Match Day Thread World Cup Watch

[moreinjuredthanowen]

I think VAR is showing flaws due to approach taken.

the approach is not to get the RIGHT result, it is to assist a referee if he feels like using it.

Right now teams have cottoned onto the fact that if you restart the game the VAR is dead. SO if you are a team who just got away with murder you want the game to start right up but if you just had a bad foul unpunished you refuse to start the game until VAR is looked at.

thats wrong.

both teams should be given one appeal minimum to use when they want and 4th offical can easily signal that to ref.

the issue we have is when do we use it.

cricket is simple enough., reviews are there and for run outs it can be used but umpire decision is protected.

Surely this system could be used?

a review to each team and then the clear question to VAR ref is what evidence is there to overturn the on field decision..

this means a team gets one or max two goes at this and not every goal is looked at, not every offisde either.

If a ref declines to give a pen then there has to be clear evidence to over trun and equally if a ref gives a pen then it must be clear evidence its not.

for exmaple a handball.... the only way to overturn a ref giving the pen is to show it never touched the hand. not that we get into supposition about was it deliberate.

At least the cheats would then have some worry that if they get called by the opposing manger they will get onde.


finally my last rant is this. if ref stops game player must leave pitch for 5mins minimum. I've sen at least 5 incidents where a game was stopped for a guy laying about with nothing wrong with him just in these group games. too much benefit to fkaing right now.

 

[jaffaSlot]

I agree. VAR has been good imo, its just the crap refs interpreting things wrong. I believe it will get better over time and its a shame we don't have it in the league next season

 

[DirtyFrank]

I think VAR is showing flaws due to approach taken.

the approach is not to get the RIGHT result, it is to assist a referee if he feels like using it.

Right now teams have cottoned onto the fact that if you restart the game the VAR is dead. SO if you are a team who just got away with murder you want the game to start right up but if you just had a bad foul unpunished you refuse to start the game until VAR is looked at.

thats wrong.

both teams should be given one appeal minimum to use when they want and 4th offical can easily signal that to ref.

the issue we have is when do we use it.

cricket is simple enough., reviews are there and for run outs it can be used but umpire decision is protected.

Surely this system could be used?

a review to each team and then the clear question to VAR ref is what evidence is there to overturn the on field decision..

this means a team gets one or max two goes at this and not every goal is looked at, not every offisde either.

If a ref declines to give a pen then there has to be clear evidence to over trun and equally if a ref gives a pen then it must be clear evidence its not.

for exmaple a handball.... the only way to overturn a ref giving the pen is to show it never touched the hand. not that we get into supposition about was it deliberate.

At least the cheats would then have some worry that if they get called by the opposing manger they will get onde.


finally my last rant is this. if ref stops game player must leave pitch for 5mins minimum. I've sen at least 5 incidents where a game was stopped for a guy laying about with nothing wrong with him just in these group games. too much benefit to fkaing right now.

Yup... get rid of "clear and obvious" it's a nonsense in a subjective sport like football.

1 challenge each team which is kept if proved correct after using. This works in cricket... you have that one team mate all head up calling for a challenge sometimes more in hope and other wiser team mates saying na...not enough to risk.

(Apparently it was the refs who were most against this version as it took away their power; How? They still make the call they just get a second look at t but from 5 angles)

Really (thought this before VAR) need to make it like rugby that only the captain can talk to the ref unless he invites a discussion with a specific player. Yellow card if a player trys it anyway.

"Blood subs" any player with a head injury or actual blood lol. Off for a full ten minutes but replaced with a player not using an official 1 of the 3 subs. If team medics don't get "injured player" off field quickly enough it's still 10 minutes but no blood sub. **** them. Should dissuade actors and make sure actual injured guts are getting a proper assessment and treatment.

And downward clock that is stopped by ref with each halt of play.... it's supposed to be 45 minutes a half...not what sometimes is a ridiculous guess by some refs.

 

[InBiscanWeTrust]

It’s been better than I thought it was going to, but as said, refs are still viewing things differently so there is still no consistency. It’s certainly helped with some blatant and the Spain offside goal, but then its also highlighted some issues wth refs that they aren’t giving pens for stone wall ones (the Argentina one in first game, some England pens, and also certain red cards)

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Yup... get rid of "clear and obvious" it's a nonsense in a subjective sport like football.

1 challenge each team which is kept if proved correct after using. This works in cricket... you have that one team mate all head up calling for a challenge sometimes more in hope and other wiser team mates saying na...not enough to risk.

(Apparently it was the refs who were most against this version as it took away their power; How? They still make the call they just get a second look at t but from 5 angles)

Really (thought this before VAR) need to make it like rugby that only the captain can talk to the ref unless he invites a discussion with a specific player. Yellow card if a player trys it anyway.

