The paying supporters hold the power but it might require mass walkouts or even turning up on the opening day of the season. That's the kind of message that might work.
I would love to think that paying supporters hold the power. But given how much the clubs get from TV revenue is that the case. The TV companies love VAR as watching from the sofa is the only way you can follow the VAR decisions, and it gives their pundits something to talk about. For those that go to watch games, VAR is destroying football as we know it.
doesnt need removing just need improving.
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 5 minutes ago
doesnt need removing just need improving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, and the claim its contributed to getting more decisions wrong than right is absolute bollox
I would vote to keep VAR just for how annoyed some people are getting over correct decisions. Very amusing.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 5 minutes ago
doesnt need removing just need improving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, and the claim its contributed to getting more decisions wrong than right is absolute bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah some people believe it and that reminds me of the Brexit campaigns.
It is certainly getting more decisions right than wrong the problem is with the need for the decision in the first place.
In the recent Wolves v Leicester game the Wolves goal was chalked off due to a Wolves player's heal being offside - the correct decision by the existing rules. However, that player was 1 yard away from the linesman who's flag stayed down. When the Wolves skipper asked the ref who was offside, the ref didn't know. That is not assisting the referee it is undermining him and his officials and just making them look foolish.
I think VAR should be used as it was intended - VAR in Rugby League is used as a VIDEO ASSISTANT Referee however it appears that football have removed the middle word. A Ref in RL asks for help ONLY if he's not sure, A ref in Football unfortunately is TOLD what the decision should be - it's all wrong
Its getting more decisions right. The Premier League claim that its getting 91% right compared to 82% last season.
The price being paid is to go some way to ruining the spectacle for people that go to watch matches live, and I think that's more important than a few % points
comment by GeminMallorca FOVAR (U18318)
posted 3 minutes ago
It is certainly getting more decisions right than wrong the problem is with the need for the decision in the first place.
In the recent Wolves v Leicester game the Wolves goal was chalked off due to a Wolves player's heal being offside - the correct decision by the existing rules. However, that player was 1 yard away from the linesman who's flag stayed down. When the Wolves skipper asked the ref who was offside, the ref didn't know. That is not assisting the referee it is undermining him and his officials and just making them look foolish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A simple change to the way var is used: did they gain an advantage? This simple question would easily solve this one (and most offsides) - player was walking away from goal and the part of his body offside made no difference to anything. Without VAR, the question of gaining an advantage was very difficult, hence the need for the binary onside or offside - with VAR, this is no longer necessary.
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 4 minutes ago
Its getting more decisions right. The Premier League claim that its getting 91% right compared to 82% last season.
The price being paid is to go some way to ruining the spectacle for people that go to watch matches live, and I think that's more important than a few % points
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spangles please don't dismiss those who are not fortunate enough the watch games live. As an ex ST holder I miss the atmosphere of Molineux severely but due to my decision to move abroad, I now watch the games on TV or a stream. I understand your argument about fans at the ground being confused and bewildered but there is no fun in watching on TV either when you cannot celebrate a goal because of the inevitable VAR check. I simply do not want to watch any more league games as with anything else, if you are not enjoying it, why do it?
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by GeminMallorca FOVAR (U18318)
posted 3 minutes ago
It is certainly getting more decisions right than wrong the problem is with the need for the decision in the first place.
In the recent Wolves v Leicester game the Wolves goal was chalked off due to a Wolves player's heal being offside - the correct decision by the existing rules. However, that player was 1 yard away from the linesman who's flag stayed down. When the Wolves skipper asked the ref who was offside, the ref didn't know. That is not assisting the referee it is undermining him and his officials and just making them look foolish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A simple change to the way var is used: did they gain an advantage? This simple question would easily solve this one (and most offsides) - player was walking away from goal and the part of his body offside made no difference to anything. Without VAR, the question of gaining an advantage was very difficult, hence the need for the binary onside or offside - with VAR, this is no longer necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on!!
They have chosen to make offside a black and white issue by drawing a line. So the decision making process is exactly the same as with goal line technology.
