kouroux
45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
A handball was given vs Brighton. Absolute madness but not by VAR, the main ref gave it
Hey, that's not fair!
Happens all the time. Presumably checking if someone might have been in an offside position interfering with the keeper when the header came in?VAR just spent a bit of time checking if Silva goal was offside. Silva scored a header from a corner.
Sums it up...VAR just spent a bit of time checking if Silva goal was offside. Silva scored a header from a corner.
Only thing I can think of would be if Caicedo(?) was blocking the view of the keeper.Sums it up...
Pretty sure it was a mistake tbh. Wrong button pressed maybe ?
How is that fair?https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/is-var-being-used-in-the-fa-cup-third-round-yes-for-some-teams-and-no-for-others/a96502933.html
Only being used at PL grounds in the Cup
Either only use it a Wembley like the League Cup or don't use it at all
Yeah, different matches in the same round of the same competition on the same day using different rules is mental.How is that fair?
This would after the header, then?Only thing I can think of would be if Caicedo(?) was blocking the view of the keeper.
Yea, when Silva headed it towards goal.This would after the header, then?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
michael oliver is a dweeb. it’s as simple as that.Serious questions about what Michael Oliver did to Dalot at Anfield needed. The amount of dissent ive seen in this Arsenal/Liverpool game alone makes a mockery of that stance.
It is not only that game. We've seen so many decisions like that going against us. Dissent pretty much every game. We are not allowed to talk or to point or to even look at referees. We all know decisions against us. Our club have still not come with any official statement.Serious questions about what Michael Oliver did to Dalot at Anfield needed. The amount of dissent ive seen in this Arsenal/Liverpool game alone makes a mockery of that stance.
The Forest guy against us was the biggest joke.Serious questions about what Michael Oliver did to Dalot at Anfield needed. The amount of dissent ive seen in this Arsenal/Liverpool game alone makes a mockery of that stance.
Nonsense. They should be expected to act like adults. Rugby players are able to do it, same with Tennis players and plenty of other sports.I honestly think, unless you're going up to the ref and calling him a f***ing c*** there should really be no bookings for dissent.
Footballers are humans and showing emotion shouldn't be seen as a negative. Obviously kicking the ball away and stuff is different as thats time wasting. But being frustrated at a decision? Come on now.
You should probably watch more Tennis then!Nonsense. They should be expected to act like adults. Rugby players are able to do it, same with Tennis players and plenty of other sports.
Why should footballers get special dispensation to act like children, screaming swear words, flapping their arms all over the place?
It's obviously difficult to turn things around considering how long it's generally been accepted to react to decisions, and the referees aren't exactly making things easier considering how the new rules are mor ore less randomly applied.Nonsense. They should be expected to act like adults. Rugby players are able to do it, same with Tennis players and plenty of other sports.
Why should footballers get special dispensation to act like children, screaming swear words, flapping their arms all over the place?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't see how it's a sensible decision. If a standard isn't available then play match at a different stadium.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
An actual sensible decision?
Dissent or kicking the ball away should be met with a stern warning and followed up with a yellow card. Do it once, warned, second time yellow card. Same should go for time wasting.I honestly think, unless you're going up to the ref and calling him a f***ing c*** there should really be no bookings for dissent.
Footballers are humans and showing emotion shouldn't be seen as a negative. Obviously kicking the ball away and stuff is different as thats time wasting. But being frustrated at a decision? Come on now.
No, because it makes no sense to say it “maintains fairness”. If VAR improves decision making then it should be used in the three matches for which it can be used.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
An actual sensible decision?
I hate these comments about rugby players! Genuinely despise them (the comments, not the rugby players).Nonsense. They should be expected to act like adults. Rugby players are able to do it, same with Tennis players and plenty of other sports.
Why should footballers get special dispensation to act like children, screaming swear words, flapping their arms all over the place?
Is it me or do referees themselves seem to give red cards from initial challenges a lot less often than they used to? seems like they're defaulting to give yellows in all of these situations relying on VAR to correct them when its a red.The onfield ref saw this challenge right in front of him and somehow thought it was only a yellow card offence, luckilly VAR intervened.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah, pretty much agree. At the very least, say it won't be used in either leg of the Middlesbrough game to maintain consistency. But why should that effect the other match? It doesn't impact Middlesbrough or Chelsea, positively or negatively, whether it's used in the other semi final or not - and, as both of those grounds have the facilities to use it, then it's completely unnecessary to decide not to use it.No, because it makes no sense to say it “maintains fairness”. If VAR improves decision making then it should be used in the three matches for which it can be used.
Middlesbrough don’t lose out if there is a stinking decision in the other match which VAR could have remedied. They (and Chelsea) just take the risk of an error in the match at Middlesbrough but that’s the same for both teams and therefore fair.
It’s a nonsensical decision, consistent with the usual lack of understanding of what the role of VAR actually is - to reduce the number of errors in decision making.
If VAR actually did this I would agree.No, because it makes no sense to say it “maintains fairness”. If VAR improves decision making then it should be used in the three matches for which it can be used.
Middlesbrough don’t lose out if there is a stinking decision in the other match which VAR could have remedied. They (and Chelsea) just take the risk of an error in the match at Middlesbrough but that’s the same for both teams and therefore fair.
It’s a nonsensical decision, consistent with the usual lack of understanding of what the role of VAR actually is - to reduce the number of errors in decision making.
Agreed. A spur of the moment dissent should be tolerated - these are testostorone ridden young men with a winning mentality too big for their own ego - even pub players get in a rouse whenever a decision isn't given, or they feel something is wrongly given. Heck, I'm a farirly composed guy, but on a football pitch, that changes. If players don't shut up after the immediate idiotic behavior, then book them, but throwing your arms in a tantrum or throwing the ball straight to the ground and back up once, really shouldn't be a concern.I honestly think, unless you're going up to the ref and calling him a f***ing c*** there should really be no bookings for dissent.
Footballers are humans and showing emotion shouldn't be seen as a negative. Obviously kicking the ball away and stuff is different as thats time wasting. But being frustrated at a decision? Come on now.
But surely that's not the thinking behind the FA's decision?If VAR actually did this I would agree.
Instead, current VAR just leads to different decisions being made, not necceserily the correct ones.
"I think he might be ok but you just can't tell in these situations"The onfield ref saw this challenge right in front of him and somehow thought it was only a yellow card offence, luckilly VAR intervened.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The level of dissent shown in football is a disgrace and has been for a very long time. It isn’t tolerated in any other sport, sets a terrible example for kids and creates a hostile atmosphere towards referees at grassroots level, that can end up with them getting assaulted. So any effort to stamp it out is a good thing. They just need to be more consistent in how they penalise players.I honestly think, unless you're going up to the ref and calling him a f***ing c*** there should really be no bookings for dissent.
Footballers are humans and showing emotion shouldn't be seen as a negative. Obviously kicking the ball away and stuff is different as thats time wasting. But being frustrated at a decision? Come on now.
Dissent in baseball is quite funny. They can do a degree of it, then get 'ejected' but can still stand around afterwards for a good 30 seconds or so calling the decisions horseshit and the umpire blind etc. Can get pretty animated. It's pretty much a tradition.The level of dissent shown in football is a disgrace and has been for a very long time. It isn’t tolerated in any other sport, sets a terrible example for kids and creates a hostile atmosphere towards referees at grassroots level, that can end up with them getting assaulted. So any effort to stamp it out is a good thing. They just need to be more consistent in how they penalise players.