The var thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Still feels subjective, still feels like it can go either way. Still feels like it will lean towards the biggest clubs.
But...................I am so pleased we benefited from the first game where it played a key part. I've been haunted by thoughts of us having a couple of goals disallowed because of some real bizarre inconsequential stages of play. I have to remind myself VAR hasn't been implemented to upset me, well not just me! <laugh>
 
With the city and spurs non-penalties today (which imo should have both been given), would VAR have overruled the penalty decision?

In my opinion, if the ref had given either of those, they still would have stood. Which makes VAR pointless as it's up to the ref anyway.
 
Penalties are often a matter of opinion....haven't seen the incidents being discussed, but most penalty decisions divide the fan base. Therefore, VAR is only being used for clear and obvious errors so as not to undermine the ref on the field. I don't know how it works, but for penalty decisions I think different angles should be looked at, but not in slo-mo which exaggerates things and produces distortion. Anyone who has seen low catches in cricket will understand that.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
Penalties are often a matter of opinion....haven't seen the incidents being discussed, but most penalty decisions divide the fan base. Therefore, VAR is only being used for clear and obvious errors so as not to undermine the ref on the field. I don't know how it works, but for penalty decisions I think different angles should be looked at, but not in slo-mo which exaggerates things and produces distortion. Anyone who has seen low catches in cricket will understand that.
Click to expand...

The spurs one to me was clear and obvious. If it wasn’t given for saints I would be fuming
 
  • Like
Reactions: fran-MLs little camera and Osvaldorama
tomw24 said:
Seen the Kane incident. Not enough in that to overturn the on field decision for me.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, it's absolutely vital that we stick to the clear and obvious mantra.


Well except for offsides of course which we'll analyse to the furthest forward hair particle even if it takes an hour.

Oh and except for handballs in the box* where any touch is an instant foul*.

*But only for the attacking team, if it strikes a defenders arm then it will have to be looked at again and judged by a different set of rules.

VAR was obviously bought in for the absolute howlers, and this is shown by some aspects of the game being completely re-refereed, and others where we're too afraid to overturn the referees original decision, or even make one that the refs missed.




Clear? Obvious? Not ****ing really.
 
Libby said:
Oh yeah, it's absolutely vital that we stick to the clear and obvious mantra.


Well except for offsides of course which we'll analyse to the furthest forward hair particle even if it takes an hour.

Oh and except for handballs in the box* where any touch is an instant foul*.

*But only for the attacking team, if it strikes a defenders arm then it will have to be looked at again and judged by a different set of rules.

VAR was obviously bought in for the absolute howlers, and this is shown by some aspects of the game being completely re-refereed, and others where we're too afraid to overturn the referees original decision, or even make one that the refs missed.




Clear? Obvious? Not ****ing really.
Click to expand...
Again, it's not VAR, it's the rules. For the disallowed Man City goal last week, the ball hit a City arm so it HAD to be disallowed - no leeway in that whatsoever. The only incident that I think VAR got wrong was the penalty appeal for City today. I thought that was clear enough to award a pen. As for offside, it doesn't matter how tight it is, if it's offside it's offside. Again, no leeway with that.
 
tomw24 said:
Again, it's not VAR, it's the rules. For the disallowed Man City goal last week, the ball hit a City arm so it HAD to be disallowed - no leeway in that whatsoever. The only incident that I think VAR got wrong was the penalty appeal for City today. I thought that was clear enough to award a pen. As for offside, it doesn't matter how tight it is, if it's offside it's offside. Again, no leeway with that.
Click to expand...

The handball thing yes but the rest of the my point isn't rules but var itself, it's being overused in some areas and not used correctly in others.

City had a blatant pen turned down last week as well btw, from a corner too which the ref wasn't looking at.

Did any ref decisions get overturned this weekend? If not that's 30 matches without a single referee decision being overturned.
 
Libby said:
The handball thing yes but the rest of the my point isn't rules but var itself, it's being overused in some areas and not used correctly in others.

City had a blatant pen turned down last week as well btw, from a corner too which the ref wasn't looking at.

Did any ref decisions get overturned this weekend? If not that's 30 matches without a single referee decision being overturned.
Click to expand...
Martin Atkinson awarded a goal that was overturned for a foul in the Norwich v Chelsea game.
 
tomw24 said:
Martin Atkinson awarded a goal that was overturned for a foul in the Norwich v Chelsea game.
Click to expand...

Cheers, was that an overturn though as in the ref saw the incident and decided no foul, or was it something that the ref missed in the build up n var picked up?

Genuinely asking as not seen any highlights from yesterday except ours.
 
Osvaldorama said:
What makes you say that? Honest question... both the guys legs were swept before he could shoot
Click to expand...
The defender slipped. Any contact can be seen as entirely unintentional. It could have been a pen but I don't think you can overturn the on field decision. The Man City one however should have been given by VAR.
 
tomw24 said:
The defender slipped. Any contact can be seen as entirely unintentional. It could have been a pen but I don't think you can overturn the on field decision. The Man City one however should have been given by VAR.
Click to expand...

So in the law, a foul in the box has to be intentional for it to be a penalty?

I'm shocked at that. I thought it just had to be a denial of a goal scoring opportunity
 
Osvaldorama said:
So in the law, a foul in the box has to be intentional for it to be a penalty?

I'm shocked at that. I thought it just had to be a denial of a goal scoring opportunity
Click to expand...

Anything that 'impedes an opponent with contact' is a foul according to the FA's website.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back