VAR if used properly should be a good thing. It is ok I think if there is a decision made or not made which is clearly wrong. It need not involve the Ref either. There is president in other sports for somebody to be somewhere else and looking at a screen. Works in Rugby and in Cricket. There have been one or two glaring misses so far in the World Cup. There have also been a couple of howlers in my opinion given when they should not have been. One of these the Ref actually went to a screen nearest him and then made the wrong decision even though he got the first one right. Classic if you are anti VAR in the first place. Lets face it though, if the players did not cheat in the first place then VAR would never have been thought about. If teams get the wrong end of one of these decisions then they only have themselves to blame for giving birth to the monster in the first place. There again that would need an element of sportsmanship and that word has disappeared from the dictionary and life in general. The Swiss goal was the result of a foul. The Ref even gave numerous free kicks in the middle of the park for the same thing yet a push in the box when a goal is scored is somehow different. Soft decision yes it is but in the interests of consistency it has to be given wherever it takes place and no matter how soft it may be. Where was the VAR?
I think the VAR team automatically review all goals, in the Swiss goal the opinion of people differs as to whether it was a foul or not, which doesn't fit the "clear and obvious error" criteria.
How can there be a differing of opinion in this case grumpygit? It is glaringly obvious that the Swiss player had his hands, both of them, in the middle of the Brazilian's back and was clearly levering him forward despite the obvious attempt to stop moving in that direction. You can watch that a thousand times and still that much would be clear. A pundit said it was "not enough" to warrant a free kick. They use the opposite argument when it comes to trips. It appears then that the slightest brush by the tackler is enough to send the person in possession of the ball crashing to the ground and then pundits say you cannot tell how much the contact affected the players momentum. No you can't it's true anymore than you can tell how much pressure in the middle of the back propels a defender forward uncontrollably. VAR showed clearly it was a push. A push is a foul. A foul means a free kick to the one offended against. On a personal level I couldn't care what the score was between the two sides but the above is an opinion that VAR despite being touted as a way of not making balls ups is not as infallible as is being made out.
Just watched the England game. Lets all cheer for VAR and the team doing it. They are wonderful aren't they. Ray Charles with the whistle and Stevie Wonder on the screen. There can be no defence of this crap ever again after that.
Refs never ever made enough mistakes to justify VAR being brought in, and now it has been brought in more mistakes than ever are being made. The officials were never the problem, thats not denying they didn't make mistakes. The biggest problem has been cheating and under VAR this will worsen, the fox in the box watching this World Cup will be thinking i know how i can play the defender and the camera to my benefit. You will see an increase in penalties and cheating will become more rife, unless you are playing for England. And you know the biggest crime in all this, someone in FIFA will have taken massive bribes for this system to be brought in Scrap this monstrosity!
1 It is not supposed to get all the decisions right. 2 It is supposed to reduce the number of howlers but not eliminate all of them (which of course is impossible). 3 The important words are CLEAR AND OBVIOUS with regard to errors. It is not intended to apply the concept of BALANCE OF PROBABILITY. So, if the balance of probability is that the ref is wrong but it is not clear and obvious, then you stick with the ref's decision. These concepts are the basis of case law in most countries. 4 There has to be common sense applied. In reality this means that VAR is only relevant to sendings off, penalties and really important free kicks. It is a massive improvement and it just needs a change in mindset of spectators just as it happened in cricket. Unless you are certain you stick with an umpire's decision and we know video technology cannot always tell if a catch is "clean". Stick with the official in the absence of certainty.
What was clear was Kane was pulled back at lealst twice on corners. They were more of a foul then Walker
For one of the Kane so called penalties, Stones committed a clear and obvious foul a split second before the mishandling of Kane. A VAR intervention would only have resulted in a free kick to Tunisia so correctly they played on. I have not studied the other Kane claim for a penalty but it would not surprise me if there was a valid explanation.