"Blood subs" any player with a head injury or actual blood lol. Off for a full ten minutes but replaced with a player not using an official 1 of the 3 subs. If team medics don't get "injured player" off field quickly enough it's still 10 minutes but no blood sub. **** them. Should dissuade actors and make sure actual injured guts are getting a proper assessment and treatment.

And downward clock that is stopped by ref with each halt of play.... it's supposed to be 45 minutes a half...not what sometimes is a ridiculous guess by some refs.

Yeah I think the actors and time wasters need to be dealt with harshly... if a few real cases get hard done by tough. don't go down.

IMO concussion is a big issue so there should be a clear rule where head clashes or whatever occur there is a process to take player off for assessment and return them so a sub can come on for them without penalty.

If a player lays down holding his face... tough off you go. do the assessment. You'd see a lot just switching to holding their ankles instead.

IMO the rule should be clear for a ref. if a head injury happens Stop immediately and remove player form field for assessment and call on sub. If a player drops for an ankle, leg or whatever and is waving their arm frantically **** them and play on. Rugby allows medics to run on pitch as long as the ball and play doesn't come near them. I could see lads drop in front of their own goal to get a medic on to block the goal area in this case so for me. if you lay down you wait until play is stopped.

I agree on blood subs, and head assessments. I agree on sub situation as well.

People will always try use the rules to gain unfair advantage but in the end its a show not a private contest. if the show is being ruined you have to change the rules to make sure its not ruined for fans.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

one thing i have realised is that any team who concede a goal only need to stand back and not restart the game until ref VARs the goal to ensure theres nothing at all in the build up to get it chalked off.

someone is going to try this one in a tight game where the one goal is crucial.

I would.

Any hope of getting a goal disallowed.. why would you kick off when you have the ref in a bind.

 

[saintanton]

Like I said earlier, the game will be unrecognisable in 10 years time. Is that really what we want?

 

[johnsonsbaby]

one thing i have realised is that any team who concede a goal only need to stand back and not restart the game until ref VARs the goal to ensure theres nothing at all in the build up to get it chalked off.

someone is going to try this one in a tight game where the one goal is crucial.

I would.

Any hope of getting a goal disallowed.. why would you kick off when you have the ref in a bind.

The players can't call for VAR though can they. Any player refusing to get on with the kick off would risk being booked.

 

[DirtyFrank]

Like I said earlier, the game will be unrecognisable in 10 years time. Is that really what we want?

I genuinely think it comes down no matter what changes are made to strong fit sensible refs who are clear what to ignore and target.

One thing I've liked in this world cup is that refs have actually largely ignored a lot of the play acting and allowed fairly robust challenging. I actually think this is because of VAR .... I think FIFA gave the instruction because they suspected players would do exactly what they are doing ..lots of little imaginary tv's ...

The difference (positive to me) is that the vast majority of games the ref has just played on knowing if he missed an awful challenge he'll get the heads up from VAR team. Previous world cups it was the opposite, refs blew for every dive and challenge, terrified to miss a call on the biggest stage of their careers.

The process bar one match has speeded up and I think there's room for it to still improve as they tinker.

But it's a process. ... it still relies on the people ie refs being actually good at their jobs. And the organisation's UEFA etc having very clear directives.

So far in this WC the new system broke down when either the ref was rubbish (last night)

Or the directive had a flaw- the clear and obvious... take the England non penalties ... I guarantee they weren't given because Kane started with his hand on opponents shirt, which introduced an element of doubt however small. The VAR guys that day were strict interpreters so said no pen.

If the ref on the pitch is still the main man. Get rid of that directive and just have him look and decide. It's a device that only works as well as the man in charge.

Saying that the organisation's have to start getting rid of sub standard refs. The PL refs this year were some of the worst standard I've seen in a long time. Give them VAR and say if you still **** up decisions like these after seeing something from 5 angles you won't be in the job for long.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

The players can't call for VAR though can they. Any player refusing to get on with the kick off would risk being booked.

no they can't but can you imagine the ref's position in a knockout phase where the player might be saying the manager will take us off the park. you explain this to FIFA.

It'd be a ref with nerves of steel to stare down a team trying that on.

Can you imagine a team taken off the pitch in the QF of a world cup? the world wide news it would be?

 

[HugoEkitikeN01]

I think VAR is showing flaws due to approach taken.

The penalty against Portugal last night was terrible..".ball to hand not hand to ball".

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

I genuinely think it comes down no matter what changes are made to strong fit sensible refs who are clear what to ignore and target.

One thing I've liked in this world cup is that refs have actually largely ignored a lot of the play acting and allowed fairly robust challenging. I actually think this is because of VAR .... I think FIFA gave the instruction because they suspected players would do exactly what they are doing ..lots of little imaginary tv's ...

