Hi @DevC. I’ve been off the Gasroom for a bit, but I’m really enjoying being back to observe your continued blind support for VAR and largely ignorant opinion that Nnamdi Ofoborh is only good enough to be a mid to lower table Championship player. Keep up your good work.
We are all entitled to our opinions. It would be boring if we already agreed. It’s a shame that electronic media encourages some to express them so aggressively.
While Ofoborh may well have a very good career, personally I doubt he is ready yet to start regularly in a top eight champ side. I might be proven wrong though.
For me VAR is a flawed imperfect system , it is man made after all, but for me it gives refs a chance to make more considered judgements on tight key decisions and is a net positive. I respect that you may feel differently.
but for me it gives refs a chance to make more considered judgements on tight key decisions
That's a cool idea @DevC, you should suggest it to the FA as the system we have at the moment where someone who is not the ref makes an arbitrary decision based on available camera angles with varying frame rates, is clearly a load of shit.
You are entitled to your view Doc. I see a qualified referee seeing better what actually happened and making a decision with that knowledge. I really don’t care whether that referee is on the pitch or not. All opinions though.
As I say Fleetwoods home penalty almost certainly would not have been given if VAR had existed. It could easily have cost us promotion.
@DevC said:
You are entitled to your view Doc. I see a qualified referee seeing better what actually happened and making a decision with that knowledge. I really don’t care whether that referee is on the pitch or not. All opinions though.
As I say Fleetwoods home penalty almost certainly would not have been given if VAR had existed. It could easily have cost us promotion.
I don’t agree with you on VAR, but that’s a very subjective subject. However, I do agree with you about the levels of aggression and rudeness that are so commonplace on social media. It’s really not necessary.
@DevC said:
You are entitled to your view Doc. I see a qualified referee seeing better what actually happened and making a decision with that knowledge. I really don’t care whether that referee is on the pitch or not. All opinions though.
As I say Fleetwoods home penalty almost certainly would not have been given if VAR had existed. It could easily have cost us promotion.
That’s a rather selective answer regarding penalty decisions @DevC
There would have been a pen for handball against Stewart in the second leg and our winning pen at Wembley would have been ruled out for Fred’s offside.
VAR means we effectively have someone watching a telly second guessing the referee and then pundits watching the telly second guessing the second guesser of the referee. Glad there is no more controversy myself.
@Wendoverman said:
VAR means we effectively have someone watching a telly second guessing the referee and then pundits watching the telly second guessing the second guesser of the referee. Glad there is no more controversy myself.
VAR is for TV presenters. They used to sit around slagging off refs whilst not agreeing with eachother about the decision. Now they can slag off 2 refs whilst still not being able to agree amongst themselves hours or days later with the benefit of many replays. The decision is still subjective, the process is intrusive.
Everyone moans about the "subjective" nature of var.
But when there's a rule that is factual, like the ball hitting an attacker's hand ruling out any subsequent goal, people don't like that either.
That’s a good argument against VAR in my opinion. They have had to change the rule about handball BECAUSE of VAR to take out any semblance of subjectivity but in the process made the game less fair (in my view)
The application of the offside rule is the most egregious issue. There have been goals ruled out this season that would have stood without question before VAR.
Indeed @floyd ...a toe or an arm over the line is ridiculous and has cost some clubs dearly. And the idea that a ball that accidentally hits an arm is cheating is ridiculous.
@Malone said:
Everyone moans about the "subjective" nature of var.
But when there's a rule that is factual, like the ball hitting an attacker's hand ruling out any subsequent goal, people don't like that either.
Except that they weren't consistent in applying it much to the cost of AFCB this season.
@Malone said:
Everyone moans about the "subjective" nature of var.
But when there's a rule that is factual, like the ball hitting an attacker's hand ruling out any subsequent goal, people don't like that either.
Except that they weren't consistent in applying it much to the cost of AFCB this season.
Were there goals that hit arms that were allowed?
It was always applied ruthlessly when i watched. Even when someone smashed a ball against the arm of a prone player!!
@Wendoverman said:
Indeed @floyd ...a toe or an arm over the line is ridiculous and has cost some clubs dearly. And the idea that a ball that accidentally hits an arm is cheating is ridiculous.
The problem is if you try and be accurate, what level of accuracy do you go to? They've gone too far.
@Wendoverman said:
Indeed @floyd ...a toe or an arm over the line is ridiculous and has cost some clubs dearly. And the idea that a ball that accidentally hits an arm is cheating is ridiculous.
Absolutely right. I seem to remember that a ball accidentally striking an arm (Schnellinger possibly?) and rebounding to a player (Webber, I think), who then scored a goal, was good enough for West Germany to equalize at 2-2 in the 1966 World Cup Final. It wasn't cheating. It was fortunate for the Germans but simply bad luck for us. Geoff Hurst put it all to rights a few minutes later and that's football.
@Malone I don't mind using VAR to prove clear or marginal off-sides if the referee misses it, but they've changed the rules so that posture or an arm or a toe or nose slightly ahead of the defender counts. That does not give the player any advantage at all which makes you wonder if the people who made the rule...know anything about football.
