by Silver Fox » 25 Aug 2019 11:02
by Snowflake Royal » 25 Aug 2019 13:07
Silver Fox Today’s VAR question arises from yesterday’s Liverpool v Arsenal game.
Aubamayang goes through on goal, offside and proceeds to stand around in the box waiting for Matip to tackle him, the ball going out for a corner. As it happens the Arse fail to score from the set piece but if they had would the initial break have been reviewed as the line-o had seemingly followed the new plan of doing fvck all? I’m guessing not but happy to be proved wrong
by Franchise FC » 25 Aug 2019 18:14
by The Enfield Royal71 » 25 Aug 2019 18:33
by Ascotexgunner » 25 Aug 2019 21:45
Franchise FC Today’s incidents have put the final nail in the coffin of VAR for me.
David Silva clearly trodden on, which is a foul, but no penalty given.
Harry Kane taken out even more clearly , but no penalty given. Can’t even see why Mike Dean didn’t give it on first viewing.
Law states “trips or attempts to trip” - says nothing at all about intentional, so they’re both pens and VAR has failed to dliver
by Franchise FC » 25 Aug 2019 21:47
by The Enfield Royal71 » 25 Aug 2019 23:11
Franchise FC Law states “trips or attempts to trip” - says nothing at all about intentional, so they’re both pens and VAR has failed to dliver
by Franchise FC » 26 Aug 2019 18:30
by Snowflake Royal » 26 Aug 2019 20:39
tmesisFranchise FC Law states “trips or attempts to trip” - says nothing at all about intentional, so they’re both pens and VAR has failed to dliver
Isn't "tripping somebody", by definition, a conscious act? Tripping over somebody isn't the same as being tripped by them.
Of course, these days it's common for any form of contact to be enough, but is that really why the law was brought in?
Similarly, with the offside rule. It was surely invented to stop people just goalhanging, or loitering behind the defence, to get an advantage. It wasn't there to stop people being 2 cm offside, yet that's what VAR is doing, and it shouldn't be. They are reviewing too much. It should be like cricket or tennis where teams get one or two reviews per match.
genomeSanguine That's the crux of it really, isn't it. I'm not really seeing or feeling any 'pain' from VAR. It's not visibly or audibly affecting the stadium experience, the Premier League's version of it is proving for the most part swift and decisive, and amongst the subjective stuff it is making correct decisions on marginal calls, mainly around offsides.
What's your criteria for "visibly and audibly affecting the stadium experience"?
Does it extend to Wolves fans chanting "oxf*rd VAR"?
Snowflake RoyaltmesisFranchise FC Law states “trips or attempts to trip” - says nothing at all about intentional, so they’re both pens and VAR has failed to dliver
Isn't "tripping somebody", by definition, a conscious act? Tripping over somebody isn't the same as being tripped by them.
Of course, these days it's common for any form of contact to be enough, but is that really why the law was brought in?
Similarly, with the offside rule. It was surely invented to stop people just goalhanging, or loitering behind the defence, to get an advantage. It wasn't there to stop people being 2 cm offside, yet that's what VAR is doing, and it shouldn't be. They are reviewing too much. It should be like cricket or tennis where teams get one or two reviews per match.
If I trip over a chair, I'm pretty sure it's not a conscious act on the part of the chair.
The laws are to prevent people getting an unfair advantage
, and the only way to (try to) consistently and fairly enforce them is to (try to) have clear and well defined criteria to award them.
by Snowflake Royal » 27 Aug 2019 20:48
tmesisSnowflake Royaltmesis Isn't "tripping somebody", by definition, a conscious act? Tripping over somebody isn't the same as being tripped by them.
Of course, these days it's common for any form of contact to be enough, but is that really why the law was brought in?
Similarly, with the offside rule. It was surely invented to stop people just goalhanging, or loitering behind the defence, to get an advantage. It wasn't there to stop people being 2 cm offside, yet that's what VAR is doing, and it shouldn't be. They are reviewing too much. It should be like cricket or tennis where teams get one or two reviews per match.
If I trip over a chair, I'm pretty sure it's not a conscious act on the part of the chair.
Indeed. Would you say the chair tripped you in that case...i.e. would you blame the chair?The laws are to prevent people getting an unfair advantage
Would you say an accidental collision would give one person an unfair advantage?, and the only way to (try to) consistently and fairly enforce them is to (try to) have clear and well defined criteria to award them.
Unfortunately, that's where it falls down.
It's like the new law about handball, where a goal now has to be ruled out if it touches somebody's arm. Why? The whole point of the handball law is to stop people controlling the ball with their hands. If a shot brushes somebody's arm on the way into the goal, so what?
by John Madejski's Wallet » 27 Aug 2019 22:00
Snowflake RoyaltmesisFranchise FC Law states “trips or attempts to trip” - says nothing at all about intentional, so they’re both pens and VAR has failed to dliver
Isn't "tripping somebody", by definition, a conscious act? Tripping over somebody isn't the same as being tripped by them.
Of course, these days it's common for any form of contact to be enough, but is that really why the law was brought in?
Similarly, with the offside rule. It was surely invented to stop people just goalhanging, or loitering behind the defence, to get an advantage. It wasn't there to stop people being 2 cm offside, yet that's what VAR is doing, and it shouldn't be. They are reviewing too much. It should be like cricket or tennis where teams get one or two reviews per match.
If I trip over a chair, I'm pretty sure it's not a conscious act on the part of the chair.
It's quite easy to trip someone without intending to if you're both close to each other or you don't look where you're going.
The laws are to prevent people getting an unfair advantage, and the only way to (try to) consistently and fairly enforce them is to (try to) have clear and well defined criteria to award them.
by Snowflake Royal » 27 Aug 2019 22:06
John Madejski's WalletSnowflake Royaltmesis Isn't "tripping somebody", by definition, a conscious act? Tripping over somebody isn't the same as being tripped by them.
Of course, these days it's common for any form of contact to be enough, but is that really why the law was brought in?
Similarly, with the offside rule. It was surely invented to stop people just goalhanging, or loitering behind the defence, to get an advantage. It wasn't there to stop people being 2 cm offside, yet that's what VAR is doing, and it shouldn't be. They are reviewing too much. It should be like cricket or tennis where teams get one or two reviews per match.
If I trip over a chair, I'm pretty sure it's not a conscious act on the part of the chair.
It's quite easy to trip someone without intending to if you're both close to each other or you don't look where you're going.
The laws are to prevent people getting an unfair advantage, and the only way to (try to) consistently and fairly enforce them is to (try to) have clear and well defined criteria to award them.
The chair didn't trip you.
You tripped over the chair. You're the one at fault.
A 'trip' is by definition intentional
Hoop Blah So, another few weeks on and we're seeing plenty of goals disallowed for questionable offsides and a lack of decisions being overturned.
Current impressions of VAR?
I still don't think it's worth the time, effort and impact it's having on the game. How decisions like Lascelles vs Matip aren't reviewed as clear and obvious I don't know. Similarly, some of these marginal offsides that are being ruled as factual just don't stack up for me either and I don't like the non-decision making effect it has on the officials.
Nothing I've seen so far is winning me over to VAR.
Users browsing this forum: Orion1871 and 119 guests