VAR

802 posts
User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11220
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: VAR

by Old Man Andrews » 04 Nov 2019 11:04

Sanguine I'm giving you my opinion. The only 'classic' here is your condescension. You took a break last time you couldn't help keep putting people in their place here. Consider another if that's your schtick again.

I am giving my opinion, there is no difference.

User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11220
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: VAR

by Old Man Andrews » 04 Nov 2019 11:05

stealthpapes The wording is "careless, reckless or using excessive force".

I think it is really not hard to imagine a ref reassessing the amount of force involved.

FWIW, I think Aurier's follow-up tackle definately should have been punished - reckless/careless don't begin to sum it up.

Agree on Aurier, I thought that was a straight red as soon as I saw it. When I saw Atkinson with red card in hand I assumed it was for Aurier.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12073
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 04 Nov 2019 11:05

Old Man Andrews
Sanguine I'm giving you my opinion. The only 'classic' here is your condescension. You took a break last time you couldn't help keep putting people in their place here. Consider another if that's your schtick again.

I am giving my opinion, there is no difference.


You're choosing to insult me. That's another thing entirely. Wind it in, ffs. As URZZ says, it's totally unnecessary.

User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11220
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: VAR

by Old Man Andrews » 04 Nov 2019 11:07

Sanguine
Old Man Andrews
Sanguine I'm giving you my opinion. The only 'classic' here is your condescension. You took a break last time you couldn't help keep putting people in their place here. Consider another if that's your schtick again.

I am giving my opinion, there is no difference.


You're choosing to insult me. That's another thing entirely. Wind it in, ffs. As URZZ says, it's totally unnecessary.

Where did I insult you? By saying you were talking bollocks?

If you look back you'll see that you implied I didn't know the laws of the game, think the only condescending person here is you. I just disagreed with your view and stated why.

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6688
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: VAR

by stealthpapes » 04 Nov 2019 11:08

tmesis
Hoop Blah As predicted, VAR isn't really solving any of the issues video technology was supposed to address.

At the same time it's created it's own issues, slowed down the game at times, impacted on the way referees appear to be making decisions, and it's starting to have a negative effect on the joy of watching a game.

I was in favour of VAR at first, but I think it's having a very negative impact on the game. All it seems to be used for is to rule out goals because a player was half an inch offside.


On this front, it is because there's been a very large shift in the benefit of the doubt back towards defenders. VAR allows for the positions at the moment of the pass to be compared and, if any part of the body that can be used to score is ahead, then its offside.

The staus quo ante was not as tight - it couldn't hope to be. In fact, the old 'daylight' comment was never a rule, it was guidance to linesmen to help them make the calls in an increasingly fast paced game.

The rule is now being implemented perfectly correctly. We're just used to it being implemented somewhat slackly.


Sanguine
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12073
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 04 Nov 2019 11:28

Old Man Andrews
Sanguine
Old Man Andrews I am giving my opinion, there is no difference.


You're choosing to insult me. That's another thing entirely. Wind it in, ffs. As URZZ says, it's totally unnecessary.

Where did I insult you? By saying you were talking bollocks?

If you look back you'll see that you implied I didn't know the laws of the game, think the only condescending person here is you. I just disagreed with your view and stated why.


In your derogatory paragraph about 'everyone agrees with me nah nah nah nah naaaaah nah, classic Sanguine.'

You turn every debate into this base bollocks, OMA, it's pathetic. Have another rest.

Victor Meldrew
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6565
Joined: 12 Apr 2005 19:22
Location: South Coast

Re: VAR

by Victor Meldrew » 04 Nov 2019 11:29

URZZZZ Can someone explain how Everton didn't get a penalty today when Alli handballed it? Thanks


It does seem as though Spurs benefit more than most from VAR.
Ali yesterday,
Ali the other week
The semi-final of the Champs League v City.

I'm with sanguine on this topic-VAR is here to stay but the refs both on the pitch and those reviewing need to be more closely allied.
If, as suggested in the studio yesterday, refs are advised NOT to check the screen replay themselves at the ground because it slows the game down too much that is just wrong.
The Son penalty query took 3 minutes and surely wouldn't have taken any longer if Atkinson had gone over to see the replay for himself.

If there had not been the stoppage for the injury yesterday added time would have been about 6 minutes in the second half covering the 2 penalty queries and 6 (?) subs which I think is acceptable if we are going to get more correct decisions, either from naked eye or from replays.

Liverpool suffered from a poor decision v Villa but we have to hope that decisions even out over a season and that Spurs don't get all the luck.

User avatar
genome
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 17709
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 13:29
Location: Universe

Re: VAR

by genome » 04 Nov 2019 11:31

You should see the shocker he's having on the F1 thread

User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11220
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: VAR

by Old Man Andrews » 04 Nov 2019 11:40

Sanguine
Old Man Andrews
Sanguine
You're choosing to insult me. That's another thing entirely. Wind it in, ffs. As URZZ says, it's totally unnecessary.

Where did I insult you? By saying you were talking bollocks?

If you look back you'll see that you implied I didn't know the laws of the game, think the only condescending person here is you. I just disagreed with your view and stated why.


In your derogatory paragraph about 'everyone agrees with me nah nah nah nah naaaaah nah, classic Sanguine.'

You turn every debate into this base bollocks, OMA, it's pathetic. Have another rest.

But it is a fact, have a look at the opinions by people far more qualified than either of us when it comes to football. Not one person I have seen thinks Son should have been red carded. I know you hate being wrong but you can't dispute public opinion is very much against you.


