comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Debating with Winston turns me on (U1721)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 23 seconds ago
It’s the same for everybody.
Quit yer fecking moaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it? Can you show where everybody got a penalty against them for a clear dive? Where there was no contact until the diver was midair and the contact was actually initiated by the diver?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s always happened and it always will, VAR or no VAR.
Move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. It will not always happen, we're at the first stage of it being eliminated and events like last night will only serve to provide examples of where it is going wrong and how to improve it. Just accepting something is broken and it will never improve is a cowardly answer. Work on it and improve it.
comment by Arouna Jagielka oooh I wanna take ya, Heitinga Nikica come on pretty mama (U1308)
posted 18 minutes ago
Love VAR, it hasn't stopped debate over refs and the controversy caused through poor decisions.
The same errors are made now as they were before, but VAR and not the ref are the target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This!
Though don't love it this morning!
I don't think VAR is working particularly well at this moment in time. And I say that as a fan of VAR and someone who believes it will have a place in our game.
There appears to be a real reluctance to change decisions and I do understand the reason. The authority of the referee is definitely threatened by technology but I don't really understand why we're not looking to combine the two.
I think it was at the world cup that VAR flagged to a ref that an incident might be worth a second look; that seems sensible to me. Take last night for example, there are different views on it but the ref had a split second to evaluate. If VAR could suggest to the ref that it's worth a second look, they could review it at the side of the pitch. If the ref still thinks he's made the right decision then so be it but at least it's a reflected and considered decision. It maintains the authority of the ref but gives them an opportunity to reconsider if they want to.
At the moment it appears to be ref decision or VAR overrule and opposed to anything in between. That work for things like off-side but for other decisions (pens being the most obvious) then we can give refs a chance to make sure they're 100% sure on their decision. That feels like the way forward to me.
Anyone who wants to seriously, objectively discuss VAR has to begin by accepting that their own view of what is or isn't 'nailed on' is never as written in stone as they think, and will often be guided both by the team the decisions go against or in favour of, by pundits' and other people's opinions, and by their own and said people's preconceived opinions of whether VAR is a good or bad thing.
In other words, you need to be willing and able to make the effort to remove your own biases to the greatest possible extent.
I'm personally in favour of VAR, but I do also feel that there are still a lot of issues that need to be ironed out before it's as useful as I hoped it would be.
As regards Naby's post above, either I'm totally mistaken, or he (and many others) have misunderstood how VAR actually works:
For one, afaik, the ref ALWAYS has the final word. There's no scenario I know of where someone can come down from the VAR room and point to the penalty spot or centre circle. As much as they may try to persuade him, no-one in the VAR room can 'order' the ref to overturn a decision. They might tell him an incident is as stonewall as they like, but he doesn't have to take their opinion as bible, and they can't deny him the possibility to review an incident on video.
Secondly, and this is an idea that's mistakenly disseminated by pundits and journos across the board,
VAR reviews don't only take place when the game is stopped. The people in the VAR room constantly analyse and review any situations where they suspect there might have been an infringement, meaning that there will be literally dozens of situations during are match that are VAR reviewed without anyone being aware of what's going on in the VAR room.
Thirdly, there is still a significant amount of room for the ref's and VAR officials' subjective interpretation of the rules. This means that no matter how controversial a decision might seem, ref's should still be granted a certain amount of leeway if a decision is in any way open to interpretation.
As for the problems, the time is takes to review a decision is obviously a big one, and I'm not sure what can be done about it - but even though it's one of the most talked about, there is in my opinion a very, very significant issue with VAR that is remarkably flying under the radar:
Who supplies the images for the officials in the VAR room, and what criteria do they follow for doing so?
If I'm not mistaken, I think the footage is supplied by the competition's official broadcaster (i.e. not the appropriate governing body or refereeing committe in charge of officiating the contest).
If you consider that there are probably 20 or 30 cameras covering a modern top tier game, it poses the question of how the footage is chosen.
Is the VAR room provided with a permanent stream from the same, let's say 5 or 6 angles, throughout a game? Or is it the broadcaster who gets to choose which ones they pass on for every play covered?
I would definitely hope it's the former, because it would be incredibly dangerous to leave that decision in the hands of a broadcaster whose own financial interests can be riding on a certain decision being called one way or the other. It would certainly seem they could have a vested interest in seeing the most widely followed teams into the next round.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 31 seconds ago
Anyone who wants to seriously, objectively discuss VAR has to begin by accepting that their own view of what is or isn't 'nailed on' is never as written in stone as they think, and will often be guided both by the team the decisions go against or in favour of, by pundits' and other people's opinions, and by their own and said people's preconceived opinions of whether VAR is a good or bad thing.
