comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is Dead (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
The average football match has about 100 stoppages in it.
Link?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22404095/
No, still not nonsense. Throw ins, goal kicks etc are not stoppages, they are part of the game, and always have been.
VAR referrals are a new introduction, and not part of the game. And there are going to be more and more of them, not the number there are now. They are already calling for managers to have two calls per game, and you know they will be taken up, giving four per game.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is Dead (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
The average football match has about 100 stoppages in it.
Link?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22404095/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting read.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 25 minutes ago
No, still not nonsense. Throw ins, goal kicks etc are not stoppages, they are part of the game, and always have been.
VAR referrals are a new introduction, and not part of the game. And there are going to be more and more of them, not the number there are now. They are already calling for managers to have two calls per game, and you know they will be taken up, giving four per game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are, by definition, stoppages. They are literally ways of re-starting the game when the game stops. There are over 100 in an average game, taking up 30 minutes of time. This is indisputable fact.
Your second point is confused and vague. Yes VAR referrals are now part of the game whether you like them or not. Who are "they" that are calling for challenges to be introduced? I've seen dozens of commenters call for this, all of whom are anti-var and trying to limit its use. The challenge suggestion is pointless and defeats the purpose of VAR.
No, a goal kick, throw in are not stoppages. They are part and parcel of the game.
It's like saying changing end in cricket is a stoppage, it's part of the game.
When there is a VAR referral play does stop and every one has to stand around wondering what the result will be.
Surely you can see a difference.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 6 minutes ago
No, a goal kick, throw in are not stoppages. They are part and parcel of the game.
It's like saying changing end in cricket is a stoppage, it's part of the game.
When there is a VAR referral play does stop and every one has to stand around wondering what the result will be.
Surely you can see a difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are stoppages. The game has literally stopped until play is restarted. They might be part of the game, but so is a VAR review now. Half time is also part of the game but is still a stoppage.
This line of arguing is nonsensical. Football has always had stoppages. The ball is only in play for an average of 60 minutes per game - what do you think is happening when the ball isn't in play? The game has stopped.
No, à goal kick, throw in isn't a stoppage, unless you believe that only kicking the ball counts.
Sorry but your argument is complete nonsense, as people are beginning to see.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
No, à goal kick, throw in isn't a stoppage, unless you believe that only kicking the ball counts.
Sorry but your argument is complete nonsense, as people are beginning to see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. A throw-in or goal kick does stop the fans wondering what's going on. In fact, it's part of the play. It's not a *stop* in the play, like a time out.
They (the throw-ins, goal kicks, etc) most certainly are part of the play.
A 'VAR' *stoppage* is not and only deserves to be in the game for the most extreme of situations such as did the ball go over the line or not.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 8 hours, 56 minutes ago
No, à goal kick, throw in isn't a stoppage, unless you believe that only kicking the ball counts.
Sorry but your argument is complete nonsense, as people are beginning to see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your first sentence is incomplete. You accuse others of complete nonsense whilst writing sentences that are literally nonsense.
Of course they are stoppages. They are breaks in play. This is why you can make a substitution only during one of these times and not when the play is ongoing. This is also why, when referees play advantage, they wait until one if these moments to go back and make a booming or give a warning.
You might be confused because it isn't an unnatural stoppage and so doesn't add onto stoppage time at the end of a half. This doesn't mean play hasn't stopped.
If you dribble the ball over the touchline, you can't just continue running with it and let play carry on. The ref blows the whistle and makes you stop.
comment by Eighties Glory Years (U22086)
posted 8 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
No, à goal kick, throw in isn't a stoppage, unless you believe that only kicking the ball counts.
Sorry but your argument is complete nonsense, as people are beginning to see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. A throw-in or goal kick does stop the fans wondering what's going on. In fact, it's part of the play. It's not a *stop* in the play, like a time out.
They (the throw-ins, goal kicks, etc) most certainly are part of the play.
A 'VAR' *stoppage* is not and only deserves to be in the game for the most extreme of situations such as did the ball go over the line or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but a penalty or a goal disallowed (before VAR) might make a fan unsure of what is going on. Does that mean penalties are not part of play? I think defining part of play as a time when a fan is 100% sure what is going on is not helpful.
These things are stops in play. Play has to stop for them to happen. If you dribble the ball over the touchline and then start sprinting down the wing, does play carry on? Or are you made to stop playing and let the other team have a throw in? The ref has literally stopped play. There are over 100 of these incidents, on average, every match that take up a full third of the playing time. Conversely there is 1 VAR stoppage, on average, every 3 matches and it takes 1 minute.
