@drcongo said:
That VAR took about 10 minutes to sort out too and we only got 5 minutes added time. Utter nonsense.
If there were only 5 mins to play it doesn't matter how long the delay is. There is still 5 mins to play.
So, just to clarify: If the second half kicks off, and immediately a VAR decision comes up and takes 45 minutes to decide, there would be no time added on because it doesn't matter how long the delay is?
@drcongo said:
That VAR took about 10 minutes to sort out too and we only got 5 minutes added time. Utter nonsense.
If there were only 5 mins to play it doesn't matter how long the delay is. There is still 5 mins to play.
So, just to clarify: If the second half kicks off, and immediately a VAR decision comes up and takes 45 minutes to decide, there would be no time added on because it doesn't matter how long the delay is?
No? Same as before. If there are 45 mins to play you play 45 mins added time. If there are only 5 mins left to play when you have the 45 min VAR delay then you play 5 mins.
Ok, so you’re agreeing with me? You previously seemed to be suggesting that the ref was right to only play 5 minutes added time on a second half with five goals, five substitutions and 10 minutes of VAR delays.
If there was only 5 mins left to play when the VAR delay happened it doesn't matter if the delay was an hour. There would still only be five minutes to play.
90 mins are up on the clock and the fourth official signals the normal Wycombe seven minutes of added time.
Just as he does that Bayo is wrestled off the ball in the box and VAR is called for. Ten minutes are taken to decide that we never get anything for obvious fouls and the game restarts with a goal kick.
How long is left?
For me its an obvious 7 minutes but I think you think it would be longer. Would that sum it up?
In that scenario, there would be 100 minutes on the clock, and another seven would see the game end with 107 minutes on the clock with all things being equal.
The problem in the Scotland v Argentina game was that the penalty incident took place on 85 mins, the penalty was eventually given and taken (and then saved) on 91 mins. After VAR intervened again, the penalty was retaken and scored on 93 mins. During those eight minutes, the ball was in play for approximately 10 secs.
The full time whistle was then blown at 95 minutes.
An absolute farce that should easily have been avoided.
The end of that match was indeed farcical. From the 85th minute the ball couldn't have been in play for any more than a minute, so effectively the last 5 minutes and most of the added on time had been lost when the referee blew for full time. The end of the game with both sets of the players staring in disbelief at the ref pretty much summed the whole thing up.
I think everyone knows what added time is and @Right_in_the_Middle has just framed it differently. There is no doubt fifa screwed it.
It is pointless arguing over such things. They are evil. Var is evil. For evil to triumph it takes good people to do nothing. Cancel your sky subscription. Boycott mk games. Don't rape anyone or buy your children a replica shirt with ronaldo on the back. Together we are strong
I also watched a WWC game for the first time and apart from the shameful behaviour of some Cameroon players, I was struck by the shambolic affect VAR had on the game. If this is the future, I’m glad I’m living in the past.
Just ruining the Brazil France game too. Ref makes a 50/50 call. Then for some reason feels the need to review, maybe asked to by the var room? After a nice long delay changes mind despite it not being at all obvious that she was wrong first time.
Ooooh, stop messing about ! You need to be at least as old as @glasshalffull to recognise that catchphrase. But, seriously @Malone, I’m not clear who “they” are but if you mean the lady referees, the one “in charge” of the England game got a right going over by a quartet of analysts, including Gaby Logan and the venerable Dion Dublin.
There’s a big difference between ‘game management’ and the antics of the Cameroon players...refusing to play on, arguing with their coach and with each other, bursting into tears etc. I thought they were embarrassing and Phil Neville summed it up perfectly in his interview.
I'm sure I've waited longer for Ryan Allsop to take a goal kick than the Cameroon 'strike' went on for yesterday.
Of course this is mainly a joke and the womens game has been tarnished by the Cameroon players but was it much different to the Chelsea goalie refusing to be substituted in that cup final?
Agree about some of their tackles and we haven’t even mentioned the alleged spitting incident and apparently accusing racism towards FIFA. Disagree about it being ‘a mountain out of a molehill’. Their petulant behaviour damaged the image of the women’s game at a time when it is just beginning to gain popularity and credibility in this country
Comments
Although I've been fence sitting and hoping for improvement, this recent debacle has been the nail in the VAR coffin for me.
If there were only 5 mins to play it doesn't matter how long the delay is. There is still 5 mins to play.
Does VAR time in added time count as play?
So, just to clarify: If the second half kicks off, and immediately a VAR decision comes up and takes 45 minutes to decide, there would be no time added on because it doesn't matter how long the delay is?
VAR is the equivalent of a no deal Brexit
"There are a few things that could improve here.........LET'S DESTROY FOOTBALL!!!!"
