The technology is there and it should be used, it’s nonsensical to have huge decisions that affect a clubs future decided by an incompetent referee.
How it’s used and how often is a different matter.
I like the system adopted in Cricket and Tennis with limited reviews based on the players and managers choice. That means the game can flow and you still get fair play.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Debating decisions amongst friends and watching rival managers take different views was all part of the game.
--------
Are you saying that's not happening with VAR?
If anything, there's more emotion and debate now with VAR.
People need to stop moaning about VAR
VAR is great.
Football does flow, most of the time. No less than it did before when you had the surrounding the ref arguing the decision which they know is pointless now.
With the stats saying that most games pass without VAR even being used, 70% in fact and that only 54 seconds in average is taken, I think this ruining the flow nonsense has been proven incorrect, especially when you take into account the VAR check is happening whilst the celebration is going on and when players would otherwise be crowding around the referee arguing the decision. Youd think all that would take up the 54 seconds, which of course will be improved upon as VAR is perfected.
Times have moved forward and football has finally joined them.
Top of the league, cheers VAR.
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 1 minute ago
The technology is there and it should be used, it’s nonsensical to have huge decisions that affect a clubs future decided by an incompetent referee.
How it’s used and how often is a different matter.
I like the system adopted in Cricket and Tennis with limited reviews based on the players and managers choice. That means the game can flow and you still get fair play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you give the choice, it will be used. Say you give three decisions each. Six will be used every game. That slows the game down. Only 30% of games have used VAR, up to the last report on it.
It's not flow nonsense it's flow fact. There will be more stoppages as time goes by.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 seconds ago
It's not flow nonsense it's flow fact. There will be more stoppages as time goes by.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't. Have you ran the stats? So only 30% 9f games have the flow 'ruined'. The average decision takes 54 seconds. Now can you tell me that the celebration, crowding and arguing with the ref etc doesnt take around that time? We know that for a goal, referees add on 30 seconds for the celebration, so can you tell me the crowding of the ref and the arguments take less than 24 seconds?
It's been proven as nonsense. There will be less stoppages as time goes by as they will become better at it.
the rules are changing to help var be speedy.
this rule of any handball irrespective of accident is just that. the rules are clear, no city goal.and it IS clear and obvious handball under said rule
debate the rule not the var.
simples.
btw.. this celebration excuse.
rubbish. 90% will be fine, rugby shows how you can celebrate a try and how a ref who mans up and awards what he sees males it all much quicker.
award the goal, celebrate and maybe 2 or 3 a season might be chalked off.
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 0 seconds ago
btw.. this celebration excuse.
rubbish. 90% will be fine, rugby shows how you can celebrate a try and how a ref who mans up and awards what he sees males it all much quicker.
award the goal, celebrate and maybe 2 or 3 a season might be chalked off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. I mean what idiot is not going to celebrate a goal because he thinks VAR may call it back when it happens in such a tiny minority of cases?
It’s how it’s being implemented.
I wonder if the anonymous person who made yesterday’s decision would have swore on the lives of his children that the ball had hit Laportes arm and not a Spurs defenders.
I’ve awatched a dozen times and I’m not convinced
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 16 minutes ago
Debating decisions amongst friends and watching rival managers take different views was all part of the game.
--------
Are you saying that's not happening with VAR?
If anything, there's more emotion and debate now with VAR.
People need to stop moaning about VAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is but in a different way.
For example....
“He was well onside”
“No VAR shows he was off by one millimetre”
“Oh..... my round then lads”
Admin - any chance of the site using polls?
VAR have made the game more fair. Last year Cardiff lost 3 points because the lines men couldnt spot an offside when Chelsea scored.
I've never said the flow is ruined, it's interrupted. Does the wait of 54 seconds include celebrations which will go on anyway. Is the 54 seconds total stoppage or just VAR stoppage?
