Mixed feelings on that VAR ****. I felt it worked

[IUFG]

When they looked at something which happened just before the ball went dead like the Maitland-Niles penalty, but it felt weird with the Fabregas one when play continued for a while after the actual incident.

On balance I’m not a fan.

it'll end up like rugby where the referee ends up referring 3/4 of all tries to the VAR.

It is also time to have open time keeping for the match imo. When VAR is instigated the clock should stop. That will save the ridicules c.10 minutes of added time at the end of 90 mins.

[Burney]

it'll end up like rugby where the referee ends up referring 3/4 of all tries to the VAR.

It is also time to have open time keeping for the match imo. When VAR is instigated the clock should stop. That will save the ridicules c.10 minutes of added time at the end of 90 mins.

I've long thought that football matches should be 60 minutes of playing time with the clock stopping every time the ball is out of play. In effect, that is about the amount of time spent playing anyway, after all.

[Pat Vegas]

it'll end up like rugby where the referee ends up referring 3/4 of all tries to the VAR.

It is also time to have open time keeping for the match imo. When VAR is instigated the clock should stop. That will save the ridicules c.10 minutes of added time at the end of 90 mins.

I hope it doesn't become where everybody starts to challenge every single goal and any sort of physical contact in the box could be come a long boring game.

[Luis Anaconda]

I hope it doesn't become where everybody starts to challenge every single goal and any sort of physical contact in the box could be come a long boring game.

Wenger has said for years that they should have a challenge system like in cricket/tennis - still quite random at the moment

[redgunamo]

Wenger has said for years that they should have a challenge system like in cricket/tennis - still quite random at the moment

I'm still not comfortable with them challenging the umpires decisions in cricket. It's not .. er .. cricket, imo.

Couldn't care less what they do in the tennis though, of course.

[Burney]

I'm still not comfortable with them challenging the umpires decisions in cricket. It's not .. er .. cricket, imo.

Couldn't care less what they do in the tennis though, of course.

If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that.

[Peter]

If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that.

It has helped with lbw and nicks in cricket, also run outs. For some reason it has led to umpires not bothering to check for no balls anymore, which is a bit weird. It may also have made the standard of umpiring slightly worse.

THe one where Malan was given out after a huge inside edge. Leaving aside the fact that he should have challenged it I was watching it live and was stunned the umpire gave out. My initial reaction was it wasn't out in a million years- hit him outside the line, he's moving and there was something wrong with it- which turned out to be a massive inside edge. I still cant quite believe he gave it out.

[Burney]

It has helped with lbw and nicks in cricket, also run outs. For some reason it has led to umpires not bothering to check for no balls anymore, which is a bit weird. It may also have made the standard of umpiring slightly worse.

THe one where Malan was given out after a huge inside edge. Leaving aside the fact that he should have challenged it I was watching it live and was stunned the umpire gave out. My initial reaction was it wasn't out in a million years- hit him outside the line, he's moving and there was something wrong with it- which turned out to be a massive inside edge. I still cant quite believe he gave it out.

I'd agree that the standard of on-field umpiring has fallen dramatically, but would argue that that is because umpires are not being held to account for making poor on-field decisions. I'd argue that if your decisions are getting regularly overturned, you need to be kicked off the international umpire's panel and replaced with someone better. You'd soon see on-field decisions improving again.

The Malan thing is bizarre. Sure, it was a terrible decision, but I can remember worse from the days before DRS. However, I've played cricket for 35 years and never in all that time have I even feathered one and not known it (I mean I've stood there swearing blind I didn't hit it when I knew I did, obviously, but that's different ). That someone can smash the ball into his pad like that and not know he's done it enough to challenge the decision is simply astonishing to me.

In short, Malan was out there because he was a thick cünt.

[Bergkamp Was Best]

If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that.

I agree entirely Burney.

Football is way too open to poor decisions being made because of human error. Every goal should be reviewed to help eliminate things like incorrect offside decisions (for and against) and unspotted fouls that definitely interfere with play. However, I don't think that it should be left solely to the referee on the pitch to make a final decision though.

[redgunamo]

If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that.

It's a silly thing done in a silly way. But, if you must, then get the video umpire and his on-field colleagues to be in constant conference with each other, independent of baying from the players. If any of them notice anything, they should make their decision which is then relayed to everybody else through the on-field official-in-charge.