UEFA have told referees to give pens for pretty much any handball. So blame UEFA, not the actual referees.
I basically support the English coefficient being maximised each year. As minuscule a chance as Saints have of ever qualifying, we'd have even less if there weren't four spots available. However, there is one exception - I cannot apply that rule to Spurs. I actually always support their opponents in Europe. Liverpool also push it for me the last few years, but I'm in favour of them staying a bit longer, so they can spread their workload across two tournaments and decrease their chance of winning either.
The closest precedent I can recall is the CL-winning Chelsea side under Roberto Di Matteo. They have that feeling about them, for a number of reasons. Saying that, I don't think they will win the CL. PSG were seriously lackadaisical and profligate in front of goal, and it's unlikely anyone will face an opponent like that over the remainder of the tournament.
Rennes 3 v Arsenal 1. I have just had a look where Rennes are in Ligue 1. 10th. Say what you want but that was not good from Arsenal, and it is slightly optimisitic to think they will overturn that déficit.
Chelsea on the other hand are looking good to progress. Would be kind of ironic if Sarri delivers the EL for them after the horror show in February. Having said that, there are several dangerous opponents lying in wait - possibly Napoli!! Surprise result has to be Villareal winning 3-1 away to Zenit as said Spanish team are in the La Liga´s bottom 3!!!
“The bloke at UEFA’s a W4nker” just doesn’t have the same ring to it, so sorry, the referee still gets it
There have been numerous offside goals correctly disallowed and I'm sure over time as more games use it there will be far more decisions that are made correctly using it than incorrectly. You will still have contentious decisions, but far less than you do without VAR. It really is in its infancy and to write it off now just seems stupid to me
No one against var has ever disputed that it will get some decisions right, it's all the stuff that comes with it that's the issue. But even ignoring those for now, my point is var was sold to people as 'never will a team be relegated or lose a cup final on a bad decision again' when that's not strictly true isit? I suppose If we're relegated by a horrendous decision then it will be easier to take because 5 blokes have spent 3/4 minutes looking at it to still come to the wrong decision then people won't mind If I decided to trial cutting off one of my toe's a day, it wouldn't take until I was toeless to realise it's a bad idea.
I don't remember anyone ever saying that. Anyone who thought it will eradicate every bad decision or diving or whatever is deluded. But it will massively help with correcting terrible decisions that were made on a pretty regular basis pre VAR. I guess the argument is whether or not you want all the other stuff that comes with VAR vs regular bad decisions that VAR could help stop. The delays in game are an issue currently, I think that is just a teething issue but may be proven wrong as time goes on. The not celebrating a goal thing I don't agree with as I've explained to you before that people will be caught up in the moment when the ball goes in. It is pretty obvious what the benefits of VAR are, it just needs to be utilised better which hopefully will happen.
Really? Not sure how you've managed that, it's pretty much the stock argument that there's too much money in the game now for teams to be effected by poor decisions etc. The problem is, once you realise that the improvement won't be vast and that teams will still have terrible season defining decisions go against them then the argument for it falls down a bit when you take into account all of the other bits as well. And you're right that a lot of people are deluded, admittedly you're not like it as you're willing to discuss the various aspects of it and have proper discussion about it rather than shouting 'BUT IT WILL GET SOME THINGS RIGHT' repeatedly like a deluded simpleton. Those people may be less now (because they've seen it in action) but I bet if you went back 3 years most of the advocates of it would be saying it or something similar, and it's a bit silly to deny those people exist.
Well yeah there is too much money in the game for the amount of decisions that are gotten wrong when there is a relatively easy fix for a lot of them with VAR. I thought you meant that people were saying that EVERY decision would be right when VAR came in and no team would ever be ****ed over again, which I haven't heard anyone say. I guess it depends on what you consider vast. The sample size is far too small to write it off just yet. I'd give it at least a couple more years with the refs having intensive training on using it with a panel of football "experts" (probably just be a room full of refs who have never done anything in the game and Chris Sutton) and see how it is then. As I said before the simple fact is that VAR will eradicate blatant errors by officials which were popping up regularly, surely that is a good thing? Yes there will still be some mistakes but nowhere near as many as without it, so I am fully for it. I think we are just going in circles anyway, it's here to stay for now so you can tag me in a years time when it's turned out to be utter gash and can attempt to wum me.
Yeah think we are mate, we'll agree to disagree. And don't worry I will, as I'm sure you will every time we benefit
It's obvious now that VAR was never going to end the debates about decisions. You guys can't get enough of wibbling about referees.
Did anyone see this jump into the unknown celebration?!: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/47508257