Match Day Thread General matchday thread.

[luvgonzo]

I don't really see any issue with it. You can not give any benefit for a player turning his back or else everyone wanting to block the ball will just make themselves big and turn their back and use that as a reason for no penalty.

I think for £30k+ wages a week a player should not be turning his back when a shot is aimed at his goal.

The main issue is that refs are not consistant with their decisions and i think something like Lineker said last night that if the ball hits the hand/lower arm anywhere its a free kick/penalty. at least it would be black and white and everyone would know where they stood.

Shots are hard and fast though sometimes it's just unavoidable. If you bring that rule in players will just shoot in the hope of hitting an arm.

 

[Stan]

I am under most circumstances, but in this case it didn’t give a clear answer one way or another.

I guess some decisions will always be subjective, whether they’re given in real time or after a VAR review.

The match official, the VAR official and the BT Sport guest pundit official all said it was a penalty having reviewed it several times.

That’s the point of VAR isn’t it?

Supporters of VAR have to accept the officials’ decisions, even the ones they disagree with otherwise they aren’t really supporters of VAR, they are supporters of more decisions going the way they want them to go.

Personally I think VAR is **** and it wasn’t a penalty but I’ll take it.

 

[NSIS]

So basically the ref makes the mistake via VAR.

You can’t get around it luv. In my opinion, VAR will get it right more times than not; but decisions like last night will always be subjective.

 

[Libby]

As I just said, some decisions will always remain subjective.

Did he deliberately leave his arm there? Did he deliberately block the shot with his arm?

My view was that on balance I would have given the benefit of the doubt to the defender. The ref last night obviously took the contrary view.

Isn't your first line a huge flaw with var's supposedly huge plus point?

I said after the world cup that if we have to have it, then it shouldn't be used for handballs full stop, as any touch will look like a pen when you take it frame by frame.

 

[NSIS]

The match official, the VAR official and the BT Sport guest pundit official all said it was a penalty having reviewed it several times.

That’s the point of VAR isn’t it?

Supporters of VAR have to accept the officials’ decisions, even the ones they disagree with otherwise they aren’t really supporters of VAR, they are supporters of more decisions going the way they want them to go.

Personally I think VAR is **** and it wasn’t a penalty but I’ll take it.

As I say, my personal view was that it was a generous decision.

It obviously revolves around culpability and intention. Only one person knows if there was intent involved and he’s not liable to admit it even if he did intend it.

 

[NSIS]

Isn't your first line a huge flaw with var's supposedly huge plus point?

I said after the world cup that if we have to have it, then it shouldn't be used for handballs full stop, as any touch will look like a pen when you take it frame by frame.

No, not really. Most decisions will be far clearer than that. Unfortunately those revolving around intent will always remain subjective. VAR or no VAR.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Having watched it in slow motion x 1000 he definitely had time to both move his arm and make a toastie.

 

[Stan]

So what’s been proven is that VAR will create controversies and fans of opposition clubs will cry endlessly about perceived injustices despite match officials having the option to review incidents.

Great progress.

 

[Libby]

No, not really. Most decisions will be far clearer than that. Unfortunately those revolving around intent will always remain subjective. VAR or no VAR.

But that doesn't really help the case for var does it? Most people try and sell it that it will give a definite answer in the big decisions in the big games.

If a lot of decisions are subjective, and it's not guaranteed to get the correct one in the big moments, then what's the point of it?

 

[Libby]

So what’s been proven is that VAR will create controversies and fans of opposition clubs will cry endlessly about perceived injustices despite match officials having the option to review incidents.

Great progress.

It means we'll be discussing the football instead of the decisions

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

But that doesn't really help the case for var does it? Most people try and sell it that it will give a definite answer in the big decisions in the big games.

If a lot of decisions are subjective, and it's not guaranteed to get the correct one in the big moments, then what's the point of it?

It’s exciting for telly clappers and Twitter droolers.

 

[NSIS]

But that doesn't really help the case for var does it? Most people try and sell it that it will give a definite answer in the big decisions in the big games.

If a lot of decisions are subjective, and it's not guaranteed to get the correct one in the big moments, then what's the point of it?

I would think that the majority of decisions are not subjective. You’re either offside or you’re not. The ball is either out of play or it’s not. but those involving intent will always be to an extent. Although VAR will often show up far clearer cases of intent.

Incidents like last night’s you could be looked at 1000 times and you’d still get disagreement over the player’s intentions.

 

[pieguts]

But it will get some things right, you're just scared of change, Leicester had a bad decision against them in the 90s etc.

It's because we can't embrace change driven by technology, not because it's ****...

Edit, just read this back and it could be construed that I like VAR. just to be clear it's ****...

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

It's because we can't embrace change driven by technology, not because it's ****...

It’s definitely because it’s ****. Everyone has embraced goal line tech as it makes sense and doesn’t create arbitrary stoppages for a subjective decision.

 

[luvgonzo]

It’s definitely because it’s ****. Everyone has embraced goal line tech as it makes sense and doesn’t create arbitrary stoppages for a subjective decision.

This.

 

[Libby]

I would think that the majority of decisions are not subjective. You’re either offside or you’re not. The ball is either out of play or it’s not. but those involving intent will always be to an extent. Although VAR will often show up far clearer cases of intent.

Incidents like last night’s you could be looked at 1000 times and you’d still get disagreement over the player’s intentions.

Maybe, but even if that is the case most of the huge mistakes var was apparently bought in for are fouls and handball which are subjective as well so you could argue that VAR isn't really going to solve anything while causing a lot of disruption.

 

[hedgeworth]

Shots are hard and fast though sometimes it's just unavoidable. If you bring that rule in players will just shoot in the hope of hitting an arm.

I agree, but if you don't bring it in then defenders will just make themselves big and turn their backs and plead innocence when it hits their arm/hand and leave the ref with or without VAR to make a decision based on his/her view of the rules, so we will have decisions like this constantly.

Any change will be the same for both teams so the attacking team will gain an avantage but both teams can attack. The problem at the moment is some teams get decisions and some don't for the same incident, so simplifying it and getting the same correct decision consistantly is surely better than what we have now?

 

[NSIS]

Maybe, but even if that is the case most of the huge mistakes var was apparently bought in for are fouls and handball which are subjective as well so you could argue that VAR isn't really going to solve anything while causing a lot of disruption.

Disagree again.

I think in the vast majority of situations it will either make the situation very clear. The black and white situations, for instance.

Those decisions, such as penalty ones, it can help to give clarity to the question of intent.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

I agree, but if you don't bring it in then defenders will just make themselves big and turn their backs and plead innocence when it hits their arm/hand and leave the ref with or without VAR to make a decision based on his/her view of the rules, so we will have decisions like this constantly.

Any change will be the same for both teams so the attacking team will gain an avantage but both teams can attack. The problem at the moment is some teams get decisions and some don't for the same incident, so simplifying it and getting the same correct decision consistantly is surely better than what we have now?

Or get the same consistently wrong decision and stop the game for three minutes every time. No more trains home at 5ish. Could be 5:30, 6:00, who knows?

 

[NSIS]

What made last night’s ref decide to review the situation?

Was he alerted by one of his other match officials? Did a Utd player protest?