That's my pet peeve too @Wendoverman - to me, if you can't tell with the naked eye within 10 seconds of analyzing it if an attacker was off, you have to let it go as no advantage gained.
Kanes was probably the silliest, almost certainly fouled, maybe marginal but knocked to the floor then someone kicks the ball at him behind his back and he's supposed to have handled it.
They've made a huge mess of offside too, it's only there to stop obvious goal hanging, it's become ridiculous.
@Wendoverman said:
We cannot start every game with the fear that if he receives the ball with a sight on goal Bayo's t**s will be automatically offside!
Bit harsh to penalise Bayo for failing to toe the line.
@Malone said:
Everyone moans about the "subjective" nature of var.
But when there's a rule that is factual, like the ball hitting an attacker's hand ruling out any subsequent goal, people don't like that either.
Except that they weren't consistent in applying it much to the cost of AFCB this season.
Wrong. If VAR had not been used Bournemouth would have finished one place lower. So its use actually earnt them a bit more cash from Sky.
@Malone said:
Everyone moans about the "subjective" nature of var.
But when there's a rule that is factual, like the ball hitting an attacker's hand ruling out any subsequent goal, people don't like that either.
Except that they weren't consistent in applying it much to the cost of AFCB this season.
Wrong. If VAR had not been used Bournemouth would have finished one place lower. So its use actually earnt them a bit more cash from Sky.
Read my post again. I didn't say if VAR wasn't used then it we would have been better off, which is the link you provided. I said they weren't consistent in applying it and that cost us.
The example in question is that Burnley scored a winner in the 89th minute at our place with what looked like a header on first and second replay. However, when you see if from the reverse camera angle it showed that it came off the upper arm of Rodriguez.
At their place we scored but it was disallowed for a far less blatant use of the arm. In the second half we then also scored again but play was pulled back to an incident two minutes earlier to give a penalty to Burnley for, again, a far lesser handball offence than the goal that Burnley were given in the reverse fixture.
Whatever you think of VAR it has to be consistent in clear decisions like this. And, yes we played poorly for a lot of the season and suffered a perfect storm in many other areas that affected us badly. However, that 89th minute goal was a point pretty much in the bag taken away from us.
If you're going to be red hot on hand balls when goals are scored then you have to be for every single one of them. You can't do it for some and not for others.
@Malone said:
Everyone moans about the "subjective" nature of var.
But when there's a rule that is factual, like the ball hitting an attacker's hand ruling out any subsequent goal, people don't like that either.
Except that they weren't consistent in applying it much to the cost of AFCB this season.
Were there goals that hit arms that were allowed?
It was always applied ruthlessly when i watched. Even when someone smashed a ball against the arm of a prone player!!
It was odd. A few seemed to get through for some reasons but the longer the season went on the more ruthless they seemed to get with it. So yes, as I posted above Burnley got away with one against us.
I'm not here to cry about VAR. I do think they made an absolute dogs dinner of what they did with it this season. You'd think they can only do a better job next time around. With a little luck!
@bookertease said:
That’s a good argument against VAR in my opinion. They have had to change the rule about handball BECAUSE of VAR to take out any semblance of subjectivity but in the process made the game less fair (in my view)
that simply isn't right. The handball rule was changed because there were a number of high profile goals last season with significant hand on ball contact that facilitated the goal but the handball could not be judged deliberate.
I understand why they came up with the new rule. Personally I don't think they have got it right. Either way the decision to change the rule was not to do with VAR (remember FIFA set the rules and VAR has existed in other countries for a while - it is purely coincidence that the new rule happens in England to have coincided with introduction of VAR.
Comments
Hi @DevC. I’ve been off the Gasroom for a bit, but I’m really enjoying being back to observe your continued blind support for VAR and largely ignorant opinion that Nnamdi Ofoborh is only good enough to be a mid to lower table Championship player. Keep up your good work.
Your welcome back message from @DevC may not appear tonight. Don’t hold your breath!
Morning @YorkExile . Welcome back.
We are all entitled to our opinions. It would be boring if we already agreed. It’s a shame that electronic media encourages some to express them so aggressively.
While Ofoborh may well have a very good career, personally I doubt he is ready yet to start regularly in a top eight champ side. I might be proven wrong though.
For me VAR is a flawed imperfect system , it is man made after all, but for me it gives refs a chance to make more considered judgements on tight key decisions and is a net positive. I respect that you may feel differently.
That's a cool idea @DevC, you should suggest it to the FA as the system we have at the moment where someone who is not the ref makes an arbitrary decision based on available camera angles with varying frame rates, is clearly a load of shit.
You are entitled to your view Doc. I see a qualified referee seeing better what actually happened and making a decision with that knowledge. I really don’t care whether that referee is on the pitch or not. All opinions though.
As I say Fleetwoods home penalty almost certainly would not have been given if VAR had existed. It could easily have cost us promotion.
I don’t agree with you on VAR, but that’s a very subjective subject. However, I do agree with you about the levels of aggression and rudeness that are so commonplace on social media. It’s really not necessary.