User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11220
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: VAR

by Old Man Andrews » 04 Nov 2019 11:44

If Spurs are successful in their appeal will you concede you are wrong Sanguine?

User avatar
paultheroyal
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 9165
Joined: 04 Mar 2005 12:59
Location: Hob Nob Reality TV Champ 2010/2011

Re: VAR

by paultheroyal » 04 Nov 2019 11:49

Just get Var back to basics.

A matter of fact.

Was the ball over the line. Was the foul inside the box, Was he offside.

Leave the rest to the referee, wrong or right - pretty much been that way since 1845.

User avatar
genome
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 17709
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 13:29
Location: Universe

Re: VAR

by genome » 04 Nov 2019 11:50

Old Man Andrews If Spurs are successful in their appeal will you concede you are wrong Sanguine?


Absolutely no chance will it get overturned, not sure it's a good look for the FA to be overturning red cards for leg breaks, whether right or not

User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11220
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: VAR

by Old Man Andrews » 04 Nov 2019 11:51

paultheroyal Just get Var back to basics.

A matter of fact.

Was the ball over the line. Was the foul inside the box, Was he offside.

Leave the rest to the referee, wrong or right - pretty much been that way since 1845.

Yep this. It just has to be for the black and white stuff in football. Opinions shouldn't come into it because all referees are different.


User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11220
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: VAR

by Old Man Andrews » 04 Nov 2019 11:51

genome
Old Man Andrews If Spurs are successful in their appeal will you concede you are wrong Sanguine?


Absolutely no chance will it get overturned, not sure it's a good look for the FA to be overturning red cards for leg breaks, whether right or not

The Son tackle didn't break his leg.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12073
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 04 Nov 2019 11:58

Old Man Andrews
Sanguine
Old Man Andrews Where did I insult you? By saying you were talking bollocks?

If you look back you'll see that you implied I didn't know the laws of the game, think the only condescending person here is you. I just disagreed with your view and stated why.


In your derogatory paragraph about 'everyone agrees with me nah nah nah nah naaaaah nah, classic Sanguine.'

You turn every debate into this base bollocks, OMA, it's pathetic. Have another rest.

But it is a fact, have a look at the opinions by people far more qualified than either of us when it comes to football. Not one person I have seen thinks Son should have been red carded. I know you hate being wrong but you can't dispute public opinion is very much against you.


I didn't try to.

Victor Meldrew
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6565
Joined: 12 Apr 2005 19:22
Location: South Coast

Re: VAR

by Victor Meldrew » 04 Nov 2019 12:32

I noticed that Aurier was praying quite a lot after the incident-I wonder if it was for the injured player or for himself not to be punished.
As he didn't even get a yellow maybe God is on Spurs' side as well.

User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11220
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: VAR

by Old Man Andrews » 04 Nov 2019 12:36

Victor Meldrew I noticed that Aurier was praying quite a lot after the incident-I wonder if it was for the injured player or for himself not to be punished.
As he didn't even get a yellow maybe God is on Spurs' side as well.

Yep agreed Vic, Aurier has got away with his lunge completely.

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6688
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: VAR

by stealthpapes » 04 Nov 2019 13:33

Old Man Andrews But it is a fact, have a look at the opinions by people far more qualified than either of us when it comes to football. Not one person I have seen thinks Son should have been red carded. I know you hate being wrong but you can't dispute public opinion is very much against you.


Without wanting a fight or to be seen interjecting, this is quite a weak argument. The one thing I've seen from 'people far more qualified' i.e. ex players is that they really, actually, don't know what the rules are.

User avatar
stealthpapes
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6688
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 13:25
Location: proverbs 26:11

Re: VAR

by stealthpapes » 04 Nov 2019 13:37

I think this is also where at least half the nonsense of VAR is coming from. People who do not actually know the rules being given the position to spout, well, utter nonsense.

There is also a lot to learn from rugby - watch anything going to the video ref there and it is framed as a clear 'yes or no' question; "On field judgment is a goal, is there anything about XXX that would rule it out"?

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 9635
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: VAR

by Snowflake Royal » 04 Nov 2019 18:16

Sanguine
Old Man Andrews
Sanguine
In your derogatory paragraph about 'everyone agrees with me nah nah nah nah naaaaah nah, classic Sanguine.'

You turn every debate into this base bollocks, OMA, it's pathetic. Have another rest.

But it is a fact, have a look at the opinions by people far more qualified than either of us when it comes to football. Not one person I have seen thinks Son should have been red carded. I know you hate being wrong but you can't dispute public opinion is very much against you.


I didn't try to.

Firstly, I haven't seen the incident and I have no intention of watching it having heard about it at work today.

I have some sympathy with OMA's argument that you shouldn't select the penalty based on severity of injury. You can have a not particularly bad tackle (not very reckless, excessive force etc) and it can lead to a horrendous injury still.

But equally, the ref has every right to reassess their decision as they understand more about what has happened.

Without seeing the actual incident, which I have no intention of doing, I couldn't say whether it wasn't that bad a tackle and then a freak accident and so not worthy of a red, or a tackle that did endanger the opponent enough to be worthy of red.

The fact it was a horrendous leg break doesn't make it an automatic red, in my understanding of the laws, although I'd suggest most leg breaks would, by their nature, fall into the red category.

Anyway, regardless of who is right, I do agree with Sangers there's really no need for OMA to be such an arse about it, and he comes across really badly... increasingly so recently. Generally speaking, if your go to response is "you're showing you know nothing about football again" or similar, you probably want to check your attitude a bit.

802 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

It is currently 12 Dec 2019 10:37