Players will still surround the ref asking him to refer it. Yesterday they were ready to kick off before VAR was asked for.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 19 seconds ago
I've never said the flow is ruined, it's interrupted. Does the wait of 54 seconds include celebrations which will go on anyway. Is the 54 seconds total stoppage or just VAR stoppage?
Players will still surround the ref asking him to refer it. Yesterday they were ready to kick off before VAR was asked for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It includes the time it takes from the start of the check to the referee making the decision. Considering for goals, this happens during the 30 seconds given for a celebration, you can then count it is 24 seconds on average, lost. Boo hoo. We get a correct decision and we've lost 24 seconds which may have been lost anyhow whilst players argue with the referee.
So we get an increase in correct game, league, relegation changing decisions for the sake of 30% of games having VAR check a decision and it taking 54 seconds on average to check it where 30 is given to the celebration anyhow. I'm all for it and so far it has been great, although I believe Rodri should have had a penalty.
Shane about all the debates in the pub going away though.
Spot on Metro. VAR is shocking. The only ones who love it are spurs and some Liverpool fans so far. Everyone else is getting facked over
You can’t have it both ways Metro. Either you have a free flowing game full of inaccuracies and injustices - totally reliant on a referee to see everything in a fast paced modern game - or you go for getting MOST of the big calls spot on, but you sacrifice the free flowing element of the game.
Personally I don’t want to go back to the feeling of being robbed over awful refereeing decisions. Yes I disagree with the new handball law - but by the letter of the law last nights decision was right. Much as it pains me to say it
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 1 minute ago
The technology is there and it should be used, it’s nonsensical to have huge decisions that affect a clubs future decided by an incompetent referee.
How it’s used and how often is a different matter.
I like the system adopted in Cricket and Tennis with limited reviews based on the players and managers choice. That means the game can flow and you still get fair play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you give the choice, it will be used. Say you give three decisions each. Six will be used every game. That slows the game down. Only 30% of games have used VAR, up to the last report on it.
—-
A limited amount of reviews mean the team/player using them know not to review everything, but the stats on VAR use are very encouraging.
I think the technology is here to stay and quite rightly so.
comment by Tomkins (U1116)
posted 2 minutes ago
Spot on Metro. VAR is shocking. The only ones who love it are spurs and some Liverpool fans so far. Everyone else is getting facked over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By facked over, you mean not being given illegal goals?
Shocking.
No, that is not what I mean at all. They are trying to find the smallest reasons possible as to why they can disallow a goal now
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 5 minutes ago
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 1 minute ago
The technology is there and it should be used, it’s nonsensical to have huge decisions that affect a clubs future decided by an incompetent referee.
How it’s used and how often is a different matter.
I like the system adopted in Cricket and Tennis with limited reviews based on the players and managers choice. That means the game can flow and you still get fair play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you give the choice, it will be used. Say you give three decisions each. Six will be used every game. That slows the game down. Only 30% of games have used VAR, up to the last report on it.
—-
A limited amount of reviews mean the team/player using them know not to review everything, but the stats on VAR use are very encouraging.
I think the technology is here to stay and quite rightly so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no. It would mean 6 checks a game. Have you watched managers on the sidelines? You think they won't use all changes they get to have a check, considering they can't view the game as well as the referee who is standing close to the play?
If it's only used in 30% of games, there is no need to look at how many uses there are and the suggestion to give managers a set number of checks, would therefore only increase its usage.
comment by Tomkins (U1116)
posted 49 seconds ago
No, that is not what I mean at all. They are trying to find the smallest reasons possible as to why they can disallow a goal now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they aren't. The laws set the reasons not VAR. VAR inky checks if the referee has made a mistake.
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR IS The Issue
Page 1 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 18/8/19
The technology is there and it should be used, it’s nonsensical to have huge decisions that affect a clubs future decided by an incompetent referee.
How it’s used and how often is a different matter.