Trouble is goal line issues are black and white. If the ball crosses the line at any point it’s a goal. But with offside it’s only black and white if the exact moment the ball is played is the moment the offside photo is taken. And one person might stop the camera at one moment and another a fraction later or earlier. With the Neto incident against Leicester his heel was two inches offside when the photo was taken. Move the video on by just two pixels and he is half a yard onside. Therefore a margin for error must be allowed, it’s not black and white
VAR is for genuine calamitous errors like the handball goal that Henry scored against Ireland. Not because an attacker has a size 10 opposed to the defenders size 9. The rules need fixing and referee's NEED to check the monitors.
Sorry gem I didn’t intend to dismiss those not at the game I was just giving my own perspective. I know of people that have walked out of games because they are so fed up with var and it’s the process that upsets people not the fact that Wolves have had more decisions than most go against them. What was upsetting against Leicester was that there was a great atmosphere in the stadium in the first half but much less so after the disallowed goal. If people feel there’s no point celebrating a goal then so much of the excitement of attending the game is taken away
Var should only be used by the referee asking for it. Even then it must be his decision that is the final one.
The idea that someone sitting in front of a monitor miles away can stop the game and make the final decision is ridiculous.
One look at the monitor and the decision should be made, not replaying it time after time.
comment by bostonwolf (U17353)
posted 6 hours, 28 minutes ago
Var should only be used by the referee asking for it. Even then it must be his decision that is the final one.
The idea that someone sitting in front of a monitor miles away can stop the game and make the final decision is ridiculous.
One look at the monitor and the decision should be made, not replaying it time after time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad idea - it’s annoying enough at the moment with players surrounding the ref when VAR is already looking at a situation - if it’s the refs decision it would be a nightmare!!
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 19 hours, 2 minutes ago
Its getting more decisions right. The Premier League claim that its getting 91% right compared to 82% last season.
The price being paid is to go some way to ruining the spectacle for people that go to watch matches live, and I think that's more important than a few % points
----------------------------------------------------------------------
read somewhere that referees pre var got 97% right.
Referees should be allowed to have a quick catch up on the match threads to see how the decisions should play out....everybody knows it’s where the most knowledgeable fans hang out on match days
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 8 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by bostonwolf (U17353)
posted 6 hours, 28 minutes ago
Var should only be used by the referee asking for it. Even then it must be his decision that is the final one.
The idea that someone sitting in front of a monitor miles away can stop the game and make the final decision is ridiculous.
One look at the monitor and the decision should be made, not replaying it time after time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad idea - it’s annoying enough at the moment with players surrounding the ref when VAR is already looking at a situation - if it’s the refs decision it would be a nightmare!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That happened before VAR so its no different.
Two more wonderful decisions last night, both in favour of Man U.
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 20 hours, 59 minutes ago
Its getting more decisions right. The Premier League claim that its getting 91% right compared to 82% last season.
The price being paid is to go some way to ruining the spectacle for people that go to watch matches live, and I think that's more important than a few % points
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd also argue that the claim that they're getting more decision right Is based on the flawed interpretation of the offside rule.
To them, a nostril hair is enough to warrant being offside.
To the sensible football fan, it's utterly appalling.
I know it might be difficult for some but cast your minds back to pre VAR and when we'd get the replay of an attacker and a defender 'in line' - nobody was interested in fingernails, toes and fringes being offside. That's a total nonsense.
If they're determined to use VAR technology then a better execution of the rule would be to say that an attacker is offside when his entire body is ahead of the last defender.
By and large, that was how we used to determine the rule. If a player had a portion of his body ahead, we'd typically allow them the advantage.
Literally nobody had a problem with that method and more importantly, it didn't spoil the spectacle.
What the technology cannot guarantee is that the photo used is at the exact moment the ball was played. So to consider someone as offside by one inch is ridiculous. There must be a margin for error.
