If you replayed every time there was contact between players lots of times in slow motion you'd end up having 500 free kicks every game. Never a penalty in a million years
But like Floyd says, that's not the point. Even if it had revealed a blatant and deliberate trip, VAR would still be comfortably the worst thing, in terms of the on pitch aspect of the game, that has happened to football in my lifetime.
I’m really not a fan of var such a rediculous delay to the game just glad we won’t have it in the lower leagues for decades so unless we miraculously hit the heights of the prem we won’t have to worry about it for a long time. Think it will turn the World Cup into a bit of a circus! At the end of the day it’s just another opinion so mistakes are still gonna be made
if it had been a stamp on the foot, it certainly would have been a foul, but the touching of feet which took place should not have been considered a foul, they were both playing for the ball. What was missed, which the VAR could pick up, was the constant shirt pulling and deliberate holding of players. Both teams were guilty of these offenses. Hopefully referees in the world cup will not be "selective" in their use of VAR, but I wouldn't bank on it.
It's supposed to sort out clear and obvious. Like Maradona and Henry hand Balls, not dubious ones that still have split's in decisions. But sadly it seems to be going that way already. Why did he have watch it 20 times! He didn't know himself.
I think it probably was a foul, but that's beside the point, it wasn't 100% a foul, so it's not a clear and obvious error.
I'm anti-VAR generally, but I can see a place for it if there's a limited time frame for them to check (less than it takes to restart play normally, 30 seconds?), if it takes longer than that to decide that's it's 100% an error, then it's obviously not a "clear and obvious error"
Surely @Username it’s not a case of using the system to decide whether an error has been made; rather to decide what decision to make in the light of VAR evidence. I haven’t seen it in use so I’m only aware of frustrating delays and other limitations of the system from what I read and hear.
Since delays and consequent loss of immediacy and continuity seem to be the main source of frustration I very much agree with your suggestion of a time limit for the referee to make his decision.
Not an exact analogy, I know, but I have in mind the time limit (only 15 seconds) within which cricketers have to decide whether to challenge an umpire’s decision under the Decision Review System (DRS) Not sure who times the referee though!
Let’s hope the system, if it continues after the World Cup, doesn’t filter down to our level, wherever that may be.
Usually after a few billion pounds has been spent and they have ruined a few hundred miles of greenbelt, they'll decide we're all working from home and no-one really wants to go to Birmingham.
@micra said:
Surely Username it’s not a case of using the system to decide whether an error has been made; rather to decide what decision to make in the light of VAR evidence. I haven’t seen it in use so I’m only aware of frustrating delays and other limitations of the system from what I read and hear.
Since delays and consequent loss of immediacy and continuity seem to be the main source of frustration I very much agree with your suggestion of a time limit for the referee to make his decision.
It exactly is to decide whether a referee has made an error and not to make the "right" call after 10 replays. It's meant to be there to stop the absolute shockers/ mistakes, if there's any doubt then the on field refs decision should stand (like umpires call).
We need a fifth official to look at the video referral system reviewing the VAR, to tell the fourth official to tell the referee that it wasn't a penalty.
Sounds like I’ve totally misunderstood the sequence of events. So reference to VAR occurs AFTER the referee has made his decision? Does he then in effect demonstrate his uncertainty by asking for VAR or is reference to VAR requested by someone else?
I’m sure I’m being a right dumbo on this but my excuse is the fact that I have never actually witnessed it in operation. Lucky me.
In my view it will only work if it is operated in a similar manner to cricket. Each manager is entitled to only one challenge to a referee's decision or non-decision. However, if the challenge is successful the manager retains the right to make a further one.
Comments
It was pen - I was at the game
A weak effort at 11.04. Must be time for bed die bos
He stood on his foot its a foul !!
People who defend VAR by saying 'he got the decision right,' totally miss the point don't they?
I know what you mean, @floyd, but there's also something to be said for getting decisions right.
Not at any cost though. And neither was it a 'clear and obvious error.'