In other words, you need to be willing and able to make the effort to remove your own biases to the greatest possible extent.
I'm personally in favour of VAR, but I do also feel that there are still a lot of issues that need to be ironed out before it's as useful as I hoped it would be.
As regards Naby's post above, either I'm totally mistaken, or he (and many others) have misunderstood how VAR actually works:
For one, afaik, the ref ALWAYS has the final word. There's no scenario I know of where someone can come down from the VAR room and point to the penalty spot or centre circle. As much as they may try to persuade him, no-one in the VAR room can 'order' the ref to overturn a decision. They might tell him an incident is as stonewall as they like, but he doesn't have to take their opinion as bible, and they can't deny him the possibility to review an incident on video.
Secondly, and this is an idea that's mistakenly disseminated by pundits and journos across the board,
VAR reviews don't only take place when the game is stopped. The people in the VAR room constantly analyse and review any situations where they suspect there might have been an infringement, meaning that there will be literally dozens of situations during are match that are VAR reviewed without anyone being aware of what's going on in the VAR room.
Thirdly, there is still a significant amount of room for the ref's and VAR officials' subjective interpretation of the rules. This means that no matter how controversial a decision might seem, ref's should still be granted a certain amount of leeway if a decision is in any way open to interpretation.
As for the problems, the time is takes to review a decision is obviously a big one, and I'm not sure what can be done about it - but even though it's one of the most talked about, there is in my opinion a very, very significant issue with VAR that is remarkably flying under the radar:
Who supplies the images for the officials in the VAR room, and what criteria do they follow for doing so?
If I'm not mistaken, I think the footage is supplied by the competition's official broadcaster (i.e. not the appropriate governing body or refereeing committe in charge of officiating the contest).
If you consider that there are probably 20 or 30 cameras covering a modern top tier game, it poses the question of how the footage is chosen.
Is the VAR room provided with a permanent stream from the same, let's say 5 or 6 angles, throughout a game? Or is it the broadcaster who gets to choose which ones they pass on for every play covered?
I would definitely hope it's the former, because it would be incredibly dangerous to leave that decision in the hands of a broadcaster whose own financial interests can be riding on a certain decision being called one way or the other. It would certainly seem they could have a vested interest in seeing the most widely followed teams into the next round.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you please keep discussion unreasonable?
Is the VAR room provided with a permanent stream from the same, let's say 5 or 6 angles, throughout a game? Or is it the broadcaster who gets to choose which ones they pass on for every play covered?
----
Sorry, and pursuant to that point, if they ARE indeed continuously supplied with the same 5 or 6 angles, as one might hope, aren't they even then being thrown under a bus if any other one of the other 20-odd cameras is showing everyone at home something the VAR-room footage isn't showing the reviewers?
IOAG - I have seen the VAR studio for the PL in action and they have many different angles.
In regards to interpretation - the problem is they have now added to that, rather than taking away from it by conjuring up the term - 'clear and obvious error' which is highly subjective. For example, calling a penalty when a player is mid-dive when the contact occurs. That to me is a clear and obvious error but then it leads you to the realisation that you actually don't know what a clear and obvious error is for a fact, as it's entirely subjective. For all we know referees have been given advice on guidance on what it means and we believe it to be something else.
I would just do away with the term and if it's a mistake, it's a mistake.
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
He made the most of what was a terrible lunge by Robertson. Barry has a point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only contact was after he dived. I’m baffled anyone can’t see this. No accounting for stupidity I guess...
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
It’s the same for everybody.
Quit yer fecking moaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
God you're stupid.
The point is that VAR doesn't work in its current guise, not that it's not benefiting Liverpool.
Read a book you facking moron.
comment by 🏆🏆🏆Allison Chains🏆🏆🏆 (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
It’s the same for everybody.
Quit yer fecking moaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
God you're stupid.
The point is that VAR doesn't work in its current guise, not that it's not benefiting Liverpool.
Read a book you facking moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what you are saying is, refs are still making mistakes and opinion/view is still taken as not account.
So nothing really changes as this would have been given last season and it s now given under VAR.
Silly question, but are the rules under the FA and UEFA not different for VAR?