The difference (positive to me) is that the vast majority of games the ref has just played on knowing if he missed an awful challenge he'll get the heads up from VAR team. Previous world cups it was the opposite, refs blew for every dive and challenge, terrified to miss a call on the biggest stage of their careers.

The process bar one match has speeded up and I think there's room for it to still improve as they tinker.

But it's a process. ... it still relies on the people ie refs being actually good at their jobs. And the organisation's UEFA etc having very clear directives.

So far in this WC the new system broke down when either the ref was rubbish (last night)

Or the directive had a flaw- the clear and obvious... take the England non penalties ... I guarantee they weren't given because Kane started with his hand on opponents shirt, which introduced an element of doubt however small. The VAR guys that day were strict interpreters so said no pen.

If the ref on the pitch is still the main man. Get rid of that directive and just have him look and decide. It's a device that only works as well as the man in charge.

Saying that the organisation's have to start getting rid of sub standard refs. The PL refs this year were some of the worst standard I've seen in a long time. Give them VAR and say if you still **** up decisions like these after seeing something from 5 angles you won't be in the job for long.

for me just as an opinion the amount of flopping over in the defensive half by players and refs give every free.

If you fall over in the attacking thrid you get ignored but any tiny contact and down they go. free awarded.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

The penalty against Portugal last night was terrible..".ball to hand not hand to ball".

The ref gave it though... so in the end was the replay clear evidence is was pure accidental? is it enough to overturn the call.

I would say probably.


In cricket the umpires initial call is crucial and the decision to appeal is down to how strongly do you feel he is wrong not chancing it.

 

[DirtyFrank]

And players are cheating ****s. .

I've posted about this in last few days. I have lost count of the amount of players standing on opponents feet knowing they are wear soft boots.

Now we could have the ref blow up a foul every time, stopping the game.. or we could just have a bloody safety directive that requires boots to protect the feet not be armadillo skin designed to make the ball do a figure of eight during a shot..... amazing that players back in the day could curl a ball eh?

 

[jenners04]

And players are cheating ****s. .

I've posted about this in last few days. I have lost count of the amount of players standing on opponents feet knowing they are wear soft boots.

Now we could have the ref blow up a foul every time, stopping the game.. or we could just have a bloody safety directive that requires boots to protect the feet not be armadillo skin designed to make the ball do a figure of eight during a shot..... amazing that players back in the day could curl a ball eh?

If fouling player is allowed to point it out and ref sees was the case using var. Give a red card. Soon stop like all the pathetic diving and play acting we also see.

If we have the technology, about time cheats got punished!!

 

[Muppetfinder General]

Like I said earlier, the game will be unrecognisable in 10 years time. Is that really what we want?

Commentators and pundits used to moan about the old offside rule - "How is that offside? He's nowhere near the ball!" Now they moan about the offside rule, because something something consistency.

They moaned about players surrounding the ref before VAR. Now they moan about players surrounding the ref with VAR.

Thugs used to tackle from behind and kill skill. No wonder kids were being discouraged from the game.

The professional game is unrecognisable from then and better for it.

One thing you can be certain of: there will always be dinosaur pundits moaning about something, for as Daniel Kahneman wrote in Thinking, Fast and Slow:

"(Philip Tetlock...in a landark 20-year study) uses the terminology from Isaiah Berlin's essay on Tolstoy, The Hedgehog and the Fox. Hedgehogs "'know one big thing,' and have a theory about the world; they account for particular events within a coherent framework, bristle with impatience toward those who don't see things their way, and are confident in their forecasts. They are also especially reluctant to admit error. For hedgehogs, a failed prediction is almost always 'off only on timing' or 'very nearly right.' They are opinionated and clear, which is exactly what television producers love to see on programs."

It's the same for MotD or Question Time. Alan Shearer is the Katie Hopkins of football.

So even though there are more correct decisions being made, VAR has continued to be a discussion point for pundit panels, just as much as refereeing decisions were before. They have airtime to fill. It's the same as it ever was. The Jimmy Hill Protocol is alive, well and in full effect.

I really enjoyed the drama of the Iran game, with all the VAR building up the tension: would Ronaldo get sent off? Go on, please send him off! OMG, Spain are losing! Please give Iran a penalty! Set the cat among the pigeons.

I'll take more of that good stuff.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Commentators and pundits used to moan about the old offside rule - "How is that offside? He's nowhere near the ball!" Now they moan about the offside rule, because something something consistency.

They moaned about players surrounding the ref before VAR. Now they moan about players surrounding the ref with VAR.

Thugs used to tackle from behind and kill skill. No wonder kids were being discouraged from the game.

The professional game is unrecognisable from then and better for it.

