VAR for offsides is one thing but decisions that rely on opinion still rely on opinion however many times you get to see it.Worse than that, contact in slow motion can appear quite different to real time so VAR can contribute to poor decisions as well. It's a pity we just don't accept the refs decision in good faith and stop trying to make something that is never going to be perfect better by discussion. This is more about tailoring the game for TV than the game itself. You cannot change the bias of fans either, they will always think their team gets the rough end of the stick.
It was my perception that things happened so much faster during the World Cup. Did they have better referees looking at the footage or better/faster technology? My understanding was that it was to overturn "clear and obvious errors". If the VAR hasn't spotted it within 30 or 40 seconds, to my mind, it can't be either of those 2 things. Maybe apply a limit of 1 minutes delay, after which play restarts. That should speed them up a bit. It's unacceptable for the paying fans to be waiting over 2 minutes to find whether a goal stands or there's going to be a penalty. Speed it up, show it on the screens with sound or drop it until we've got it right. Currently, it's not working properly and mustn't be allowed to ruin whatever beauty's left in the game.
It was a penalty for Fulham and it was saved. But it seems to confirm that we've reached a stage where contact = foul, however slight.
You're right if they don't constrain the time for VAR it WILL spoil the game. It will end up like American Football, which appears to my uninformed eye to be a game run by committee.
For me, that's not a penalty or even close to it. It goes to show that there's a problem with our officials that needs sorting in advance of this system being implemented.
Absolutely. One thing about VAR is that they could have the same, or from the same pool, of officials monitoring the system. This should make the decisions more even. Then as you say, this group should be coached as to what a foul actually is. Also concur with earlier comments that slow motion does not properly represent the incident and it takes too long. Therefore certainly have a time limit, and if they can't decide by that limit then clearly by their own definition, the incident can't be "obvious" can it, so the refs original decision stands. Also perhaps not allow the reviewers slow motion technology - they can see it several times but only at the speed it happened. And yes, clearly I got the wrong game when I saw this problem on MOTD. It's an old man problem I think!
Given that he's still playing, whatever fan base he still enjoys had better strap themselves in for his behaviour in his retirement years. With no reason to restrict his drinking, nor any need to work to support himself, I foresee a Gazza-like decline in behaviour stretching out ahead of him. It's a shame that he didn't play for Sir Ferguson, he'd have stopped all of this type of.........What's that?............He did?...........Oh well, another myth dies!
His being busted for drink driving shortly after joining Everton being another example (of his Croxteth roots resurfacing, not him being outside the sphere of influence of a club who can have negative stories about their players spiked...)
Given Chelsea's record of paying off those youngsters that their employees abuse, the lad should be receiving a well-stuffed brown envelope any day now... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-46775523 ...unless he's Jewish, of course.
Shocking behaviour by Chelski stewards and police. Hope the lad is not discouraged and carries on his work. Would be a positive action for Spurs to invite him to do this at the new ground even though unlikely to be playing Forest for a while.
Liverpool have named a very weakened side for the cup game tonight, where as Wolves are pretty much at full strength. Upset on the cards?