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR Petition
Page 1 of 2
posted on 17/2/20
posted on 17/2/20
The paying supporters hold the power but it might require mass walkouts or even turning up on the opening day of the season. That's the kind of message that might work.
posted on 17/2/20
*not turning up
posted on 17/2/20
I would love to think that paying supporters hold the power. But given how much the clubs get from TV revenue is that the case. The TV companies love VAR as watching from the sofa is the only way you can follow the VAR decisions, and it gives their pundits something to talk about. For those that go to watch games, VAR is destroying football as we know it.
posted on 17/2/20
doesnt need removing just need improving.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 5 minutes ago
doesnt need removing just need improving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, and the claim its contributed to getting more decisions wrong than right is absolute bollox
posted on 17/2/20
I would vote to keep VAR just for how annoyed some people are getting over correct decisions. Very amusing.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 5 minutes ago
doesnt need removing just need improving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, and the claim its contributed to getting more decisions wrong than right is absolute bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah some people believe it and that reminds me of the Brexit campaigns.
posted on 17/2/20
It is certainly getting more decisions right than wrong the problem is with the need for the decision in the first place.
In the recent Wolves v Leicester game the Wolves goal was chalked off due to a Wolves player's heal being offside - the correct decision by the existing rules. However, that player was 1 yard away from the linesman who's flag stayed down. When the Wolves skipper asked the ref who was offside, the ref didn't know. That is not assisting the referee it is undermining him and his officials and just making them look foolish.
posted on 17/2/20
I think VAR should be used as it was intended - VAR in Rugby League is used as a VIDEO ASSISTANT Referee however it appears that football have removed the middle word. A Ref in RL asks for help ONLY if he's not sure, A ref in Football unfortunately is TOLD what the decision should be - it's all wrong
posted on 17/2/20
Its getting more decisions right. The Premier League claim that its getting 91% right compared to 82% last season.
The price being paid is to go some way to ruining the spectacle for people that go to watch matches live, and I think that's more important than a few % points
posted on 17/2/20
comment by GeminMallorca FOVAR (U18318)
posted 3 minutes ago
It is certainly getting more decisions right than wrong the problem is with the need for the decision in the first place.
In the recent Wolves v Leicester game the Wolves goal was chalked off due to a Wolves player's heal being offside - the correct decision by the existing rules. However, that player was 1 yard away from the linesman who's flag stayed down. When the Wolves skipper asked the ref who was offside, the ref didn't know. That is not assisting the referee it is undermining him and his officials and just making them look foolish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A simple change to the way var is used: did they gain an advantage? This simple question would easily solve this one (and most offsides) - player was walking away from goal and the part of his body offside made no difference to anything. Without VAR, the question of gaining an advantage was very difficult, hence the need for the binary onside or offside - with VAR, this is no longer necessary.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 4 minutes ago
Its getting more decisions right. The Premier League claim that its getting 91% right compared to 82% last season.
The price being paid is to go some way to ruining the spectacle for people that go to watch matches live, and I think that's more important than a few % points
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spangles please don't dismiss those who are not fortunate enough the watch games live. As an ex ST holder I miss the atmosphere of Molineux severely but due to my decision to move abroad, I now watch the games on TV or a stream. I understand your argument about fans at the ground being confused and bewildered but there is no fun in watching on TV either when you cannot celebrate a goal because of the inevitable VAR check. I simply do not want to watch any more league games as with anything else, if you are not enjoying it, why do it?
posted on 17/2/20
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by GeminMallorca FOVAR (U18318)
posted 3 minutes ago
It is certainly getting more decisions right than wrong the problem is with the need for the decision in the first place.
In the recent Wolves v Leicester game the Wolves goal was chalked off due to a Wolves player's heal being offside - the correct decision by the existing rules. However, that player was 1 yard away from the linesman who's flag stayed down. When the Wolves skipper asked the ref who was offside, the ref didn't know. That is not assisting the referee it is undermining him and his officials and just making them look foolish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A simple change to the way var is used: did they gain an advantage? This simple question would easily solve this one (and most offsides) - player was walking away from goal and the part of his body offside made no difference to anything. Without VAR, the question of gaining an advantage was very difficult, hence the need for the binary onside or offside - with VAR, this is no longer necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on!!
posted on 17/2/20
They have chosen to make offside a black and white issue by drawing a line. So the decision making process is exactly the same as with goal line technology.