When VAR helps your team it’s the best thing for football
When VAR doesn’t help your team it’s the death of football
Most of the people I’ve spoken to who hate VAR hate
It because its made a decision against their team. It’s the law of the game therefore they have a problem with
Everyone was calling for VAR for years and now we have it people complain
If we didn’t have it and we had a legitimate goal incorrectly ruled offside which cost us a place in the CL then the same people would complain why don’t we have VAR
As i said in my own article. Goal Line technology.
All the rest? Sorry but as i say, the feeling cheated or elated when a bad decision either goes against you or for you, i felt was part of the game.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 15 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
The average football match has about 100 stoppages in it. Throw-in, goal-kicks, corners, free kicks etc all count as a stoppage. So your point is complete nonsense.
____________________________________
Stoppages for perhaps 30 seconds, maybe less, maybe more, but not the same as VAR, as you surely know Welshpoolfan.
Not nonsense at all. I think you will find more and more people against it, or at least I hope so..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The average VAR review is 60 seconds. There is on average 1 VAR review every 3 matches. Therefore an average of 20 seconds per match is lost to VAR.
The average time lost to general stoppages is roughly 30-35 minutes pet match.
So yes complaining about it disrupting the flow of the game is nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not nonsense at all. City v Schalke last season stands out in particular as an especially weak spectacle due to var, long decisions, stopping and starting.
I don’t agree that the on pitch referee should be reviewing decisions. It only adds to the length of pauses in the game. Also implies it’s not being used in the correct circumstances, should be for black and white decisions not on pitch referees subjective view of something. Goal line Hawkeye great. The rest, not so much.
Nor do I like this ‘give a manager 1 call per match (or similar)’ idea. Sounds overly American.
Strange adjusting to goals which ‘feel right’ being ruled out. Odd that it’s being implemented at top level when it’s clearly not quite right and so much money and emotion is at stake. Hate that it is currently talked about more than the actual football.
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 15 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
The average football match has about 100 stoppages in it. Throw-in, goal-kicks, corners, free kicks etc all count as a stoppage. So your point is complete nonsense.
____________________________________
Stoppages for perhaps 30 seconds, maybe less, maybe more, but not the same as VAR, as you surely know Welshpoolfan.
Not nonsense at all. I think you will find more and more people against it, or at least I hope so..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The average VAR review is 60 seconds. There is on average 1 VAR review every 3 matches. Therefore an average of 20 seconds per match is lost to VAR.
The average time lost to general stoppages is roughly 30-35 minutes pet match.
So yes complaining about it disrupting the flow of the game is nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not nonsense at all. City v Schalke last season stands out in particular as an especially weak spectacle due to var, long decisions, stopping and starting.
I don’t agree that the on pitch referee should be reviewing decisions. It only adds to the length of pauses in the game. Also implies it’s not being used in the correct circumstances, should be for black and white decisions not on pitch referees subjective view of something. Goal line Hawkeye great. The rest, not so much.
Nor do I like this ‘give a manager 1 call per match (or similar)’ idea. Sounds overly American.
Strange adjusting to goals which ‘feel right’ being ruled out. Odd that it’s being implemented at top level when it’s clearly not quite right and so much money and emotion is at stake. Hate that it is currently talked about more than the actual football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cherry picking one example is bad evidence. The average VAR review is 60 seconds and 1 occurs on average every 3 matches. So yes there might, on occasion be a match that is particularly affected, but that means there will be 4-5 matches that have absolutely no interruptions whatsoever.
Both games against Schalke ran poorly due to var. I only ‘cherry picked’ the home game because I actually went. Spurs at home was another one. Even 60 seconds is a long time imo.
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
Both games against Schalke ran poorly due to var. I only ‘cherry picked’ the home game because I actually went. Spurs at home was another one. Even 60 seconds is a long time imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't really though - especially to ensure a game changing decision is correct. Much more time is wasted by players through the match
Well that boils down to individual preference then
It seems armchair fans are all for it but those who attend aren't.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is Dead (U5901)
posted 21 minutes ago
It seems armchair fans are all for it but those who attend aren't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are saying that 95% of fans are for it and 5% arent?
Dear me Welshpool, you can do better than that, as my school reports all said.
