Our VAR offside. They spent ages checking Ozil's foot. They scrolled through to

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

check Laca was onside when Ozil headed it. And when that showed it was clearly ok, they went back and checked Ozil again.

It's like they were trying to find a way to disallow the goal.

You don't go on to the Ozil-Laca bit unless you're sure that Auba-Ozil is ok.

I mean, you don't do ultra edge on DRS, then check ball tracker, and then go back to ultra edge if there's 3 red lights, do you?

I haven't watched any non-AFC footie this season. Is VAR always like this?

[WES]

check Laca was onside when Ozil headed it. And when that showed it was clearly ok, they went back and checked Ozil again.

It's like they were trying to find a way to disallow the goal.

You don't go on to the Ozil-Laca bit unless you're sure that Auba-Ozil is ok.

I mean, you don't do ultra edge on DRS, then check ball tracker, and then go back to ultra edge if there's 3 red lights, do you?

I haven't watched any non-AFC footie this season. Is VAR always like this?

What I find fascinating is the belief that a new offside rule or thicker lines will change anything. Wait for Wenger's proposal of clear daylight between the defender and the attacking player - then wait for a debate as to how much daylight there actually needs to be. Or wait for thicker lines - then wait for the debate as to how close the thick line needs to be to the defender or attacker.

:hehe: It's ridiculous as all we've done is moved from moaning about referees to moaning about VAR and no rule change will change that. Get rid of the f*cking thing on the basis that it is making the game less enjoyable to watch and in the end the real problem with VAR is that it takes sport far too seriously.

[Pat Vegas]

check Laca was onside when Ozil headed it. And when that showed it was clearly ok, they went back and checked Ozil again.

It's like they were trying to find a way to disallow the goal.

You don't go on to the Ozil-Laca bit unless you're sure that Auba-Ozil is ok.

I mean, you don't do ultra edge on DRS, then check ball tracker, and then go back to ultra edge if there's 3 red lights, do you?

I haven't watched any non-AFC footie this season. Is VAR always like this?

They ruled out City's won very quickly.

[IUFG]

check Laca was onside when Ozil headed it. And when that showed it was clearly ok, they went back and checked Ozil again.

It's like they were trying to find a way to disallow the goal.

You don't go on to the Ozil-Laca bit unless you're sure that Auba-Ozil is ok.

I mean, you don't do ultra edge on DRS, then check ball tracker, and then go back to ultra edge if there's 3 red lights, do you?

I haven't watched any non-AFC footie this season. Is VAR always like this?

I'd be wearing green boots by now, if I were a player...

[Burney]

What I find fascinating is the belief that a new offside rule or thicker lines will change anything. Wait for Wenger's proposal of clear daylight between the defender and the attacking player - then wait for a debate as to how much daylight there actually needs to be. Or wait for thicker lines - then wait for the debate as to how close the thick line needs to be to the defender or attacker.

:hehe: It's ridiculous as all we've done is moved from moaning about referees to moaning about VAR and no rule change will change that. Get rid of the f*cking thing on the basis that it is making the game less enjoyable to watch and in the end the real problem with VAR is that it takes sport far too seriously.

I oppose the idea that because technology has been implemented in an incredibly cackhanded and wholly nonsensical way, that we should therefore abandon it. How about just doing it better?

[WES]

I oppose the idea that because technology has been implemented in an incredibly cackhanded and wholly nonsensical way, that we should therefore abandon it. How about just doing it better?

I'm open to suggestions as to how it could be implemented better such that it didn't negatively impact the enjoyment of the game and would reduce the amount of controversy. :shrug:

That was clearly the intention but I have yet to hear a proposal that would achieve it.

[WES]

I oppose the idea that because technology has been implemented in an incredibly cackhanded and wholly nonsensical way, that we should therefore abandon it. How about just doing it better?

BTW - Labour suspending Trevor Phillips?

Yup, can't see that creating any negative publicity or prompting all sorts of conspiracy theories. :hehe:

They really don't want to ever be in government ever again, do they?

[Pokster]

I oppose the idea that because technology has been implemented in an incredibly cackhanded and wholly nonsensical way, that we should therefore abandon it. How about just doing it better?

If it gets offside correct then good...leave everything else to the ref until it can be implemented better

[Burney]

I'm open to suggestions as to how it could be implemented better such that it didn't negatively impact the enjoyment of the game and would reduce the amount of controversy. :shrug:

That was clearly the intention but I have yet to hear a proposal that would achieve it.

Just off the top of my head:

Stop it being a safety net for referees and instead put its use in the hands of the teams, with limited referrals in any game. This would have the effect of limiting its use due to the jeopardy of losing an unsuccessful review. It also puts the onus on the teams to get it right rather than leaving everything at the arbitrary and inconsistent whim of the officials (which is one of the things that causes resentment at present).

Insist that the referee's on-field decision has primacy and that no decision should be overturned unless there is a clear and unambiguous reason to do so (the equivalent of 'umpire's call'). In the case of offside decisions, this could indeed be 'daylight'.

Place a time limit on the review process. This could be as little as 90 seconds, preventing significant hold-ups.