I like the system adopted in Cricket and Tennis with limited reviews based on the players and managers choice. That means the game can flow and you still get fair play.
posted on 18/8/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/8/19
Debating decisions amongst friends and watching rival managers take different views was all part of the game.
--------
Are you saying that's not happening with VAR?
If anything, there's more emotion and debate now with VAR.
People need to stop moaning about VAR
posted on 18/8/19
VAR is great.
Football does flow, most of the time. No less than it did before when you had the surrounding the ref arguing the decision which they know is pointless now.
With the stats saying that most games pass without VAR even being used, 70% in fact and that only 54 seconds in average is taken, I think this ruining the flow nonsense has been proven incorrect, especially when you take into account the VAR check is happening whilst the celebration is going on and when players would otherwise be crowding around the referee arguing the decision. Youd think all that would take up the 54 seconds, which of course will be improved upon as VAR is perfected.
Times have moved forward and football has finally joined them.
Top of the league, cheers VAR.
posted on 18/8/19
I'm with the OP.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 1 minute ago
The technology is there and it should be used, it’s nonsensical to have huge decisions that affect a clubs future decided by an incompetent referee.
How it’s used and how often is a different matter.
I like the system adopted in Cricket and Tennis with limited reviews based on the players and managers choice. That means the game can flow and you still get fair play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you give the choice, it will be used. Say you give three decisions each. Six will be used every game. That slows the game down. Only 30% of games have used VAR, up to the last report on it.
posted on 18/8/19
It's not flow nonsense it's flow fact. There will be more stoppages as time goes by.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 seconds ago
It's not flow nonsense it's flow fact. There will be more stoppages as time goes by.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't. Have you ran the stats? So only 30% 9f games have the flow 'ruined'. The average decision takes 54 seconds. Now can you tell me that the celebration, crowding and arguing with the ref etc doesnt take around that time? We know that for a goal, referees add on 30 seconds for the celebration, so can you tell me the crowding of the ref and the arguments take less than 24 seconds?
It's been proven as nonsense. There will be less stoppages as time goes by as they will become better at it.
posted on 18/8/19
the rules are changing to help var be speedy.
this rule of any handball irrespective of accident is just that. the rules are clear, no city goal.and it IS clear and obvious handball under said rule
debate the rule not the var.
simples.
posted on 18/8/19
btw.. this celebration excuse.
rubbish. 90% will be fine, rugby shows how you can celebrate a try and how a ref who mans up and awards what he sees males it all much quicker.
award the goal, celebrate and maybe 2 or 3 a season might be chalked off.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 0 seconds ago
btw.. this celebration excuse.
rubbish. 90% will be fine, rugby shows how you can celebrate a try and how a ref who mans up and awards what he sees males it all much quicker.
award the goal, celebrate and maybe 2 or 3 a season might be chalked off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. I mean what idiot is not going to celebrate a goal because he thinks VAR may call it back when it happens in such a tiny minority of cases?
posted on 18/8/19
It’s how it’s being implemented.
I wonder if the anonymous person who made yesterday’s decision would have swore on the lives of his children that the ball had hit Laportes arm and not a Spurs defenders.
I’ve awatched a dozen times and I’m not convinced
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 16 minutes ago
Debating decisions amongst friends and watching rival managers take different views was all part of the game.
--------
Are you saying that's not happening with VAR?
If anything, there's more emotion and debate now with VAR.
People need to stop moaning about VAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is but in a different way.
For example....
“He was well onside”
“No VAR shows he was off by one millimetre”
“Oh..... my round then lads”
posted on 18/8/19
Admin - any chance of the site using polls?
posted on 18/8/19
VAR have made the game more fair. Last year Cardiff lost 3 points because the lines men couldnt spot an offside when Chelsea scored.
posted on 18/8/19
I've never said the flow is ruined, it's interrupted. Does the wait of 54 seconds include celebrations which will go on anyway. Is the 54 seconds total stoppage or just VAR stoppage?