The one's who attended are more important, more involved, their opinions are more valuable, or should be. They can't go and put the kettle on, crack open another can, change channels. I'm not saying they are better fans, but they are more important.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 23 minutes ago
Dear me Welshpool, you can do better than that, as my school reports all said.
The one's who attended are more important, more involved, their opinions are more valuable, or should be. They can't go and put the kettle on, crack open another can, change channels. I'm not saying they are better fans, but they are more important.
-----------------------------------------------------
In a nutshell
I heard some twunt on the radio say the other day that everyone at the game has a mobile phone and can check what's happening
I pay good money to go and watch live football, not to sit there like a teenage girl glued to my phone.
Whatsmore, it's nearly impossible to get a signal inside a football ground.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 30 minutes ago
Dear me Welshpool, you can do better than that, as my school reports all said.
The one's who attended are more important, more involved, their opinions are more valuable, or should be. They can't go and put the kettle on, crack open another can, change channels. I'm not saying they are better fans, but they are more important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they? I mean there is an argument for sure, but they make up a much smaller number of fans,and account for a much smaller level of income to the club.
Of course match going fans are more important.
My season ticket costs far more than a Sky/BT subscription and I can't cancel it halfway through a season if things aren't going well.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is Dead (U5901)
posted 39 minutes ago
Of course match going fans are more important.
My season ticket costs far more than a Sky/BT subscription and I can't cancel it halfway through a season if things aren't going well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what you are saying, is your support is entirely secure and unlikely to stop. Are you going to give up your season ticket out of protest of VAR? If not then you are proving my point. They can guarantee the income off you.
Lots of people, including me are questioning whether to renew our seasoncards if VAR continues to spoil our enjoyment of live football.
As it stands, you daren't celebrate a goal anymore in case it's disallowed a few minutes later and if a goal is scrubbed you have no idea why until you listen to the car radio on the way home.
Sign in if you want to comment
In typical fashion the FA/PL have fudged
Page 3 of 5
posted on 25/8/19
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is Dead (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
The average football match has about 100 stoppages in it.
Link?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22404095/
posted on 25/8/19
No, still not nonsense. Throw ins, goal kicks etc are not stoppages, they are part of the game, and always have been.
VAR referrals are a new introduction, and not part of the game. And there are going to be more and more of them, not the number there are now. They are already calling for managers to have two calls per game, and you know they will be taken up, giving four per game.
posted on 25/8/19
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is Dead (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
The average football match has about 100 stoppages in it.
Link?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22404095/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting read.
posted on 25/8/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 25 minutes ago
No, still not nonsense. Throw ins, goal kicks etc are not stoppages, they are part of the game, and always have been.
VAR referrals are a new introduction, and not part of the game. And there are going to be more and more of them, not the number there are now. They are already calling for managers to have two calls per game, and you know they will be taken up, giving four per game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are, by definition, stoppages. They are literally ways of re-starting the game when the game stops. There are over 100 in an average game, taking up 30 minutes of time. This is indisputable fact.
Your second point is confused and vague. Yes VAR referrals are now part of the game whether you like them or not. Who are "they" that are calling for challenges to be introduced? I've seen dozens of commenters call for this, all of whom are anti-var and trying to limit its use. The challenge suggestion is pointless and defeats the purpose of VAR.
posted on 25/8/19
No, a goal kick, throw in are not stoppages. They are part and parcel of the game.
It's like saying changing end in cricket is a stoppage, it's part of the game.
When there is a VAR referral play does stop and every one has to stand around wondering what the result will be.
Surely you can see a difference.
posted on 25/8/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 6 minutes ago
No, a goal kick, throw in are not stoppages. They are part and parcel of the game.
It's like saying changing end in cricket is a stoppage, it's part of the game.
When there is a VAR referral play does stop and every one has to stand around wondering what the result will be.
Surely you can see a difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are stoppages. The game has literally stopped until play is restarted. They might be part of the game, but so is a VAR review now. Half time is also part of the game but is still a stoppage.
This line of arguing is nonsensical. Football has always had stoppages. The ball is only in play for an average of 60 minutes per game - what do you think is happening when the ball isn't in play? The game has stopped.
posted on 25/8/19
No, à goal kick, throw in isn't a stoppage, unless you believe that only kicking the ball counts.
Sorry but your argument is complete nonsense, as people are beginning to see.
posted on 25/8/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
No, à goal kick, throw in isn't a stoppage, unless you believe that only kicking the ball counts.