No? Same as before. If there are 45 mins to play you play 45 mins added time. If there are only 5 mins left to play when you have the 45 min VAR delay then you play 5 mins.
Ok, so you’re agreeing with me? You previously seemed to be suggesting that the ref was right to only play 5 minutes added time on a second half with five goals, five substitutions and 10 minutes of VAR delays.
No. I am not agreeing with you. Not on any level.
If there was only 5 mins left to play when the VAR delay happened it doesn't matter if the delay was an hour. There would still only be five minutes to play.
I think you're maybe misunderstanding what added time is.
One last go then @drcongo
90 mins are up on the clock and the fourth official signals the normal Wycombe seven minutes of added time.
Just as he does that Bayo is wrestled off the ball in the box and VAR is called for. Ten minutes are taken to decide that we never get anything for obvious fouls and the game restarts with a goal kick.
How long is left?
For me its an obvious 7 minutes but I think you think it would be longer. Would that sum it up?
In that scenario, there would be 100 minutes on the clock, and another seven would see the game end with 107 minutes on the clock with all things being equal.
The problem in the Scotland v Argentina game was that the penalty incident took place on 85 mins, the penalty was eventually given and taken (and then saved) on 91 mins. After VAR intervened again, the penalty was retaken and scored on 93 mins. During those eight minutes, the ball was in play for approximately 10 secs.
The full time whistle was then blown at 95 minutes.
An absolute farce that should easily have been avoided.
The end of that match was indeed farcical. From the 85th minute the ball couldn't have been in play for any more than a minute, so effectively the last 5 minutes and most of the added on time had been lost when the referee blew for full time. The end of the game with both sets of the players staring in disbelief at the ref pretty much summed the whole thing up.
Thanks @ReadingMarginalista and @Wycombe85. I thought everyone understood what the word “added” meant, but apparently not.
So in summery: "It's Shite!". Think I've got it?
I think everyone knows what added time is and @Right_in_the_Middle has just framed it differently. There is no doubt fifa screwed it.
It is pointless arguing over such things. They are evil. Var is evil. For evil to triumph it takes good people to do nothing. Cancel your sky subscription. Boycott mk games. Don't rape anyone or buy your children a replica shirt with ronaldo on the back. Together we are strong
Hear hear to all of that.
Green shirts, extreme whining, lack of grasp of reality. Am i watching Cameroon or Plymouth.
If those in charge of VAR at the women’s World Cup we’re trying to demonstrate how awful it is I’m not sure what they’d be doing differently.
Saw my first bit of WWC this afternoon. What a mess the game has become due the officials not giving decisions and then watching a tiny TV for a bit.
I also watched a WWC game for the first time and apart from the shameful behaviour of some Cameroon players, I was struck by the shambolic affect VAR had on the game. If this is the future, I’m glad I’m living in the past.
Our West Country correspondent said VAR was a big step forward though and his opinions are rarely wrong!
Just ruining the Brazil France game too. Ref makes a 50/50 call. Then for some reason feels the need to review, maybe asked to by the var room? After a nice long delay changes mind despite it not being at all obvious that she was wrong first time.
Are they messing about more in the women's world cup as they know they'll avoid the scrutiny and criticism they'd have faced in the men's version?
Ooooh, stop messing about ! You need to be at least as old as @glasshalffull to recognise that catchphrase. But, seriously @Malone, I’m not clear who “they” are but if you mean the lady referees, the one “in charge” of the England game got a right going over by a quartet of analysts, including Gaby Logan and the venerable Dion Dublin.
To be fair to Cameroon @glasshalffull, it was only a bit of game management, which everyone does these days, don’t they?
That game is where we end up when we make excuses for this dreadful practice.
There’s a big difference between ‘game management’ and the antics of the Cameroon players...refusing to play on, arguing with their coach and with each other, bursting into tears etc. I thought they were embarrassing and Phil Neville summed it up perfectly in his interview.
I'm sure I've waited longer for Ryan Allsop to take a goal kick than the Cameroon 'strike' went on for yesterday.
Of course this is mainly a joke and the womens game has been tarnished by the Cameroon players but was it much different to the Chelsea goalie refusing to be substituted in that cup final?
Agreed, bit of a mountain out of a mole hill. Much worse was some of the nasty tackles they put in.
Agree about some of their tackles and we haven’t even mentioned the alleged spitting incident and apparently accusing racism towards FIFA. Disagree about it being ‘a mountain out of a molehill’. Their petulant behaviour damaged the image of the women’s game at a time when it is just beginning to gain popularity and credibility in this country
VAR and a poor referee...the perfect storm.
Glad we just have the poor referees.