Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Premier League' started by Libby, Aug 4, 2017.
Then nowt has changed? ... so stop whinging, ya tart
Your last para is spot on ... VAR could, and should, have giveenb Watford a penalty .. IF applied as it should have been ... the ref would only have needed to go to the monitor ... Mike Riley's 'initiative' wholly to blame there ...
I hope Dean Henderson performs well tonight as well.
Double whoosh ... irony is just above coppery in the periodic table, Gimli
it's stopped cheap pens and everyone talking about it... VAR encourages players to stay on their feet and over time it will be good for the game. Players like shearer can suck my balls complaining ! they went looking for pens and it was coached into them ! bad for the game.
I was against VAR before the season started. VAR brings nothing to the game.
"What goes around" ...you muppet
Get a grip mate. If the system isn't going to overturn things like that Watford non penalty decision then it's pointless having the ****ing thing.
Your just pissed off because James is so easily spotted diving...
They need to bin PGMOL entirely and bring in some foreign referees to design a new organisation
PGMOL only judges the correctness of decisions given so not awarding a #nailedon penalty will never be penalised by their self-assessment because there was no decision made
You taking the piss outta us for drawing with watford?
****ing hell Piskie/Hiag ...you gonna bring out the net meme next...
You being against it from the outset is irrelevant.
VAR if used correctly should get the 'right' decision... like it invariably does in Rugby.
It should also present a more even playing field because in watching footie for over 50 years it is apparent that some referees have been inclined to give 'the benefit of doubt' to bigger clubs, particularly on home turf ... VAR should, if used properly, help balance that out because the decision will not be influenced by the crowd ...
... you Muppet.
There was a TMO incident in the England v Australia game where the ref asked the video guys to check a forward pass. They said the pass was legal, the ref watched the same replay on the big screen and said it was clearly forward. They usually get it right in rugby though.
It works in cricket as umpires can't always judge where a ball pitched, hit a pad, whether it got a nick etc.
Doesn't work in football and is definitely taking something out of the game. Maybe use it for offside.
The only logical conclusion is that PGMOL doesn't WANT to make the correct decisions.
Of all the opinions expressed in this discussion, your statement above is quite comfortably the most ridiculous, plastic and all round twattish.
Why the **** they can't adopt the Rugby model is baffling ... the ref is miced up and will often says "The onfield decision is .... can you just check ...." ..it's then all showed on the big screens with everybody in the crowd knowing the score... what's not to like?
It's **** in football, every goal that goes in you start celebrating then check yourself and wait to see if it's going to be disallowed.
Look at our game, if the ref gives your goal and then Mane's it's still 1-1 and on we go instead of all the bullshit checking that just wound players and fans up. I'm not usually so blunt but imo if you like VAR you're a ****ing idiot.
But on this occasion VAR called it spot on.
please log in to view this image
I've 'celebrated' plenty of goals in my time that have then been disallowed ... most often because of a raised lino's flag ... I lived and was not in need of counselling... VAR should not be any different ... anybody who can't see that is a spunk splat ... you are welcome
Generally speaking, I think that var is more popular among tv fans and/or perfectionists, whereas those against are the match going fans and/or purists.
It ultimately comes down to what sort of game we want.
Do we want a game where all the drama revolves around technology, fans are constantly calling for video reviews, and the best moments revolve around waiting some words to appear on a screen?
Or do we want a game where you go along on a Saturday afternoon, sing 'the referees a ****er', and have that sheer burst of adrenaline and joy the moment the ball hits the back of the net?
No brainer for me.
I don't think it's the same mate tbh. The difference now is that because they review every goal that effectively, no goal is a goal until it's recieved the var rubber stamp.
It might not affect you personally in that way but that doesn't mean it's not a genuine concern for a lot of fans.
I assumed you wanted him to throw three in and have a mental breakdown in the six yard box. Thanks for clarifying.