MegaSteve
Tour Winner
There's the thing... Dean could've easily awarded the pen and I doubt VAR would've overturned his decision...
There's the thing... Dean could've easily awarded the pen and I doubt VAR would've overturned his decision...
D
Deleted member 1740
Guest
I agree, I see it a lot at Anfield but as soon as we score they jib it and get a move on.
D
Deleted member 1740
Guest
That's only because it wasnt a clear and obvious error.
It proves that VAR isnt the bee all and end all its been made out to be.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bazz
Q-School Graduate
Yeah I imagine it's loads worse for you lot, conceding first didn't help 😄
MegaSteve
Tour Winner
Exactly ðŸ‘...
D
Deleted member 1740
Guest
If he gives it, it's a cheap pen, he doesnt give it and it's a could've/should've/seen them given pen.
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
Except he didn't have to do any of that because Lascelles went shoulder-first through his bloody legs.
Said the Spurs supporters.
user2010
Challenge Tour Pro
Liverbirdie
Ryder Cup Winner
So its too quick for VAR, but ok for refs then?
Liverbirdie
Ryder Cup Winner
Its 90 minutes long, but only approx 60 ins in play and when a team timewastes excessively even less.
Time wasting should be clamped down on.
Liverbirdie
Ryder Cup Winner
Which is a load of bollocks, as no-one has claimed that VAR will be 100% correct.
Its just a myth created by anti-VAR people.
D
Deleted member 1740
Guest
Many pro VAR people have said VAR WILL stop the wrong decisions, How many wrong decisions has it corrected in 3 weeks?
Go back into last seasons thread, it's there in black and white, and that's just on here. See Twitter and plenty of phone ins.
Can you remember what it felt like in the ground on Saturday 1st half when there was a VAR check for an off the ball incident that no one seen? It seemed to take ages.
D
Deleted member 1740
Guest
Yes, most refs keep up with play. VAR just causes delays in what should be a free flowing game.
I cant remember a ref delaying a game because he couldn't keep up
Liverbirdie
Ryder Cup Winner
They havent said it will be 100% correct though, as the games subjective so its impossible.
Anti-VAR people have peddled this rubbish from the start, that Pro-VAR people have said it will be 100% correct.They havent.
Overall, I'm in favour of VAR, but the dynamic is wrong - like cricket it should be the team who decides when to use it, not on or off-field refs. Thats its current biggest problem.
Yes, they said checking for a red card, when it should have been for a push and a penalty on Mo, but thats not what I'm arguing about.
Liverbirdie
Ryder Cup Winner
They keep up with play a lot of the time, but they dont have 360 degree view.
On one hand your saying we have atrocious refs, but dont offer anything to help them, and dont give me that guff about get rid of the current 20 prem refs, believe me we would moan about the next 20, then the 20 after that..........do you think that championship fans arent moaning about their refs week in week out?
I understand people wanting or not wanting VAR, but its a fallacy that pro_VAR fans have said it will be 100% correct. Pure myth.
D
Deleted member 1740
Guest
Many people have, I've heard it and read it.
Are you suggesting theres a "project fear" amongst Anti VAR people? 😉
Having your idea would totally ruin the game and I would definitely walk away from the game if that was introduced.
That VAR check was a joke. It took way too long. Theres enough natural breaks in the game without adding more to it.
Improve the standard of refereeing 1st then maybe add technology, giving inept referees technology is a recipe for disaster and I think it'll show in the next few weeks .
D
Deleted member 1740
Guest
VAR isnt a 360 view neither.
It's not. It's out there.
I'm all for helping refs, but it cant be at the detriment of the game. Do we really want a sanitised game where every decision is looked at/checked or a game that ebbs and flows and has minimal stoppages?
I'd say the biggest issue with PL refs is the lack of consistency ( give a yellow 1 week but the next a red for exactly the same foul) and they dont let games flow.
Liverbirdie
Ryder Cup Winner
Saying it will be 100% correct? There may be the odd nugget, but no-one who knows what they are on about would claim that VAR would be 100% correct. Many - no chance.
They may have said it will improve, but not people saying it would be 100% correct.
So VAR is currently ruining the game in your opinion, so why not try the other option........cos it would ruin the game. 2 or 3 checks per side decided within 3 seconds, so we dont have the current situation wherby you could have 20 checks a game.
Give me 5 things that could improve the refs.
Liverbirdie
Ryder Cup Winner
Nope, but it has more views than 1 refs line of sight, and also has slow motion.
I dont want a sanitised game either, but I still think that there is room for restricted technology to help a bit more. Teams decide though and not the refs. Its fairer for "smaller" clubs, who for years could go to Anfield or OT and could see late winners ruled out because of refs who were intimidated by players/managers/big home crowds.
D
Deleted member 1740
Guest
Slow motion can make a tackle look from a foul to a red card. Then theres the contact issue, not all contact is a foul. Yes theres contact but is it enough to impede someone? How do we measure the contact?
Apparently refs got 96% decisions correct last season, they want to improve that to 98%.
I'm not convinced with the camera angles. Are they all set at the same height/angle in every ground? I very much doubt it.
The days of managers holding refs to ransom like ferguson did are long gone.
I do not believe that happens anymore in any ground.