One thing you can be certain of: there will always be dinosaur pundits moaning about something, for as Daniel Kahneman wrote in Thinking, Fast and Slow:

"(Philip Tetlock...in a landark 20-year study) uses the terminology from Isaiah Berlin's essay on Tolstoy, The Hedgehog and the Fox. Hedgehogs "'know one big thing,' and have a theory about the world; they account for particular events within a coherent framework, bristle with impatience toward those who don't see things their way, and are confident in their forecasts. They are also especially reluctant to admit error. For hedgehogs, a failed prediction is almost always 'off only on timing' or 'very nearly right.' They are opinionated and clear, which is exactly what television producers love to see on programs."

It's the same for MotD or Question Time. Alan Shearer is the Katie Hopkins of football.

So even though there are more correct decisions being made, VAR has continued to be a discussion point for pundit panels, just as much as refereeing decisions were before. They have airtime to fill. It's the same as it ever was. The Jimmy Hill Protocol is alive, well and in full effect.

I really enjoyed the drama of the Iran game, with all the VAR building up the tension: would Ronaldo get sent off? Go on, please send him off! OMG, Spain are losing! Please give Iran a penalty! Set the cat among the pigeons.

I'll take more of that good stuff.

you are right about offside. They just complain about late flags.

You are right about tackles from behind and assaults. 1990 world cup was bloody awful for kicking players out of game. That was the point where i think the rule changes started to come. Back pass rule etc etc.

I think moaning is part of punditry. hence i don't listen to them cos i want to save ALL my moaning for you lot.

you are also right about this last ground is where the drama starts.

Tonight it will be argentina's turn.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

no they can't but can you imagine the ref's position in a knockout phase where the player might be saying the manager will take us off the park. you explain this to FIFA.

It'd be a ref with nerves of steel to stare down a team trying that on.

Can you imagine a team taken off the pitch in the QF of a world cup? the world wide news it would be?

I can't imagine any of this happening at all. I also don't think any team would be called off the pitch by any manager. The risk of being disqualified not only from the current competition but maybe further competitions would be too great.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

If fouling player is allowed to point it out and ref sees was the case using var. Give a red card. Soon stop like all the pathetic diving and play acting we also see.

If we have the technology, about time cheats got punished!!

One of the problems is that the best players are also very often the worst cheats and I'm convinced that refs are sent out in the WC to be lenient with the cards especially to the 'star' players. FIFA won't want a WC with no Ronaldo, Neymar etc. on show.

 

[saintanton]

Commentators and pundits used to moan about the old offside rule - "How is that offside? He's nowhere near the ball!" Now they moan about the offside rule, because something something consistency.

They moaned about players surrounding the ref before VAR. Now they moan about players surrounding the ref with VAR.

Thugs used to tackle from behind and kill skill. No wonder kids were being discouraged from the game.

The professional game is unrecognisable from then and better for it.

One thing you can be certain of: there will always be dinosaur pundits moaning about something, for as Daniel Kahneman wrote in Thinking, Fast and Slow:

"(Philip Tetlock...in a landark 20-year study) uses the terminology from Isaiah Berlin's essay on Tolstoy, The Hedgehog and the Fox. Hedgehogs "'know one big thing,' and have a theory about the world; they account for particular events within a coherent framework, bristle with impatience toward those who don't see things their way, and are confident in their forecasts. They are also especially reluctant to admit error. For hedgehogs, a failed prediction is almost always 'off only on timing' or 'very nearly right.' They are opinionated and clear, which is exactly what television producers love to see on programs."

It's the same for MotD or Question Time. Alan Shearer is the Katie Hopkins of football.

So even though there are more correct decisions being made, VAR has continued to be a discussion point for pundit panels, just as much as refereeing decisions were before. They have airtime to fill. It's the same as it ever was. The Jimmy Hill Protocol is alive, well and in full effect.

I really enjoyed the drama of the Iran game, with all the VAR building up the tension: would Ronaldo get sent off? Go on, please send him off! OMG, Spain are losing! Please give Iran a penalty! Set the cat among the pigeons.

I'll take more of that good stuff.

I'm fully aware that any objection to new things opens one to snide comments about being a "dinosaur", and I ignore such things. Experience shows you that not everything new is automatically an improvement, and a little discernment is required. I reserve the right to be critical of new technology without the accusation of Luddism. A lot of innovations are worthwhile, many are either counter-productive or just plain unnecessary.
VAR will come in, I have little doubt over that, and we'll all get used to it, but like Thatcherism, bondage trousers and AutoTune it ain't necessarily better.
Although I admit to misgivings, I am in the process of evaluating it, rather than uncritically accepting that all innovation is, by definition, progress.
So far I see differences, rather than improvement.
There's too much subjectivity in football for this system to cure injustices, when those "injustices" depend too often on whose side you take.
I'm sure it's lovely for those who want to see the sport turned into a video game.