Alyson Rudd of the Times assures me that VAR rightly confirmed that it wasn't a pen

[redgunamo]

And nobody wants the officials to be correct 100% of the time, in any case. Otherwise how to explain away a 2-0 defeat at Swindon Town, or somewhere like that, without at least in part blaming the linesman or the ref. For the good of the game, these functionaries must continue to exist as sort of Aunt Sally, pantomime characters.

The problem with football, of course, is that there is that element of discretion left to referees regarding intent and so forth, so a review system will always mean that there will be a clash between different interpretations. The question is whether on or off-field officials will have the final say.

[WES]

And nobody wants the officials to be correct 100% of the time, in any case. Otherwise how to explain away a 2-0 defeat at Swindon Town, or somewhere like that, without at least in part blaming the linesman or the ref. For the good of the game, these functionaries must continue to exist as sort of Aunt Sally, pantomime characters.

Yes, that will never change.

VAR is the new referee, as such. Which sort of suggests it's pointless, really.

[Burney]

And nobody wants the officials to be correct 100% of the time, in any case. Otherwise how to explain away a 2-0 defeat at Swindon Town, or somewhere like that, without at least in part blaming the linesman or the ref. For the good of the game, these functionaries must continue to exist as sort of Aunt Sally, pantomime characters.

No, but I do think they want their decisions to be subject to scrutiny and for them to no longer be the sole arbiters in the game. That would fundamentally change on-field refereeing. For instance, there's no way Mike Reilly could have reffed our game against United the way he did if his frankly bizarre decisions could be sent upstairs.

[redgunamo]

True, but the whole cabal of 'em will simply make the necessary adjustments, imo. After all, a ref with a Macbook is still a ref.

No, but I do think they want their decisions to be subject to scrutiny and for them to no longer be the sole arbiters in the game. That would fundamentally change on-field refereeing. For instance, there's no way Mike Reilly could have reffed our game against United the way he did if his frankly bizarre decisions could be sent upstairs.

[Burney]

True, but the whole cabal of 'em will simply make the necessary adjustments, imo. After all, a ref with a Macbook is still a ref.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they like each other. I'm sure there are plenty of referees who'd take great pleasure in overturning Mike Dein's decisions.

I can't believe iufg hasn't seized on the Mike Reilly reference. He's falling down on the job.

[IUFG]

Yes, but that doesn't mean they like each other. I'm sure there are plenty of referees who'd take great pleasure in overturning Mike Dein's decisions.

I can't believe iufg hasn't seized on the Mike Reilly reference. He's falling down on the job.

name
2 things, b

1) I have to log in
2) YOU have to spell the cnuts correctly



it was 2004 btw

[Burney]

name
2 things, b

1) I have to log in
2) YOU have to spell the cnuts correctly



it was 2004 btw

I am spelling his name correctly. It's not my fault he doesn't.

[redgunamo]

Probably. Personally. But these are professionals nowadays and therefore will always stick together.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they like each other. I'm sure there are plenty of referees who'd take great pleasure in overturning Mike Dein's decisions.

I can't believe iufg hasn't seized on the Mike Reilly reference. He's falling down on the job.