Sorry but your argument is complete nonsense, as people are beginning to see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. A throw-in or goal kick does stop the fans wondering what's going on. In fact, it's part of the play. It's not a *stop* in the play, like a time out.
They (the throw-ins, goal kicks, etc) most certainly are part of the play.
A 'VAR' *stoppage* is not and only deserves to be in the game for the most extreme of situations such as did the ball go over the line or not.
posted on 26/8/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 8 hours, 56 minutes ago
No, à goal kick, throw in isn't a stoppage, unless you believe that only kicking the ball counts.
Sorry but your argument is complete nonsense, as people are beginning to see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your first sentence is incomplete. You accuse others of complete nonsense whilst writing sentences that are literally nonsense.
Of course they are stoppages. They are breaks in play. This is why you can make a substitution only during one of these times and not when the play is ongoing. This is also why, when referees play advantage, they wait until one if these moments to go back and make a booming or give a warning.
You might be confused because it isn't an unnatural stoppage and so doesn't add onto stoppage time at the end of a half. This doesn't mean play hasn't stopped.
If you dribble the ball over the touchline, you can't just continue running with it and let play carry on. The ref blows the whistle and makes you stop.
posted on 26/8/19
comment by Eighties Glory Years (U22086)
posted 8 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
No, à goal kick, throw in isn't a stoppage, unless you believe that only kicking the ball counts.
Sorry but your argument is complete nonsense, as people are beginning to see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. A throw-in or goal kick does stop the fans wondering what's going on. In fact, it's part of the play. It's not a *stop* in the play, like a time out.
They (the throw-ins, goal kicks, etc) most certainly are part of the play.
A 'VAR' *stoppage* is not and only deserves to be in the game for the most extreme of situations such as did the ball go over the line or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but a penalty or a goal disallowed (before VAR) might make a fan unsure of what is going on. Does that mean penalties are not part of play? I think defining part of play as a time when a fan is 100% sure what is going on is not helpful.
These things are stops in play. Play has to stop for them to happen. If you dribble the ball over the touchline and then start sprinting down the wing, does play carry on? Or are you made to stop playing and let the other team have a throw in? The ref has literally stopped play. There are over 100 of these incidents, on average, every match that take up a full third of the playing time. Conversely there is 1 VAR stoppage, on average, every 3 matches and it takes 1 minute.
posted on 26/8/19
When VAR helps your team it’s the best thing for football
When VAR doesn’t help your team it’s the death of football
Most of the people I’ve spoken to who hate VAR hate
It because its made a decision against their team. It’s the law of the game therefore they have a problem with
Everyone was calling for VAR for years and now we have it people complain
If we didn’t have it and we had a legitimate goal incorrectly ruled offside which cost us a place in the CL then the same people would complain why don’t we have VAR
posted on 26/8/19
As i said in my own article. Goal Line technology.
All the rest? Sorry but as i say, the feeling cheated or elated when a bad decision either goes against you or for you, i felt was part of the game.
posted on 26/8/19
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 15 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
The average football match has about 100 stoppages in it. Throw-in, goal-kicks, corners, free kicks etc all count as a stoppage. So your point is complete nonsense.
____________________________________
Stoppages for perhaps 30 seconds, maybe less, maybe more, but not the same as VAR, as you surely know Welshpoolfan.
Not nonsense at all. I think you will find more and more people against it, or at least I hope so..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The average VAR review is 60 seconds. There is on average 1 VAR review every 3 matches. Therefore an average of 20 seconds per match is lost to VAR.
The average time lost to general stoppages is roughly 30-35 minutes pet match.
So yes complaining about it disrupting the flow of the game is nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not nonsense at all. City v Schalke last season stands out in particular as an especially weak spectacle due to var, long decisions, stopping and starting.
I don’t agree that the on pitch referee should be reviewing decisions. It only adds to the length of pauses in the game. Also implies it’s not being used in the correct circumstances, should be for black and white decisions not on pitch referees subjective view of something. Goal line Hawkeye great. The rest, not so much.
Nor do I like this ‘give a manager 1 call per match (or similar)’ idea. Sounds overly American.
Strange adjusting to goals which ‘feel right’ being ruled out. Odd that it’s being implemented at top level when it’s clearly not quite right and so much money and emotion is at stake. Hate that it is currently talked about more than the actual football.
posted on 26/8/19
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 15 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
The average football match has about 100 stoppages in it. Throw-in, goal-kicks, corners, free kicks etc all count as a stoppage. So your point is complete nonsense.