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
He made the most of what was a terrible lunge by Robertson. Barry has a point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only contact was after he dived. I’m baffled anyone can’t see this. No accounting for stupidity I guess...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well there was contact made on Robertsons attempt of getting a touch so I can see every reason why it was given.
The argument of VAR getting it wrong is stupid because there was nothing in that replay that suggested he made a blunder, in fact only after the replay did I think there was a hint of penalty, prior to the replay looked like no penalty for me. So in essence VAR had nothing to overrule
comment by Arouna Jagielka oooh I wanna take ya, Heitinga Nikica come on pretty mama (U1308)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 🏆🏆🏆Allison Chains🏆🏆🏆 (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
It’s the same for everybody.
Quit yer fecking moaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
God you're stupid.
The point is that VAR doesn't work in its current guise, not that it's not benefiting Liverpool.
Read a book you facking moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what you are saying is, refs are still making mistakes and opinion/view is still taken as not account.
So nothing really changes as this would have been given last season and it s now given under VAR.
Silly question, but are the rules under the FA and UEFA not different for VAR?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not too sure on the last point, but the frustration especially for me if (using it as an example as I've not watched non-LFC games this season) was the Matip penalty which was clearly a foul in the and should have been a penalty.
This is exactly the sort of error that VAR was designed to remove but because of this farcical rule that 'we must respect the referees decisions (event the wildly inaccurate ones)' we don't get a stonewall penalty.
Fully accept this might not be given without VAR as it's impossible for the ref to get 100% right but why bother introducing VAR when it doesn't get rid of blatant incorrect decisions?
Decision given against my team = VAR will ultimately be a failure. Football does incredible things to the brain.
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 23 seconds ago
Decision given against my team = VAR will ultimately be a failure. Football does incredible things to the brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if one of your players was pulled over in the box and no pen is given, and despite having this new VAR technology to get rid of these sorts of errors, would you not also be frustrated?
Just an example.
Definite dive.
Shame Robertson had to deactivate his Twitter account because of the decision...and the abuse he was suffering from Liverpool fans.
YNWA.
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 1 minute ago
Definite dive.
Shame Robertson had to deactivate his Twitter account because of the decision...and the abuse he was suffering from Liverpool fans.
YNWA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfilter me you cowardly kaaant.
Have never filtered anyone hombre.
@ comment by Debating with Winston turns me on (U1721) - re. the VAR studio thingy...
Yeah, the question is whether or not that's all the angles, and if not, who and how decides which ones?
This first came to my attention last season when I heard an interview with a bloke called Jaume Roures, who is one of the major shareholders and CEO of a little-known but highly influential Spanish/Catalan company called Mediapro.
They hold the international broadcasting rights for both LaLiga and the Champions League, and the interviewer put the above question to him.
As I understoood it, at least in the case of LaLiga it is indeed Mediapro who selects the footage the VAR officials are supplied.
Despite being a life-long socio (member) and I think former director at Barça, during the interview he openly criticised a highly controversial VAR decision that had gone against Real Madrid a few weeks earlier. This was at a time where Real Madrid were struggling really badly in the league and, albeit it this was relatively early in the season, even looked like they could miss out on one of the CL places.
He also openly stated on an other occasion that Barça had turned down a €300M offer from Mediapro for the Camp Nou naming rights.
Without saying that there has been any actual wrongdoing that I can speak of, it certainly seems to me there are huge potential conflicts of interests involved that would advise against them being able to influence such important on-the-pitch decisions.
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
He made the most of what was a terrible lunge by Robertson. Barry has a point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only contact was after he dived. I’m baffled anyone can’t see this. No accounting for stupidity I guess...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well there was contact made on Robertsons attempt of getting a touch so I can see every reason why it was given.
The argument of VAR getting it wrong is stupid because there was nothing in that replay that suggested he made a blunder, in fact only after the replay did I think there was a hint of penalty, prior to the replay looked like no penalty for me. So in essence VAR had nothing to overrule
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you have just summed up why VAR is essentially useless as it stands. If blatant fouls and bad decisions can be ignored then what is the point?
comment by 🏆🏆🏆Allison Chains🏆🏆🏆 (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 23 seconds ago
Decision given against my team = VAR will ultimately be a failure. Football does incredible things to the brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if one of your players was pulled over in the box and no pen is given, and despite having this new VAR technology to get rid of these sorts of errors, would you not also be frustrated?
