Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

World Cup 2018 Qualifiers - Play-offs


Recommended Posts

Sign up to remove this ad.
  • Replies 603
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Administrator
1 minute ago, Dan said:

Absolutely disgusting decision. Northern Ireland have been badly robbed.

they've been second best to be fair all game but they'll be livid at conceding a goal thanks to the referee. Nowhere near a penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
4 minutes ago, Stan said:

they've been second best to be fair all game but they'll be livid at conceding a goal thanks to the referee. Nowhere near a penalty.

Handball is another one of those rules that is far too much down to interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
6 minutes ago, Dan said:

Handball is another one of those rules that is far too much down to interpretation.

VAR would have come in handy. Perfect for that kind of incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
2 minutes ago, Stan said:

VAR would have come in handy. Perfect for that kind of incident.

I'm not sold on VAR in general. There's a lot of analysis of decisions from ex referees I read nowadays and they seem to agree with incorrect decisions on the basis of "that's what the referees view was", which, for me, surely totally defeats the objective of VAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
Just now, Dan said:

I'm not sold on VAR in general. There's a lot of analysis of decisions from ex referees I read nowadays and they seem to agree with incorrect decisions on the basis of "that's what the referees view was", which, for me, surely totally defeats the objective of VAR.

yep. that's not the fault of VAR though? VAR verifies or corrects something blatantly wrong. It's not there to correct every single decision and that's not the aim from the outset. There has to be some element of human input hence it only being left for certain things (penalties, goals, red cards, mistaken identity). 

The downside of VAR is the length of time taken in some matches. I've seen where it's taken about 10-15 seconds to confirm or reverse a decision; on other occasions about 3 minutes (which is detrimental to the flow of a game) where the VAR guy can't make a decision and the referee on pitch ends up looking at it anyway. 

I understand VAR is to be used in the England games coming up. Will be interesting to see how effective it is if it is required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but glad Norn Ireland were robbed tonight. Switzerland are so much better.

It was their best chance to gain an advantage tonight at home and they were absolutely gash. I get that they were probably scared of conceding an away goal but that was a really timid performance.

I'm not arsed if they are British. I just want to see some good games of Football next summer and hopefully this will be one less limited side that get's men behind the ball and hope to nick the odd goal. Cheerio.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stan said:

yep. that's not the fault of VAR though? VAR verifies or corrects something blatantly wrong. It's not there to correct every single decision and that's not the aim from the outset. There has to be some element of human input hence it only being left for certain things (penalties, goals, red cards, mistaken identity). 

The downside of VAR is the length of time taken in some matches. I've seen where it's taken about 10-15 seconds to confirm or reverse a decision; on other occasions about 3 minutes (which is detrimental to the flow of a game) where the VAR guy can't make a decision and the referee on pitch ends up looking at it anyway. 

I understand VAR is to be used in the England games coming up. Will be interesting to see how effective it is if it is required.

That's a silly excuse to defend VAR. Sure it may not be a problem, but who's the ones making the decisions? Its not the machine I'm afraid.

Incompetent referees will always exist and early signs haven't been promising. The controversy has just gone up, as I predicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
Just now, Blue said:

That's a silly excuse to defend VAR. Sure it may not be a problem, but who's the ones making the decisions? Its not the machine I'm afraid.

Incompetent referees will always exist and early signs haven't been promising. The controversy has just gone up, as I predicted.

exactly. the execution of VAR is the issue, not the concept.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Blue said:

That's a silly excuse to defend VAR. Sure it may not be a problem, but who's the ones making the decisions? Its not the machine I'm afraid.

Incompetent referees will always exist and early signs haven't been promising. The controversy has just gone up, as I predicted.

Mate no offence you say some good stuff but your arguments against var arent convincing. Sure mistakes will still be made but overall more decisions will be right. Also I don't think incompetence is the right word. More human error

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stan said:

yep. that's not the fault of VAR though? VAR verifies or corrects something blatantly wrong. It's not there to correct every single decision and that's not the aim from the outset. There has to be some element of human input hence it only being left for certain things (penalties, goals, red cards, mistaken identity). 

The downside of VAR is the length of time taken in some matches. I've seen where it's taken about 10-15 seconds to confirm or reverse a decision; on other occasions about 3 minutes (which is detrimental to the flow of a game) where the VAR guy can't make a decision and the referee on pitch ends up looking at it anyway. 

