go for them, then against them last year?
The problem is that even if the amount of calls for/against even out (which I doubt since smaller clubs are shafted regularly) there’s a big difference between a goal incorrectly allowed against you to make it 1-1 in a game vs a rival and getting a goal for you in a 3-0 victory. And I’ve not even begun to go into momentum gained/lost from incorrect goals.
Your argument (as far as I can make out) was that you were told that VAR would only look at clear and obvious errors, including only offsides that were subjectively clear and obvious.
And it would have been the wrong decision every time. Same as how Chelsea's 4 or so penalties against Barca weren't ruled as penalties 'live'.
A little less than 30% opposed so far. If a third of them start spending less time watching or stop altogether that’s just the 10% hit on ratings and engagement. Hardly insignificant
My post said that there was no mention to offside being an exception to the clear and obvious rule.
It was supposed to be clear and obvious. They changed the goalposts on offside. That I don't agree with.
It is one of the most idiotic cliches that exist. Sure, some decisions go in favour of some team, and some against it, but they don't even up. More might go in one way than in other, and consequently, titles, UCL places and relegations might be decided by bad referee decisions.
No it wasn't.
The "correct calls" are designed for the game before the existence of VAR though. Leeway was always given and some common sense was applied. Before VAR, an absolutely miniscule number of people would have complained about that goal being given. Correct calls based on logical rules that take into account how pedantic VAR can be would be fine. This is crap.
Smalling will be more fecked than ever.
"Can you see space between the attacker and defender?"The best argument against VAR is the one where people want to allow 10cm (or any other amount) of leeway, like that won’t just lead to the discussion of whether the guy was 9.9cm or 10.1cm off, and whether the measuring tool is precise enough to calculate the distance.
There's a difference between commenting and overreacting. The key word being invested, in case you missed it. If you looked at the comments of the poster whom I was replying to, you'd probably understand what I'm getting at.
Actually your second post said:
Which is different. Them failing to point out that offside didn't count as a subjective decision isn't the same as them telling you that offside would count as a subjective decision before later changing their mind.
So in your brain being pro offside and happy to see it enforced with some consistency is the same as being pro mass killings - and you also deem having a goal disallowed an equal offense to that of being murdered? Sir - I believe you've lost the plot. You should rewind and start from the beginning - because what you think is right is actually completely bonkers
“Was there space or was there 0.2cm of overlap?”
Offside is clear and obvious. It is a binary decision there is no objective element of them.
As I have said multiple times just make it clear and obvious.The best argument against VAR is the one where people want to allow 10cm (or any other amount) of leeway, like that won’t just lead to the discussion of whether the guy was 9.9cm or 10.1cm off, and whether the measuring tool is precise enough to calculate the distance.