Just an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the handball by TAA that would often be given using VAR but wasn't on this occasion?
I wouldn’t be using it as evidence that the whole process is doomed to fail, no.
Clear dive last for me, but then maybe VARdidnt get to see the angle I have as mentioned above.
The Matip one is just odd though.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dLahJlgJpOY
Exactly 1 minute in. I just dont see how that can be anything other than a penalty so it's confused me.
comment by GenieWijnaldum 🧞 (U22141)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
He made the most of what was a terrible lunge by Robertson. Barry has a point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only contact was after he dived. I’m baffled anyone can’t see this. No accounting for stupidity I guess...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well there was contact made on Robertsons attempt of getting a touch so I can see every reason why it was given.
The argument of VAR getting it wrong is stupid because there was nothing in that replay that suggested he made a blunder, in fact only after the replay did I think there was a hint of penalty, prior to the replay looked like no penalty for me. So in essence VAR had nothing to overrule
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you have just summed up why VAR is essentially useless as it stands. If blatant fouls and bad decisions can be ignored then what is the point?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't a blatantly bad decision to the neutral. Reminded me of Kanes one against Newcastle, I thought it was a penalty but I get why VAR couldn't overrule the original decision
Havne't watched the incident last night, but if I'm not mistaken, isn't there a concept called 'impeding', whereby there doesn't even have to be actual physical contact for there to be a foul?
For example, if you lunge into a player, don't make contact, but avoiding your challenge means the player loses control of the ball, you can have a foul called against you.
You can raise your foot way too high, you don't need to take a player's head off for a foul to be given against.
So, just to play devil's advocate here, is it possible that in the ref's view, whatever it was that Robertson did last night was going to take the player out or impede his progress, regardless of how the player reacted before contact was made?
As I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate to try and see where the ref's decision might have come from.
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR will ultimately be a failure
Page 3 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 18/9/19
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Debating with Winston turns me on (U1721)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 23 seconds ago
It’s the same for everybody.
Quit yer fecking moaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it? Can you show where everybody got a penalty against them for a clear dive? Where there was no contact until the diver was midair and the contact was actually initiated by the diver?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s always happened and it always will, VAR or no VAR.
Move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. It will not always happen, we're at the first stage of it being eliminated and events like last night will only serve to provide examples of where it is going wrong and how to improve it. Just accepting something is broken and it will never improve is a cowardly answer. Work on it and improve it.
posted on 18/9/19
comment by Arouna Jagielka oooh I wanna take ya, Heitinga Nikica come on pretty mama (U1308)
posted 18 minutes ago
Love VAR, it hasn't stopped debate over refs and the controversy caused through poor decisions.
The same errors are made now as they were before, but VAR and not the ref are the target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This!
Though don't love it this morning!
posted on 18/9/19
I don't think VAR is working particularly well at this moment in time. And I say that as a fan of VAR and someone who believes it will have a place in our game.
There appears to be a real reluctance to change decisions and I do understand the reason. The authority of the referee is definitely threatened by technology but I don't really understand why we're not looking to combine the two.
I think it was at the world cup that VAR flagged to a ref that an incident might be worth a second look; that seems sensible to me. Take last night for example, there are different views on it but the ref had a split second to evaluate. If VAR could suggest to the ref that it's worth a second look, they could review it at the side of the pitch. If the ref still thinks he's made the right decision then so be it but at least it's a reflected and considered decision. It maintains the authority of the ref but gives them an opportunity to reconsider if they want to.
At the moment it appears to be ref decision or VAR overrule and opposed to anything in between. That work for things like off-side but for other decisions (pens being the most obvious) then we can give refs a chance to make sure they're 100% sure on their decision. That feels like the way forward to me.
posted on 18/9/19
Anyone who wants to seriously, objectively discuss VAR has to begin by accepting that their own view of what is or isn't 'nailed on' is never as written in stone as they think, and will often be guided both by the team the decisions go against or in favour of, by pundits' and other people's opinions, and by their own and said people's preconceived opinions of whether VAR is a good or bad thing.
In other words, you need to be willing and able to make the effort to remove your own biases to the greatest possible extent.
I'm personally in favour of VAR, but I do also feel that there are still a lot of issues that need to be ironed out before it's as useful as I hoped it would be.