If you replayed every time there was contact between players lots of times in slow motion you'd end up having 500 free kicks every game. Never a penalty in a million years
But like Floyd says, that's not the point. Even if it had revealed a blatant and deliberate trip, VAR would still be comfortably the worst thing, in terms of the on pitch aspect of the game, that has happened to football in my lifetime.
get a grip...it was 100% a penalty.. so people have rose tinted glasses on.
I’m really not a fan of var such a rediculous delay to the game just glad we won’t have it in the lower leagues for decades so unless we miraculously hit the heights of the prem we won’t have to worry about it for a long time. Think it will turn the World Cup into a bit of a circus! At the end of the day it’s just another opinion so mistakes are still gonna be made
It was not 100% a penalty , must have situations like this all the time, we would be having penalties all the time if decisions were as soft as that.
It's a long time since @Wwfc2015_ has been able to accuse people of being rose-tinted for a long time give him a break.
I think its a foul anywhere else on the pitch so why not a penalty ?
Bollox was it a foul. I thought it was a total accident. So shows you that we can't even agree on here.
At least we'll teach them ruskies a lesson by exiting in the group stage.
if it had been a stamp on the foot, it certainly would have been a foul, but the touching of feet which took place should not have been considered a foul, they were both playing for the ball. What was missed, which the VAR could pick up, was the constant shirt pulling and deliberate holding of players. Both teams were guilty of these offenses. Hopefully referees in the world cup will not be "selective" in their use of VAR, but I wouldn't bank on it.
It's supposed to sort out clear and obvious. Like Maradona and Henry hand Balls, not dubious ones that still have split's in decisions. But sadly it seems to be going that way already. Why did he have watch it 20 times! He didn't know himself.
I feel like Jim Maxwell sounded when he broke down commentating on the Australian ball tampering. How is this happening?
I think it probably was a foul, but that's beside the point, it wasn't 100% a foul, so it's not a clear and obvious error.
I'm anti-VAR generally, but I can see a place for it if there's a limited time frame for them to check (less than it takes to restart play normally, 30 seconds?), if it takes longer than that to decide that's it's 100% an error, then it's obviously not a "clear and obvious error"
Goal line technology was a good thing.
This delaying stuff I really dislike.
Surely @Username it’s not a case of using the system to decide whether an error has been made; rather to decide what decision to make in the light of VAR evidence. I haven’t seen it in use so I’m only aware of frustrating delays and other limitations of the system from what I read and hear.
Since delays and consequent loss of immediacy and continuity seem to be the main source of frustration I very much agree with your suggestion of a time limit for the referee to make his decision.
Not an exact analogy, I know, but I have in mind the time limit (only 15 seconds) within which cricketers have to decide whether to challenge an umpire’s decision under the Decision Review System (DRS) Not sure who times the referee though!
Let’s hope the system, if it continues after the World Cup, doesn’t filter down to our level, wherever that may be.
@micra about the time they decide to abandon HS2?
Haven’t they decided yet?
Usually after a few billion pounds has been spent and they have ruined a few hundred miles of greenbelt, they'll decide we're all working from home and no-one really wants to go to Birmingham.
It exactly is to decide whether a referee has made an error and not to make the "right" call after 10 replays. It's meant to be there to stop the absolute shockers/ mistakes, if there's any doubt then the on field refs decision should stand (like umpires call).
It will improve when they develop a video referral system to review the VAR system. We just have to be patient until then.
We need a fifth official to look at the video referral system reviewing the VAR, to tell the fourth official to tell the referee that it wasn't a penalty.
But does there have to be daylight between the fifth official and the last defender, or is it just any body part ahead?
Sounds like I’ve totally misunderstood the sequence of events. So reference to VAR occurs AFTER the referee has made his decision? Does he then in effect demonstrate his uncertainty by asking for VAR or is reference to VAR requested by someone else?
I’m sure I’m being a right dumbo on this but my excuse is the fact that I have never actually witnessed it in operation. Lucky me.
In my view it will only work if it is operated in a similar manner to cricket. Each manager is entitled to only one challenge to a referee's decision or non-decision. However, if the challenge is successful the manager retains the right to make a further one.
depends if the lino has already flagged @Jonny_King