2017/18 FA Cup Fifth Round Match Chat - 16-19th February, 2018

[RandoEFC+]

7 hours ago, Marc said:

I couldn't give a fuck about the outcome of the game  the debate is over VAR

You don't seem to understand that the ref is there to apply the laws of the game, not interpret them as he sees fit. VAR is getting the blame because not only is it shit and kills the game but it has also came to the wrong decisions, again.

I guess from what storts said you don't go to games? There's a clear split between supporters that attend matches being anti VAR and 'football fans' that don't attend matches being pro VAR.

What? It is people coming to the wrong decisions. VAR just shows the people replays. If they're still stupid after the benefit of extra angles it's their fault not VAR.

[Marc]

10 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

What? It is people coming to the wrong decisions. VAR just shows the people replays. If they're still stupid after the benefit of extra angles it's their fault not VAR.

No, VAR is a person. Video assistant referee. VAR doesn’t show ‘people’ the replays. The replays are shown to the VAR.

admittedly it’s being used a name for the system but it is a person, like a linesmen. 

There as so many reasons I’m against VAR but another one is football isn’t like clear cut sports like cricket and tennis. It just works well in sports where it’s easy to see if the ball in in or out or is going to hit the stumps etc. It doesn’t work as well in rugby either.

[Smiley Culture]

15 hours ago, Storts said:

Yeah every goal is checked, watched the game back and Foy said every goal is automatically reviewed with VAR.

Its just not nonsense to suggest it doesn’t effect the emotive aspect of football. Pochettino is spot on.

Ask Smiley when the last time he went to Orient was. 

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

It’s the sound of the The Football Game Police. 10th Feb last Home league game, get back in your box you fart inhaler. 

[Burning Gold]

16 hours ago, Marc said:

There as so many reasons I’m against VAR but another one is football isn’t like clear cut sports like cricket and tennis. It just works well in sports where it’s easy to see if the ball in in or out or is going to hit the stumps etc. It doesn’t work as well in rugby either.

This is the only anti-VAR (as a concept) argument I can agree with and it's definitely something that needs addressing. Anyone who watches the NFL will be able to tell you there has been a lot of silliness with their video review system regarding what is and isn't a catch and we don't want the same thing happening with about 10 different rules every week in our game. As many others have said (myself included) the laws need to be made a lot more explicit before VAR can work without controversy. The most urgent being what is and isn't a foul when a player is tripped. Is any contact at all a foul, or does it have to be sufficient to make the attacking player go down involuntarily? What if the defender gets the slightest touch on the ball?

[Dan+]

On 3/1/2018 at 10:54, Smiley Culture said:

Opinions, their like arseholes.

The ref’s opinion was no goal for the Llorente incident and I can see why. If the goal was given, I could understand that as well. It was a bit of a 50/50 in the sense that both were having a go at each other and the referee sided with the defending player. That’s not a fault of VAR though. The game is still under interpretation from the match official when it comes to VAR and that should be remembered and not used as a stick to beat VAR. 

Which in a nutshell is why VAR doesn't actually solve much.

[Smiley Culture]

7 minutes ago, Dan said:

Which in a nutshell is why VAR doesn't actually solve much.

Not at all, ultimately it's a human decision, influenced by having the chance to replay incidents. I think some people were blind going into this and expecting VAR to be some sort of super computer that got every decision correct. It's not, it's managed by a human at the end of the day and even with VAR, we'll still see errors, as you get in other sports with video referees. I don't expect VAR to lead to correct decisions all the time, it's a physical impossibility, just more of the time.

[Dan+]

16 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

Not at all, ultimately it's a human decision, influenced by having the chance to replay incidents. I think some people were blind going into this and expecting VAR to be some sort of super computer that got every decision correct. It's not, it's managed by a human at the end of the day and even with VAR, we'll still see errors, as you get in other sports with video referees. I don't expect VAR to lead to correct decisions all the time, it's a physical impossibility, just more of the time.

But if it still isn't getting decisions right then the problem surely runs deeper than referees. I keep saying this but the ultimate fundamental issue with the rules in football is how open to interpretation they are. Some might see that as a good thing but when you're killing the adrenaline for the sake of trying to implement what isn't actually implementable, then I'm erring on the side of no VAR.

[Smiley Culture]

Just now, Dan said:

But if it still isn't getting decisions right then the problem surely runs deeper than referees. I keep saying this but the ultimate fundamental issue with the rules in football is how open to interpretation they are. Some might see that as a good thing but when you're killing the adrenaline for the sake of trying to implement what isn't actually implementable, then I'm erring on the side of no VAR.

So, what your saying is, the problem isn't with VAR, it's with the laws of the game.

[Dan+]

Just now, Smiley Culture said:

So, what your saying is, the problem isn't with VAR, it's with the laws of the game.

Yes, meaning that VAR is often going to be a waste of time, and any benefits it brings are outweighed by the negatives of the adrenaline it kills.

[Smiley Culture]

Just now, Dan said:

Yes, meaning that VAR is often going to be a waste of time, and any benefits it brings are outweighed by the negatives of the adrenaline it kills.

So your problem isn't with VAR then? That's my point. I'm not saying laws should be changed to be in line with VAR but Football's ambiguous laws are what the real issue here is. Refereeing is open to interpretation, that's why they have a former referee (I can't remember his name) on Sky Sports News on a Monday morning discussing the weekend's talking points in the Premier League. The inclusion of VAR just highlights that the laws are pretty vague and people will argue that Decision A was wrong, that's Football. 