As regards Naby's post above, either I'm totally mistaken, or he (and many others) have misunderstood how VAR actually works:
For one, afaik, the ref ALWAYS has the final word. There's no scenario I know of where someone can come down from the VAR room and point to the penalty spot or centre circle. As much as they may try to persuade him, no-one in the VAR room can 'order' the ref to overturn a decision. They might tell him an incident is as stonewall as they like, but he doesn't have to take their opinion as bible, and they can't deny him the possibility to review an incident on video.
Secondly, and this is an idea that's mistakenly disseminated by pundits and journos across the board,
VAR reviews don't only take place when the game is stopped. The people in the VAR room constantly analyse and review any situations where they suspect there might have been an infringement, meaning that there will be literally dozens of situations during are match that are VAR reviewed without anyone being aware of what's going on in the VAR room.
Thirdly, there is still a significant amount of room for the ref's and VAR officials' subjective interpretation of the rules. This means that no matter how controversial a decision might seem, ref's should still be granted a certain amount of leeway if a decision is in any way open to interpretation.
As for the problems, the time is takes to review a decision is obviously a big one, and I'm not sure what can be done about it - but even though it's one of the most talked about, there is in my opinion a very, very significant issue with VAR that is remarkably flying under the radar:
Who supplies the images for the officials in the VAR room, and what criteria do they follow for doing so?
If I'm not mistaken, I think the footage is supplied by the competition's official broadcaster (i.e. not the appropriate governing body or refereeing committe in charge of officiating the contest).
If you consider that there are probably 20 or 30 cameras covering a modern top tier game, it poses the question of how the footage is chosen.
Is the VAR room provided with a permanent stream from the same, let's say 5 or 6 angles, throughout a game? Or is it the broadcaster who gets to choose which ones they pass on for every play covered?
I would definitely hope it's the former, because it would be incredibly dangerous to leave that decision in the hands of a broadcaster whose own financial interests can be riding on a certain decision being called one way or the other. It would certainly seem they could have a vested interest in seeing the most widely followed teams into the next round.
posted on 18/9/19
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 31 seconds ago
Anyone who wants to seriously, objectively discuss VAR has to begin by accepting that their own view of what is or isn't 'nailed on' is never as written in stone as they think, and will often be guided both by the team the decisions go against or in favour of, by pundits' and other people's opinions, and by their own and said people's preconceived opinions of whether VAR is a good or bad thing.
In other words, you need to be willing and able to make the effort to remove your own biases to the greatest possible extent.
I'm personally in favour of VAR, but I do also feel that there are still a lot of issues that need to be ironed out before it's as useful as I hoped it would be.
As regards Naby's post above, either I'm totally mistaken, or he (and many others) have misunderstood how VAR actually works:
For one, afaik, the ref ALWAYS has the final word. There's no scenario I know of where someone can come down from the VAR room and point to the penalty spot or centre circle. As much as they may try to persuade him, no-one in the VAR room can 'order' the ref to overturn a decision. They might tell him an incident is as stonewall as they like, but he doesn't have to take their opinion as bible, and they can't deny him the possibility to review an incident on video.
Secondly, and this is an idea that's mistakenly disseminated by pundits and journos across the board,
VAR reviews don't only take place when the game is stopped. The people in the VAR room constantly analyse and review any situations where they suspect there might have been an infringement, meaning that there will be literally dozens of situations during are match that are VAR reviewed without anyone being aware of what's going on in the VAR room.
Thirdly, there is still a significant amount of room for the ref's and VAR officials' subjective interpretation of the rules. This means that no matter how controversial a decision might seem, ref's should still be granted a certain amount of leeway if a decision is in any way open to interpretation.
As for the problems, the time is takes to review a decision is obviously a big one, and I'm not sure what can be done about it - but even though it's one of the most talked about, there is in my opinion a very, very significant issue with VAR that is remarkably flying under the radar:
Who supplies the images for the officials in the VAR room, and what criteria do they follow for doing so?
If I'm not mistaken, I think the footage is supplied by the competition's official broadcaster (i.e. not the appropriate governing body or refereeing committe in charge of officiating the contest).
If you consider that there are probably 20 or 30 cameras covering a modern top tier game, it poses the question of how the footage is chosen.
Is the VAR room provided with a permanent stream from the same, let's say 5 or 6 angles, throughout a game? Or is it the broadcaster who gets to choose which ones they pass on for every play covered?
