VAR

[had.e.nuff]

wait till its saying VAR brought to by xXXXXx, then they will be going to it more often to please the sponsors

[blueboy3333]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

VAR doesnt work like I keep saying and never will in football

Worked tonight. It was a clear penalty missed by the ref.

[AllRoverAsia]

VAR at the WC will be a fiasco.

I'm assuming that the WC will have Refs from all over the place.

Will a Ref from Nepal or anywhere for that matter be experienced in VAR.

Ok maybe they will get an intro..But in match play?

There could be 100s of pens awarded if tonights is an example.

The game is changing so much, I don't think I like it anymore.

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

Worked tonight. It was a clear penalty missed by the ref.

It was soft.

[roverandout]

6 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Worked tonight. It was a clear penalty missed by the ref.

No nay never

[Rover_Shaun]

Simple solution

Scrap VAR and go back to the way that has worked for over a century.

[yorkyclaret]

Never a pen, as he was already going down, he stuck his foot out to the right (deliberately or not) in-front of Tarks, whos natural run lead to him accidentally standing on his foot, a fraction of a second later, zero intent. How come VAR looked at our goal, but didn't notice that the free kick was taken from the wrong place?

[blueboy3333]

If someone is losing their balance in the box and 'already going down' and then gets taken out at waist height with a two-footed assault is that a penalty? Of course it is. Same if someone stands on your foot as you're running with the ball in the box. Clear penalty, even if it was 'soft'

[blueboy3333]

5 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

It was soft.

...but still a clear penalty. If that happens to Dack on Thursday and we don't get a pen there'd  be uproar on here.

[The Gull]

The issue is that it needs to be used consistently, at the minute some things get reviewed and others don't unless one of the officials raises a concern.

If it is to be successful I think it should be like cricket or tennis where the number of reviews are limited if you keep reviewing rubbish, football is not like rugby where they play advantage and have clear breaks in the game where they can check something, with the refs miked up it tends to work quite smoothly.  Too many whining asses in football that will claim for everything and have no respect for the officials.

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, blueboy3333 said:

...but still a clear penalty. If that happens to Dack on Thursday and we don't get a pen there'd  be uproar on here.

It would be unlikely to be given as a penalty in a non-VAR game or even debated or considered one.

T did however slightly pull the player back causing the Italian to fall/ dive causing the foot collision. Only apparent on micro analysis, well if that is reviewed it should be also the case for all player contacts, which is plain stupid.

Ox was pushed over from behind when he fell at speed earlier in the pen area. If that had been reviewed a pen must have been given.

The WC will be a farce and it will be interesting to see against which nations reviews are made.

[Mattyblue]

It will be a complete disaster at the World Cup.

FIFA will state it was ‘just a trial’ and it will never be head of again.

[perthblue02]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

It will be a complete disaster at the World Cup.

FIFA will state it was ‘just a trial’ and it will never be head of again.

I think that depends on how much FIFA bag in sponsorship income for VAR replays, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with if it is a disaster from a game point of view.

Will be interesting to see if there are any guarantees written into the contracts for VAR sponsors.

"Sterling falls in the box with no Belgian player within a metre of him, was he tripped or did he slip on the wet surface, whilst we review the VAR for the eighth time in this game, Don't let your car slip on wet surfaces use bridgestone wet winter tyres the official sponsor of WC2018 England v Belgium VAR"

Edited March 28, 2018 by perthblue02

[K-Hod]

They reached the correct decision ultimately, it was a definite penalty.

Technology can easily work in football, it just perhaps needs a different format (i.e. like in other sports).

[BlackburnEnd75]

Just now, K-Hod said:

They reached the correct decision ultimately, it was a definite penalty.

Technology can easily work in football, it just perhaps needs a different format (i.e. like in other sports).

Just because there was contact in the penalty area doesn't mean its a 'definite' penalty.

I didn't think it was a foul, he's already falling over having lost possession. and he sticks his foot out to try to regain balance.

It was 'definitely' not a clear and obvious error. 

 

 

 

[arbitro]

2 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

They reached the correct decision ultimately, it was a definite penalty.

Technology can easily work in football, it just perhaps needs a different format (i.e. like in other sports).

I haven't seen the incident but I have seen as many opinions to say it wasn't a penalty as there are saying it was and therein lies the main issue for me. VAR is fine for matters of fact such as off-side or the ball crossing the line. When it comes down to an opinion there are so many grey areas but the stakeholders are expecting black and white. I also think it is taking some emotion out of the game. Imagine the Championship play-off final and in the last minute fans are waiting several minutes for the VAR to come up with a decision that could determine a game worth over £150m. For matters of opinion the decision should be instant in my opinion and we live with the consequences.

[K-Hod]

25 minutes ago, BlackburnEnd75 said:

Just because there was contact in the penalty area doesn't mean its a 'definite' penalty.

I didn't think it was a foul, he's already falling over having lost possession. and he sticks his foot out to try to regain balance.

It was 'definitely' not a clear and obvious error. 

 

 

 

As Blueboy said, if that was Bradley Dack on Thursday and we didn't get the penalty, people would be going ape......

 

[blueboy3333]

3 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

It would be unlikely to be given as a penalty in a non-VAR game or even debated or considered one.

T did however slightly pull the player back causing the Italian to fall/ dive causing the foot collision. Only apparent on micro analysis, well if that is reviewed it should be also the case for all player contacts, which is plain stupid.

Ox was pushed over from behind when he fell at speed earlier in the pen area. If that had been reviewed a pen must have been given.

The WC will be a farce and it will be interesting to see against which nations reviews are made.

Still a penalty which was my only point. On the wider point i yhink it's a ludicrous system which has no place in  football. 

[blueboy3333]

39 minutes ago, BlackburnEnd75 said:

Just because there was contact in the penalty area doesn't mean its a 'definite' penalty.

I didn't think it was a foul, he's already falling over having lost possession. and he sticks his foot out to try to regain balance.

It was 'definitely' not a clear and obvious error. 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if he was falling over or not if there is subsequent contact.

[AllRoverAsia]

2 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

As Blueboy said, if that was Bradley Dack on Thursday and we didn't get the penalty, people would be going ape......

 

Disagree. Most would not have seen it as a penalty in the first place....like the Ref, the Italians, the Commentators and may I say most viewers, on first view pre microscope.

As @BlackburnEnd75 alludes contact is not an automatic penalty, or should not be.

However VAR puts the onfield official under tremendous pressure to find something now that his original decision has been openly questioned.

VAR is a can of worms.

[arbitro]

11 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

As Blueboy said, if that was Bradley Dack on Thursday and we didn't get the penalty, people would be going ape......

 

We probably would but Bradford, Shrewsbury and Wigan fans would be screaming no penalty and accuse Rack of cheating.

'Twas ever thus.

[BlackburnEnd75]

32 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

It doesn't matter if he was falling over or not if there is subsequent contact.

Just because two players make contact in the penalty area doesn't make it a foul and a penalty

[blueboy3333]

Just now, BlackburnEnd75 said:

Just because two players make contact in the penalty area doesn't make it a foul and a penalty

But in this case it does. 

[BlackburnEnd75]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

But in this case it does. 

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
 

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• spits at an opponent

Thats the law - what part of that would you say equals a penalty?

 

 

[blueboy3333]

13 minutes ago, BlackburnEnd75 said:

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
 

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• spits at an opponent

Thats the law - what part of that would you say equals a penalty?

 

 

Why are you quoting laws on direct free kicks?