Football remains emotive. The songs, players timing a tackle perfectly, a piece of brilliance from the maverick in your team, a player geeing up the crowd before taking a corner, a bloke hammering the ball off the crossbar, the list could go on. 

People are, in all walks of life, averse to change. I see this as evolution. In our lifetime, we've never really had much change in Football but I'm sure people were averse to previous changes in the game. I liken this to an incident in my old job, the company started using a different software. "Terrible", "too much hassle" and "not as good as the old system" were three comments I remember off the top of my head, fast forward a year and it was absolutely fine, people had gotten used to it and they'd adapted to life with this new software. This is similar, IMO.

[Dan+]

On 3/1/2018 at 15:00, Stan said:

they're not  

They aren't even close to some goals though. I don't think Jonny Wilkinson's kick was celebrated as madly as Maguire's goal against Man Utd.

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, Dan said:

They aren't even close to some goals though. I don't think Jonny Wilkinson's kick was celebrated as madly as Maguire's goal against Man Utd.

we could talk for days about individual incidents beating others in a different sport. 

The point being though that to say celebrations have dumbed down since the inclusion of video technology in other sports is quite far-fetched and bit of an exaggeration. 

[Dan+]

7 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

So your problem isn't with VAR then? That's my point. I'm not saying laws should be changed to be in line with VAR but Football's ambiguous laws are what the real issue here is. Refereeing is open to interpretation, that's why they have a former referee (I can't remember his name) on Sky Sports News on a Monday morning discussing the weekend's talking points in the Premier League. The inclusion of VAR just highlights that the laws are pretty vague and people will argue that Decision A was wrong, that's Football. 

Football remains emotive. The songs, players timing a tackle perfectly, a piece of brilliance from the maverick in your team, a player geeing up the crowd before taking a corner, a bloke hammering the ball off the crossbar, the list could go on. 

People are, in all walks of life, averse to change. I see this as evolution. In our lifetime, we've never really had much change in Football but I'm sure people were averse to previous changes in the game. I liken this to an incident in my old job, the company started using a different software. "Terrible", "too much hassle" and "not as good as the old system" were three comments I remember off the top of my head, fast forward a year and it was absolutely fine, people had gotten used to it and they'd adapted to life with this new software. This is similar, IMO.

That's what I said, football's rules are ambiguous which means that having VAR there isn't actually going to achieve that much because you're still going to get errors as a result of it. Is it really worth sanitising scoring goals for the sake of something that isn't actually delivering a guaranteed correct outcome?

Does anyone remember when we beat Aston Villa 3-2 a couple of years ago in the title winning season, we were 2 down after 65 minutes I think but won the game 3-2, with a last minute winner as well - only the winner was a bit dubious because no-one knew for a minute if it counted as Nathan Dyer had gone down injured and it wasn't clear what was going on. As a result, you got a relatively muted celebration for a goal that in theory should've been absolutely ballistic. It was a freak incident, but with VAR in place, that kind of scenario is a lot more likely to happen. In-fact I'd imagine with late goals it'll happen more often than it doesn't as there'd be even more desire from the defending side to contest it.

I'm not having this as being averse to change. There's plenty I'd change. I just think in this instance it will lower the level of entertainment.

[Dan+]

Just now, Stan said:

we could talk for days about individual incidents beating others in a different sport. 

The point being though that to say celebrations have dumbed down since the inclusion of video technology in other sports is quite far-fetched and bit of an exaggeration. 

It isn't though. Look at the example I gave. Do you remember that game? That should've been one of the moments of the season and there's absolutely no way anyone includes it in their top five.

[Stan]

9 minutes ago, Dan said:

It isn't though. Look at the example I gave. Do you remember that game? That should've been one of the moments of the season and there's absolutely no way anyone includes it in their top five.

not sure what your point is then . Maguire's goal was only relevant to us and was one of our moments of the season. There was no VAR in that? 

You can still celebrate a last-minute goal like mad even if there is VAR. If you go in with the mind-set that you should only half-celebrate it just incase it gets overruled, you've lost half the battle any way. 

[Dan+]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

not sure what your point is then . Maguire's goal was only relevant to us and was one of our moments of the season. There was no VAR in that? 

You can still celebrate a last-minute goal like mad even if there is VAR. If you go in with the mind-set that you should only half-celebrate it just incase it gets overruled, you've lost half the battle any way. 

I was on about Dyer's goal.

It isn't about mindset, it's a natural reaction.

[Stan]

3 minutes ago, Dan said:

I was on about Dyer's goal.

It isn't about mindset, it's a natural reaction.

oh  

Yeah, natural reaction to celebrate a goal?

I celebrated Ndidi's goal against Swansea the other week like any normal goal but no-one had a clue why it was disallowed. Didn't stop me actually celebrating when it went in though as if it was going to still stand. 

[Dan+]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

oh  

Yeah, natural reaction to celebrate a goal?

I celebrated Ndidi's goal against Swansea the other week like any normal goal but no-one had a clue why it was disallowed. Didn't stop me actually celebrating when it went in though as if it was going to still stand. 

Ndidi's goal was a totally different scenario where if you've missed the flag, you're going to celebrate it. That was a pretty bizarre scenario to be honest where the referee was on the verge it seemed of making an unbelievably stupid decision. After what happened with Keith Stroud at Newcastle nothing can surprise you anymore.