That's just off the top of my head, but all these proposals would improve the process. It's never going to be without controversy, but at the moment, VAR is simply being used as a way of finding reasons to rule out goals. That's not what it should be for. It should be a means to arrive at better, more informed decisions.

[barrybueno]

Just off the top of my head:

Stop it being a safety net for referees and instead put its use in the hands of the teams, with limited referrals in any game. This would have the effect of limiting its use due to the jeopardy of losing an unsuccessful review. It also puts the onus on the teams to get it right rather than leaving everything at the arbitrary and inconsistent whim of the officials (which is one of the things that causes resentment at present).

Insist that the referee's on-field decision has primacy and that no decision should be overturned unless there is a clear and unambiguous reason to do so (the equivalent of 'umpire's call'). In the case of offside decisions, this could indeed be 'daylight'.

Place a time limit on the review process. This could be as little as 90 seconds, preventing significant hold-ups.


That's just off the top of my head, but all these proposals would improve the process. It's never going to be without controversy, but at the moment, VAR is simply being used as a way of finding reasons to rule out goals. That's not what it should be for. It should be a means to arrive at better, more informed decisions.

Not bad B. I'd say the powers of the var mob should be limited to telling the ref they think he's made a mistake and to have a look at the onfield monitor. It's totally up to him if he wants to change his mind.

Change the accidental handball rule as well, has to be the same rule for attack and defense.

[Tony C]

VAR man had £100 on nil-nil

Do you blame him?

:clap:

[Burney]

BTW - Labour suspending Trevor Phillips?

Yup, can't see that creating any negative publicity or prompting all sorts of conspiracy theories. :hehe:

They really don't want to ever be in government ever again, do they?

He's been in their sights for years due to his unfortunate habit of voicing unpalatable truths about the propensity of certain ethnic groupings to commit a disproportionate amount of certain types of crime. Being black could only protect him so long.

[Luis Anaconda]

What I find fascinating is the belief that a new offside rule or thicker lines will change anything. Wait for Wenger's proposal of clear daylight between the defender and the attacking player - then wait for a debate as to how much daylight there actually needs to be. Or wait for thicker lines - then wait for the debate as to how close the thick line needs to be to the defender or attacker.

:hehe: It's ridiculous as all we've done is moved from moaning about referees to moaning about VAR and no rule change will change that. Get rid of the f*cking thing on the basis that it is making the game less enjoyable to watch and in the end the real problem with VAR is that it takes sport far too seriously.
Wenger's rule simply suggests that if any part of the body that can legally is level then it is onside. The word daylight was never used in his definition, it was simply added later as a lazy way of explaining it. It will be as clear cut as the is now but just shifting the advantage to the attacking team not the defending one.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Just off the top of my head:

Stop it being a safety net for referees and instead put its use in the hands of the teams, with limited referrals in any game. This would have the effect of limiting its use due to the jeopardy of losing an unsuccessful review. It also puts the onus on the teams to get it right rather than leaving everything at the arbitrary and inconsistent whim of the officials (which is one of the things that causes resentment at present).

Insist that the referee's on-field decision has primacy and that no decision should be overturned unless there is a clear and unambiguous reason to do so (the equivalent of 'umpire's call'). In the case of offside decisions, this could indeed be 'daylight'.

Place a time limit on the review process. This could be as little as 90 seconds, preventing significant hold-ups.


That's just off the top of my head, but all these proposals would improve the process. It's never going to be without controversy, but at the moment, VAR is simply being used as a way of finding reasons to rule out goals. That's not what it should be for. It should be a means to arrive at better, more informed decisions.

I like the idea of that, but how do you determine umpire's call? If WHU had challenged Laca's goal, was that umpire's call or not?

Also, penalties that are a matter of interpretation. It would be bad enough to have a penalty refused because the ref thought there wasn't enough contact or he made a meal of it, but to then lose a review for a later howler wouldn't be good.

Also, I hate what goes on at corners. All this obstruction and shirt tugging is just as much a cheat as a dive.

I think that the first team to do it should be penalised. If the first grab is by a defender, then penalty. By an attacker, yellow card.

And let them review that at corners. It would soon stamp it out.

[Burney]

I like the idea of that, but how do you determine umpire's call? If WHU had challenged Laca's goal, was that umpire's call or not?

Also, penalties that are a matter of interpretation. It would be bad enough to have a penalty refused because the ref thought there wasn't enough contact or he made a meal of it, but to then lose a review for a later howler wouldn't be good.

Also, I hate what goes on at corners. All this obstruction and shirt tugging is just as much a cheat as a dive.

I think that the first team to do it should be penalised. If the first grab is by a defender, then penalty. By an attacker, yellow card.

And let them review that at corners. It would soon stamp it out.

You determine the call by virtue of the fact that the game is reffed as usual until there's a challenge to a decision. In marginal calls (ie those where there isn't a cast-iron reason to overturn it), the on-field decision stands, but the appealing side don't lose a review.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

You determine the call by virtue of the fact that the game is reffed as usual until there's a challenge to a decision. In marginal calls (ie those where there isn't a cast-iron reason to overturn it), the on-field decision stands, but the appealing side don't lose a review.

So was Laca's goal a marginal call or not? Would it have been different if the on field decision had been a goal and challenged by WHU?