Players will still surround the ref asking him to refer it. Yesterday they were ready to kick off before VAR was asked for.
posted on 18/8/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/8/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 19 seconds ago
I've never said the flow is ruined, it's interrupted. Does the wait of 54 seconds include celebrations which will go on anyway. Is the 54 seconds total stoppage or just VAR stoppage?
Players will still surround the ref asking him to refer it. Yesterday they were ready to kick off before VAR was asked for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It includes the time it takes from the start of the check to the referee making the decision. Considering for goals, this happens during the 30 seconds given for a celebration, you can then count it is 24 seconds on average, lost. Boo hoo. We get a correct decision and we've lost 24 seconds which may have been lost anyhow whilst players argue with the referee.
So we get an increase in correct game, league, relegation changing decisions for the sake of 30% of games having VAR check a decision and it taking 54 seconds on average to check it where 30 is given to the celebration anyhow. I'm all for it and so far it has been great, although I believe Rodri should have had a penalty.
Shane about all the debates in the pub going away though.
posted on 18/8/19
Spot on Metro. VAR is shocking. The only ones who love it are spurs and some Liverpool fans so far. Everyone else is getting facked over
posted on 18/8/19
You can’t have it both ways Metro. Either you have a free flowing game full of inaccuracies and injustices - totally reliant on a referee to see everything in a fast paced modern game - or you go for getting MOST of the big calls spot on, but you sacrifice the free flowing element of the game.
Personally I don’t want to go back to the feeling of being robbed over awful refereeing decisions. Yes I disagree with the new handball law - but by the letter of the law last nights decision was right. Much as it pains me to say it
posted on 18/8/19
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 1 minute ago
The technology is there and it should be used, it’s nonsensical to have huge decisions that affect a clubs future decided by an incompetent referee.
How it’s used and how often is a different matter.
I like the system adopted in Cricket and Tennis with limited reviews based on the players and managers choice. That means the game can flow and you still get fair play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you give the choice, it will be used. Say you give three decisions each. Six will be used every game. That slows the game down. Only 30% of games have used VAR, up to the last report on it.
—-
A limited amount of reviews mean the team/player using them know not to review everything, but the stats on VAR use are very encouraging.
I think the technology is here to stay and quite rightly so.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Tomkins (U1116)
posted 2 minutes ago
Spot on Metro. VAR is shocking. The only ones who love it are spurs and some Liverpool fans so far. Everyone else is getting facked over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By facked over, you mean not being given illegal goals?
Shocking.
posted on 18/8/19
No, that is not what I mean at all. They are trying to find the smallest reasons possible as to why they can disallow a goal now
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 5 minutes ago
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Aggers Right Elbow (U3402)
posted 1 minute ago
The technology is there and it should be used, it’s nonsensical to have huge decisions that affect a clubs future decided by an incompetent referee.
How it’s used and how often is a different matter.
I like the system adopted in Cricket and Tennis with limited reviews based on the players and managers choice. That means the game can flow and you still get fair play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you give the choice, it will be used. Say you give three decisions each. Six will be used every game. That slows the game down. Only 30% of games have used VAR, up to the last report on it.
—-
A limited amount of reviews mean the team/player using them know not to review everything, but the stats on VAR use are very encouraging.
I think the technology is here to stay and quite rightly so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no. It would mean 6 checks a game. Have you watched managers on the sidelines? You think they won't use all changes they get to have a check, considering they can't view the game as well as the referee who is standing close to the play?
If it's only used in 30% of games, there is no need to look at how many uses there are and the suggestion to give managers a set number of checks, would therefore only increase its usage.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Tomkins (U1116)
posted 49 seconds ago
No, that is not what I mean at all. They are trying to find the smallest reasons possible as to why they can disallow a goal now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they aren't. The laws set the reasons not VAR. VAR inky checks if the referee has made a mistake.
Page 1 of 8
6 | 7 | 8