You are a Referee either in your spare time or full time bristol407 and I claim my £5. Only a Ref could find anything to applaud in either of the non decisions. Stones did not foul the player. It is not a foul to put your hands in the back of somebody and lever them forward. The president was set in the Brazil match where a goal was allowed to stand despite the very same thing happening and VAR not finding any fault. Ergo VAR does not consider this a foul.
You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that - two ( or more ) "wrongs" do not make one "right"-- all it creates is more wrongs that need to be rectified . The acceptance of one mistake after another only serves to lower the bar (( pun intended )) in many aspects of life. It doesn't surprise me that many people are in such a mess with their lives -- unfortunately, the consequences of their actions seem to have greatest affect on people who try to play life in a fair way.
VAR is a shambles and for once this old dinosaur is right. He tickled my ankle ref, it made me fall on the ground and roll a couple of times. A strikers delight a defenders nightmare, can't we just go back to knocking lumps out of one another! Could you imagine Charlie Lee in the World Cup...there is a rottweiler on the pitch, they think it's all over, it is now...red card within 10 seconds flat. How did the game survive for a 100 years without technology, give me back the game i love and stop drawing hand patterns of square boxes.
Can anyone explain to me how 22 players stayed on the pitch in tonight's game Argentina v Croatia? VAR should have had a field day with this one and yet despite loads and loads of over the ball takles and kicks etc not one of them got a red. When it doesn't involve my team I love games like that and watching Maradona cry into his hands was a bonus. Reminded me of the Argentina side of years back when things didn't go well for them and have to say Croatia gave as good as they got.
Just because it wasn't my team doesn't make it "OK". I would have been going mad at the referee if my team's players had been subjected to some of the fouls that took place in the game. I refuse to believe that the officials do not see the cheating that exists - and don't try to say that they have a difficult job -- they've got VAR ! If there is any hope of stopping all the cheating, we must use technology to help the officials. If that means 6 or 7 penalties each game, or 4 or 5 red cards - so be it. I have no problem if my team loses ( other than if they don't give 100% )- but I hate cheating. VAR needs to be used to stop the cheating - including cheating by the referee.
In reality alwaysright I don't care if an Argentinian kicks a Croatian or vice versa though and I did say when it isn't my team involved in the game. A bit of the 1970 style kick em off the pitch games is always a spectacle even if it isn't recognised as sport. Everyone likes to see a cruncher. I agree that the officials should be getting the cards out and where it is a red card then show the red card and don't prat about with yellows or warnings. I think the officials DO see the cheating that exists and it is up to them to do the right thing at the time. They mostly shouldn't need technology to show them but just in case they miss whatever has gone on then it should be relayed in their ear and they should still do the right thing then. I will never defend an official as having a difficult job. They just have a job which often they shy away from doing. They make it difficult themselves. Today with England the Ref finally gave the penalty for the WWF moves. He gave numerous warnings even though the same fouls took place with nothing given. He allowed the wrestling to go on by not taking action even when it was blatant. That's his fault. He also allowed the Panama players to show dissent by messing about delaying the spot kick. He could have stopped it right away by showing a card for the dissent. He didn't and that was his fault. When the second penalty was given they did the same thing all over again. That's because he didn't stop them the first time. Finally he booked somebody. Weak as dishwater. That sort of thing has gone on throughout because all of the Refs are as bad as each other. Time they showed who is in charge and it should not be the players.
sensiblegeeny - there is an expression along the lines of "evil only exists when good people do nothing to fight it." Despite my protests, I do believe that referees have a difficult job at times - but their job would be made easier if they took the appropriate action -- (( as YOU say - in the first place )).
They still can't get this stuff right can they. Seems to me that there are some who are willing and do use VAR whether rightly or wrongly. Then there appears to be those who refuse to use it at all. Those that appear to refuse to refer have managed to not see quite a bit. The controversy would be less if they were all consistent with it's use. Either they are going to have it for every game or not have it at all.
I think the next time a player draws the sign of a square box, he should be given a swift kick in the nuts.