I would definitely hope it's the former, because it would be incredibly dangerous to leave that decision in the hands of a broadcaster whose own financial interests can be riding on a certain decision being called one way or the other. It would certainly seem they could have a vested interest in seeing the most widely followed teams into the next round.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you please keep discussion unreasonable?
posted on 18/9/19
Is the VAR room provided with a permanent stream from the same, let's say 5 or 6 angles, throughout a game? Or is it the broadcaster who gets to choose which ones they pass on for every play covered?
----
Sorry, and pursuant to that point, if they ARE indeed continuously supplied with the same 5 or 6 angles, as one might hope, aren't they even then being thrown under a bus if any other one of the other 20-odd cameras is showing everyone at home something the VAR-room footage isn't showing the reviewers?
posted on 18/9/19
IOAG - I have seen the VAR studio for the PL in action and they have many different angles.
In regards to interpretation - the problem is they have now added to that, rather than taking away from it by conjuring up the term - 'clear and obvious error' which is highly subjective. For example, calling a penalty when a player is mid-dive when the contact occurs. That to me is a clear and obvious error but then it leads you to the realisation that you actually don't know what a clear and obvious error is for a fact, as it's entirely subjective. For all we know referees have been given advice on guidance on what it means and we believe it to be something else.
I would just do away with the term and if it's a mistake, it's a mistake.
posted on 18/9/19
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
He made the most of what was a terrible lunge by Robertson. Barry has a point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only contact was after he dived. I’m baffled anyone can’t see this. No accounting for stupidity I guess...
posted on 18/9/19
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
It’s the same for everybody.
Quit yer fecking moaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
God you're stupid.
The point is that VAR doesn't work in its current guise, not that it's not benefiting Liverpool.
Read a book you facking moron.
posted on 18/9/19
comment by 🏆🏆🏆Allison Chains🏆🏆🏆 (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
It’s the same for everybody.
Quit yer fecking moaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
God you're stupid.
The point is that VAR doesn't work in its current guise, not that it's not benefiting Liverpool.
Read a book you facking moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what you are saying is, refs are still making mistakes and opinion/view is still taken as not account.
So nothing really changes as this would have been given last season and it s now given under VAR.
Silly question, but are the rules under the FA and UEFA not different for VAR?
posted on 18/9/19
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
He made the most of what was a terrible lunge by Robertson. Barry has a point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only contact was after he dived. I’m baffled anyone can’t see this. No accounting for stupidity I guess...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well there was contact made on Robertsons attempt of getting a touch so I can see every reason why it was given.
The argument of VAR getting it wrong is stupid because there was nothing in that replay that suggested he made a blunder, in fact only after the replay did I think there was a hint of penalty, prior to the replay looked like no penalty for me. So in essence VAR had nothing to overrule
posted on 18/9/19
comment by Arouna Jagielka oooh I wanna take ya, Heitinga Nikica come on pretty mama (U1308)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 🏆🏆🏆Allison Chains🏆🏆🏆 (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
It’s the same for everybody.
Quit yer fecking moaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
God you're stupid.
The point is that VAR doesn't work in its current guise, not that it's not benefiting Liverpool.
Read a book you facking moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what you are saying is, refs are still making mistakes and opinion/view is still taken as not account.
So nothing really changes as this would have been given last season and it s now given under VAR.
Silly question, but are the rules under the FA and UEFA not different for VAR?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not too sure on the last point, but the frustration especially for me if (using it as an example as I've not watched non-LFC games this season) was the Matip penalty which was clearly a foul in the and should have been a penalty.
This is exactly the sort of error that VAR was designed to remove but because of this farcical rule that 'we must respect the referees decisions (event the wildly inaccurate ones)' we don't get a stonewall penalty.
Fully accept this might not be given without VAR as it's impossible for the ref to get 100% right but why bother introducing VAR when it doesn't get rid of blatant incorrect decisions?
posted on 18/9/19
Decision given against my team = VAR will ultimately be a failure. Football does incredible things to the brain.
posted on 18/9/19
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 23 seconds ago
Decision given against my team = VAR will ultimately be a failure. Football does incredible things to the brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if one of your players was pulled over in the box and no pen is given, and despite having this new VAR technology to get rid of these sorts of errors, would you not also be frustrated?
Just an example.
posted on 18/9/19
Definite dive.
Shame Robertson had to deactivate his Twitter account because of the decision...and the abuse he was suffering from Liverpool fans.
YNWA.
posted on 18/9/19
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 1 minute ago
Definite dive.