I understand VAR is to be used in the England games coming up. Will be interesting to see how effective it is if it is required.

When I watched it in the confederations cup 5 out of 6 times when it was used on goals the decision was reversed. If it was slowing down the game to get to the same decision it would be very frustrating. But when it getting to the right decision it is more worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dan said:

Handball is another one of those rules that is far too much down to interpretation.

I personally think some decisions are in brackets. Some things are clear cut others are open to interpretation. Sometimes they go your way other times they don't. Depends on the interpretation of the referee. I've always thought it was silly to compare different referees in different games. You're always going to get different interpretations from referees in the same way everyone else interprets decisions differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
2 hours ago, Stan said:

yep. that's not the fault of VAR though? VAR verifies or corrects something blatantly wrong. It's not there to correct every single decision and that's not the aim from the outset. There has to be some element of human input hence it only being left for certain things (penalties, goals, red cards, mistaken identity). 

The downside of VAR is the length of time taken in some matches. I've seen where it's taken about 10-15 seconds to confirm or reverse a decision; on other occasions about 3 minutes (which is detrimental to the flow of a game) where the VAR guy can't make a decision and the referee on pitch ends up looking at it anyway. 

I understand VAR is to be used in the England games coming up. Will be interesting to see how effective it is if it is required.

The point I'm making is that it seems like there's a mentality of "if the ref was right to miss it, then we won't overturn it" and I'm worried that it'll creep into the use of VAR. It's almost as if should a player be deliberately elbowed, but the referee had his back to it, the VAR won't award a red card because the referee was right to miss it, due to having his back to the incident.

Howard Webb's been coming out with loads of this on these offside calls. Offside is a black and white rule, it's on or its off, they're calling certain goals as onside when they aren't purely based on what the linesman can see, rather than what actually happened - thus totally defeating the objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dan said:

Handball is another one of those rules that is far too much down to interpretation.

Not sure there was much interpretation needed there. Clearly wasn't a penalty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cicero said:

How? 

Lanus were given a penalty that the referee completely missed. It was a blatant penalty, but the referee was manipulated into checking VAR and Lanus got the penalty and won the match.

I've seen too many corrupt decisions. I've said it before: it won't remove controversy - it will only add to it. Fans complain about "dodgy decisions". Now they will complain about "dodgy decisions" that the referee got a good look at with his eyes. Its a fucking mess.

The Lanus penalty wasn't dodgy, it was blatant. However, why does the referee need to have another look? Especially if he's being manipulated by people/machines that decide at random (I've seen enough to confirm this). There is a reason why the TV's in first world countries don't show replays - to avoid controversy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

VAR is good and it will only get better. If we can rid football from as many errors as possible then this is good for the game. Cheating is another one they should hit hard on!

So far, its only added more errors. It won't improve either. There are too many formulas that will have one flaw or another. No matter what there will be controversy. 

 

4 hours ago, Stan said:

exactly. the execution of VAR is the issue, not the concept.

 

I personally don't like the concept of VAR either. Just takes the human element away from it. That however, is a matter of having a different view on the matter so I can very much respect your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cicero said:

How? 

We were not given a penalty and the ref didn't use VAR, then when the inverse happened they did use it and gave Lanus the penalty. Also on another of their goals, one of their players punched one of ours in the making of the play, it was a clear red and free-kick for us, but nothing of that happened, they also didn't use VAR and validated the goal. Also 2 clear plays in our favour where marked as offside when they weren't, it was a blatant fucking robbery, worst i have seen in years.

5 hours ago, Blue said:

Lanus were given a penalty that the referee completely missed. It was a blatant penalty, but the referee was manipulated into checking VAR and Lanus got the penalty and won the match.

I've seen too many corrupt decisions. I've said it before: it won't remove controversy - it will only add to it. Fans complain about "dodgy decisions". Now they will complain about "dodgy decisions" that the referee got a good look at with his eyes. Its a fucking mess.

The Lanus penalty wasn't dodgy, it was blatant. However, why does the referee need to have another look? Especially if he's being manipulated by people/machines that decide at random (I've seen enough to confirm this). There is a reason why the TV's in first world countries don't show replays - to avoid controversy. 

Stop talking bullshit, you omitted the most important information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was unpinned

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...