Trouble is goal line issues are black and white. If the ball crosses the line at any point it’s a goal. But with offside it’s only black and white if the exact moment the ball is played is the moment the offside photo is taken. And one person might stop the camera at one moment and another a fraction later or earlier. With the Neto incident against Leicester his heel was two inches offside when the photo was taken. Move the video on by just two pixels and he is half a yard onside. Therefore a margin for error must be allowed, it’s not black and white
posted on 17/2/20
VAR is for genuine calamitous errors like the handball goal that Henry scored against Ireland. Not because an attacker has a size 10 opposed to the defenders size 9. The rules need fixing and referee's NEED to check the monitors.
posted on 17/2/20
Sorry gem I didn’t intend to dismiss those not at the game I was just giving my own perspective. I know of people that have walked out of games because they are so fed up with var and it’s the process that upsets people not the fact that Wolves have had more decisions than most go against them. What was upsetting against Leicester was that there was a great atmosphere in the stadium in the first half but much less so after the disallowed goal. If people feel there’s no point celebrating a goal then so much of the excitement of attending the game is taken away
posted on 17/2/20
Var should only be used by the referee asking for it. Even then it must be his decision that is the final one.
The idea that someone sitting in front of a monitor miles away can stop the game and make the final decision is ridiculous.
One look at the monitor and the decision should be made, not replaying it time after time.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by bostonwolf (U17353)
posted 6 hours, 28 minutes ago
Var should only be used by the referee asking for it. Even then it must be his decision that is the final one.
The idea that someone sitting in front of a monitor miles away can stop the game and make the final decision is ridiculous.
One look at the monitor and the decision should be made, not replaying it time after time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad idea - it’s annoying enough at the moment with players surrounding the ref when VAR is already looking at a situation - if it’s the refs decision it would be a nightmare!!
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 19 hours, 2 minutes ago
Its getting more decisions right. The Premier League claim that its getting 91% right compared to 82% last season.
The price being paid is to go some way to ruining the spectacle for people that go to watch matches live, and I think that's more important than a few % points
----------------------------------------------------------------------
read somewhere that referees pre var got 97% right.
posted on 18/2/20
Referees should be allowed to have a quick catch up on the match threads to see how the decisions should play out....everybody knows it’s where the most knowledgeable fans hang out on match days
posted on 18/2/20
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 8 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by bostonwolf (U17353)
posted 6 hours, 28 minutes ago
Var should only be used by the referee asking for it. Even then it must be his decision that is the final one.
The idea that someone sitting in front of a monitor miles away can stop the game and make the final decision is ridiculous.
One look at the monitor and the decision should be made, not replaying it time after time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad idea - it’s annoying enough at the moment with players surrounding the ref when VAR is already looking at a situation - if it’s the refs decision it would be a nightmare!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That happened before VAR so its no different.
posted on 18/2/20
Two more wonderful decisions last night, both in favour of Man U.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Spangles (U17289)
posted 20 hours, 59 minutes ago
Its getting more decisions right. The Premier League claim that its getting 91% right compared to 82% last season.
The price being paid is to go some way to ruining the spectacle for people that go to watch matches live, and I think that's more important than a few % points
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd also argue that the claim that they're getting more decision right Is based on the flawed interpretation of the offside rule.
To them, a nostril hair is enough to warrant being offside.
To the sensible football fan, it's utterly appalling.
I know it might be difficult for some but cast your minds back to pre VAR and when we'd get the replay of an attacker and a defender 'in line' - nobody was interested in fingernails, toes and fringes being offside. That's a total nonsense.
If they're determined to use VAR technology then a better execution of the rule would be to say that an attacker is offside when his entire body is ahead of the last defender.
By and large, that was how we used to determine the rule. If a player had a portion of his body ahead, we'd typically allow them the advantage.
Literally nobody had a problem with that method and more importantly, it didn't spoil the spectacle.
posted on 18/2/20
What the technology cannot guarantee is that the photo used is at the exact moment the ball was played. So to consider someone as offside by one inch is ridiculous. There must be a margin for error.
Page 1 of 2