That’s a rather selective answer regarding penalty decisions @DevC
There would have been a pen for handball against Stewart in the second leg and our winning pen at Wembley would have been ruled out for Fred’s offside.
VAR means we effectively have someone watching a telly second guessing the referee and then pundits watching the telly second guessing the second guesser of the referee. Glad there is no more controversy myself.
VAR is for TV presenters. They used to sit around slagging off refs whilst not agreeing with eachother about the decision. Now they can slag off 2 refs whilst still not being able to agree amongst themselves hours or days later with the benefit of many replays. The decision is still subjective, the process is intrusive.
Everyone moans about the "subjective" nature of var.
But when there's a rule that is factual, like the ball hitting an attacker's hand ruling out any subsequent goal, people don't like that either.
That’s a good argument against VAR in my opinion. They have had to change the rule about handball BECAUSE of VAR to take out any semblance of subjectivity but in the process made the game less fair (in my view)
The application of the offside rule is the most egregious issue. There have been goals ruled out this season that would have stood without question before VAR.
Indeed @floyd ...a toe or an arm over the line is ridiculous and has cost some clubs dearly. And the idea that a ball that accidentally hits an arm is cheating is ridiculous.
Except that they weren't consistent in applying it much to the cost of AFCB this season.
Were there goals that hit arms that were allowed?
It was always applied ruthlessly when i watched. Even when someone smashed a ball against the arm of a prone player!!
The problem is if you try and be accurate, what level of accuracy do you go to? They've gone too far.
Absolutely right. I seem to remember that a ball accidentally striking an arm (Schnellinger possibly?) and rebounding to a player (Webber, I think), who then scored a goal, was good enough for West Germany to equalize at 2-2 in the 1966 World Cup Final. It wasn't cheating. It was fortunate for the Germans but simply bad luck for us. Geoff Hurst put it all to rights a few minutes later and that's football.
@Malone I don't mind using VAR to prove clear or marginal off-sides if the referee misses it, but they've changed the rules so that posture or an arm or a toe or nose slightly ahead of the defender counts. That does not give the player any advantage at all which makes you wonder if the people who made the rule...know anything about football.
That's my pet peeve too @Wendoverman - to me, if you can't tell with the naked eye within 10 seconds of analyzing it if an attacker was off, you have to let it go as no advantage gained.
We cannot start every game with the fear that if he receives the ball with a sight on goal Bayo's t**s will be automatically offside!
The BFP mentioned we have to install Hawkeye as part of championship rules.
I'd thought it was only premier league, but can't admit to having watched much championship football this year.
Goal line tech but not full VAR next season.
Kanes was probably the silliest, almost certainly fouled, maybe marginal but knocked to the floor then someone kicks the ball at him behind his back and he's supposed to have handled it.
They've made a huge mess of offside too, it's only there to stop obvious goal hanging, it's become ridiculous.
VAR> @Malone said:
Bit harsh to penalise Bayo for failing to toe the line.
Any news about Nnamdi Ofoborh?
@micra Apparently, Gaz is even now in the studio, recording a version of 10CC's classic, "I'm Nnamdi - Buy Me".
I’d rather it was Nnamdi recording it.
Wrong. If VAR had not been used Bournemouth would have finished one place lower. So its use actually earnt them a bit more cash from Sky.
https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-the-premier-league-table-would-look-if-we-didnt-have-var-this-season/
Read my post again. I didn't say if VAR wasn't used then it we would have been better off, which is the link you provided. I said they weren't consistent in applying it and that cost us.
The example in question is that Burnley scored a winner in the 89th minute at our place with what looked like a header on first and second replay. However, when you see if from the reverse camera angle it showed that it came off the upper arm of Rodriguez.
At their place we scored but it was disallowed for a far less blatant use of the arm. In the second half we then also scored again but play was pulled back to an incident two minutes earlier to give a penalty to Burnley for, again, a far lesser handball offence than the goal that Burnley were given in the reverse fixture.
Whatever you think of VAR it has to be consistent in clear decisions like this. And, yes we played poorly for a lot of the season and suffered a perfect storm in many other areas that affected us badly. However, that 89th minute goal was a point pretty much in the bag taken away from us.
If you're going to be red hot on hand balls when goals are scored then you have to be for every single one of them. You can't do it for some and not for others.
It was odd. A few seemed to get through for some reasons but the longer the season went on the more ruthless they seemed to get with it. So yes, as I posted above Burnley got away with one against us.
I'm not here to cry about VAR. I do think they made an absolute dogs dinner of what they did with it this season. You'd think they can only do a better job next time around. With a little luck!
that simply isn't right. The handball rule was changed because there were a number of high profile goals last season with significant hand on ball contact that facilitated the goal but the handball could not be judged deliberate.
I understand why they came up with the new rule. Personally I don't think they have got it right. Either way the decision to change the rule was not to do with VAR (remember FIFA set the rules and VAR has existed in other countries for a while - it is purely coincidence that the new rule happens in England to have coincided with introduction of VAR.
Thanks @DevC
I must admit I did just make the rookie error of assuming that was the case without looking into it properly.
But it’s certainly (in my opinion) a bad rule