Shame Robertson had to deactivate his Twitter account because of the decision...and the abuse he was suffering from Liverpool fans.
YNWA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfilter me you cowardly kaaant.
posted on 18/9/19
Have never filtered anyone hombre.
posted on 18/9/19
@ comment by Debating with Winston turns me on (U1721) - re. the VAR studio thingy...
Yeah, the question is whether or not that's all the angles, and if not, who and how decides which ones?
This first came to my attention last season when I heard an interview with a bloke called Jaume Roures, who is one of the major shareholders and CEO of a little-known but highly influential Spanish/Catalan company called Mediapro.
They hold the international broadcasting rights for both LaLiga and the Champions League, and the interviewer put the above question to him.
As I understoood it, at least in the case of LaLiga it is indeed Mediapro who selects the footage the VAR officials are supplied.
Despite being a life-long socio (member) and I think former director at Barça, during the interview he openly criticised a highly controversial VAR decision that had gone against Real Madrid a few weeks earlier. This was at a time where Real Madrid were struggling really badly in the league and, albeit it this was relatively early in the season, even looked like they could miss out on one of the CL places.
He also openly stated on an other occasion that Barça had turned down a €300M offer from Mediapro for the Camp Nou naming rights.
Without saying that there has been any actual wrongdoing that I can speak of, it certainly seems to me there are huge potential conflicts of interests involved that would advise against them being able to influence such important on-the-pitch decisions.
posted on 18/9/19
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
He made the most of what was a terrible lunge by Robertson. Barry has a point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only contact was after he dived. I’m baffled anyone can’t see this. No accounting for stupidity I guess...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well there was contact made on Robertsons attempt of getting a touch so I can see every reason why it was given.
The argument of VAR getting it wrong is stupid because there was nothing in that replay that suggested he made a blunder, in fact only after the replay did I think there was a hint of penalty, prior to the replay looked like no penalty for me. So in essence VAR had nothing to overrule
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you have just summed up why VAR is essentially useless as it stands. If blatant fouls and bad decisions can be ignored then what is the point?
posted on 18/9/19
comment by 🏆🏆🏆Allison Chains🏆🏆🏆 (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 23 seconds ago
Decision given against my team = VAR will ultimately be a failure. Football does incredible things to the brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if one of your players was pulled over in the box and no pen is given, and despite having this new VAR technology to get rid of these sorts of errors, would you not also be frustrated?
Just an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the handball by TAA that would often be given using VAR but wasn't on this occasion?
posted on 18/9/19
I wouldn’t be using it as evidence that the whole process is doomed to fail, no.
posted on 18/9/19
Clear dive last for me, but then maybe VARdidnt get to see the angle I have as mentioned above.
The Matip one is just odd though.
posted on 18/9/19
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dLahJlgJpOY
Exactly 1 minute in. I just dont see how that can be anything other than a penalty so it's confused me.
posted on 18/9/19
comment by GenieWijnaldum 🧞 (U22141)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by dangerdog2 (U22234)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
He made the most of what was a terrible lunge by Robertson. Barry has a point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only contact was after he dived. I’m baffled anyone can’t see this. No accounting for stupidity I guess...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well there was contact made on Robertsons attempt of getting a touch so I can see every reason why it was given.
The argument of VAR getting it wrong is stupid because there was nothing in that replay that suggested he made a blunder, in fact only after the replay did I think there was a hint of penalty, prior to the replay looked like no penalty for me. So in essence VAR had nothing to overrule
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you have just summed up why VAR is essentially useless as it stands. If blatant fouls and bad decisions can be ignored then what is the point?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't a blatantly bad decision to the neutral. Reminded me of Kanes one against Newcastle, I thought it was a penalty but I get why VAR couldn't overrule the original decision
posted on 18/9/19
Havne't watched the incident last night, but if I'm not mistaken, isn't there a concept called 'impeding', whereby there doesn't even have to be actual physical contact for there to be a foul?
For example, if you lunge into a player, don't make contact, but avoiding your challenge means the player loses control of the ball, you can have a foul called against you.
You can raise your foot way too high, you don't need to take a player's head off for a foul to be given against.
So, just to play devil's advocate here, is it possible that in the ref's view, whatever it was that Robertson did last night was going to take the player out or impede his progress, regardless of how the player reacted before contact was made?
As I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate to try and see where the ref's decision might have come from.
Page 3 of 8
6 | 7 | 8