____________________________________
Stoppages for perhaps 30 seconds, maybe less, maybe more, but not the same as VAR, as you surely know Welshpoolfan.
Not nonsense at all. I think you will find more and more people against it, or at least I hope so..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The average VAR review is 60 seconds. There is on average 1 VAR review every 3 matches. Therefore an average of 20 seconds per match is lost to VAR.
The average time lost to general stoppages is roughly 30-35 minutes pet match.
So yes complaining about it disrupting the flow of the game is nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not nonsense at all. City v Schalke last season stands out in particular as an especially weak spectacle due to var, long decisions, stopping and starting.
I don’t agree that the on pitch referee should be reviewing decisions. It only adds to the length of pauses in the game. Also implies it’s not being used in the correct circumstances, should be for black and white decisions not on pitch referees subjective view of something. Goal line Hawkeye great. The rest, not so much.
Nor do I like this ‘give a manager 1 call per match (or similar)’ idea. Sounds overly American.
Strange adjusting to goals which ‘feel right’ being ruled out. Odd that it’s being implemented at top level when it’s clearly not quite right and so much money and emotion is at stake. Hate that it is currently talked about more than the actual football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cherry picking one example is bad evidence. The average VAR review is 60 seconds and 1 occurs on average every 3 matches. So yes there might, on occasion be a match that is particularly affected, but that means there will be 4-5 matches that have absolutely no interruptions whatsoever.
posted on 26/8/19
Both games against Schalke ran poorly due to var. I only ‘cherry picked’ the home game because I actually went. Spurs at home was another one. Even 60 seconds is a long time imo.
posted on 26/8/19
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
Both games against Schalke ran poorly due to var. I only ‘cherry picked’ the home game because I actually went. Spurs at home was another one. Even 60 seconds is a long time imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't really though - especially to ensure a game changing decision is correct. Much more time is wasted by players through the match
posted on 26/8/19
Well that boils down to individual preference then
posted on 26/8/19
It seems armchair fans are all for it but those who attend aren't.
posted on 26/8/19
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is Dead (U5901)
posted 21 minutes ago
It seems armchair fans are all for it but those who attend aren't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are saying that 95% of fans are for it and 5% arent?
posted on 26/8/19
Dear me Welshpool, you can do better than that, as my school reports all said.
The one's who attended are more important, more involved, their opinions are more valuable, or should be. They can't go and put the kettle on, crack open another can, change channels. I'm not saying they are better fans, but they are more important.
posted on 26/8/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 23 minutes ago
Dear me Welshpool, you can do better than that, as my school reports all said.
The one's who attended are more important, more involved, their opinions are more valuable, or should be. They can't go and put the kettle on, crack open another can, change channels. I'm not saying they are better fans, but they are more important.
-----------------------------------------------------
In a nutshell
I heard some twunt on the radio say the other day that everyone at the game has a mobile phone and can check what's happening
I pay good money to go and watch live football, not to sit there like a teenage girl glued to my phone.
Whatsmore, it's nearly impossible to get a signal inside a football ground.
posted on 26/8/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 30 minutes ago
Dear me Welshpool, you can do better than that, as my school reports all said.
The one's who attended are more important, more involved, their opinions are more valuable, or should be. They can't go and put the kettle on, crack open another can, change channels. I'm not saying they are better fans, but they are more important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they? I mean there is an argument for sure, but they make up a much smaller number of fans,and account for a much smaller level of income to the club.
posted on 26/8/19
Of course match going fans are more important.
My season ticket costs far more than a Sky/BT subscription and I can't cancel it halfway through a season if things aren't going well.
posted on 26/8/19
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is Dead (U5901)
posted 39 minutes ago
Of course match going fans are more important.
My season ticket costs far more than a Sky/BT subscription and I can't cancel it halfway through a season if things aren't going well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what you are saying, is your support is entirely secure and unlikely to stop. Are you going to give up your season ticket out of protest of VAR? If not then you are proving my point. They can guarantee the income off you.
posted on 26/8/19
Lots of people, including me are questioning whether to renew our seasoncards if VAR continues to spoil our enjoyment of live football.
As it stands, you daren't celebrate a goal anymore in case it's disallowed a few minutes later and if a goal is scrubbed you have no idea why until you listen to the car radio on the way home.
Page 3 of 5