Man City 2-2 Tottenham - Saturday 17th August, 2019

[6666]

I personally think VAR is a great idea. It'll just take a season or two to fully get used to. There will still be decisions people will disagree on as some decisions will always be subjective but that's down to the interpretation of the officials and I'd rather have them interpret off of replays where they have the opportunity to look at the incident properly instead of making a big call in the moment where the likelihood of them getting it wrong is higher.

[Dan+]

VAR's been a shambles ever since it was introduced. Inconsistent, euphoria killing shite and I'm saying that as a fan of a team who has only benefitted from it so far.

Farcical situation all round.

[Burning Gold]

VAR isn't the problem here for me, it's this new rule about handball in the lead up to a goal. It's silly, but that's the rule and it was correctly applied.

The scenes with it hit the net, though. Another blow for the "goals won't be celebrated anymore" crowd

[Dan+]

23 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

VAR isn't the problem here for me, it's this new rule about handball in the lead up to a goal. It's silly, but that's the rule and it was correctly applied.

The scenes with it hit the net, though. Another blow for the "goals won't be celebrated anymore" crowd

No blows. Always said all along it'll take a while - when people are used to VAR, you'll all see it eventually.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

Arm tucked by his side, clearly going for the ball with his head, and not particularly relevant to the goal (the ball could have come off anything there and still gone on to Laporte) 

No fucking way that should have been chalked off. 

[6666]

I don't get this idea of "it ruins celebrations"... it's basically the same as a goal being ruled out for offside before VAR existed. Goals being ruled out isn't a new thing.

[RandoEFC+]

I do think it's mad to disallow that goal from a fairness perspective but I see what they're trying to do with the rule they've introduced, removing any grey areas and interpretation from decisions which is something football desperately needs and I've been advocating for a long time.

You either keep the new rule and move into a new world of more consistent refereeing which is more fair all around but is also going to lead to a lot of harsh handball decisions like this one which you have to say isn't really in the spirit of the game. It was unintentional in every way.

The alternative is to go back to the old rules where the referee was allowed to use a bit of common sense but in this world of 17 replay angles and every match being televised and analysed to the nth degree, pundits and fans commenting on the inconsistencies between different referees, and even the same referees in different scenarios, because they have left it open to interpretation. And let's not forget that small margins like being on the wrong side of a call that the referee has interpreted one way when it could have been another, potentially make the difference between title winners and runners up, or survival and relegation, which has massive financial and competitive implications, partly depending on one guy's common sense.

Bottom line is, neither way is perfect. I'm going to be that guy again on this one and say give it time and see how it goes once we've gotten a bit more used to it.

[Dan+]

1 hour ago, 6666 said:

I don't get this idea of "it ruins celebrations"... it's basically the same as a goal being ruled out for offside before VAR existed. Goals being ruled out isn't a new thing.

Different for a few reasons. Goals from offside you can tell in seconds when you eventually spot the flag. Frustrating but you can understand it. This is a concept that actively encourages the 'moment' of scoring a goal to be broken down. How did you react when Welbeck scored that winner against us three and a half years ago? Just imagine now you have that buzz killed by a VAR check, goal given or not, you have taken away that euphoria, that sudden outburst of joy.

Not for me. I wanted some sort of help for referees and I'm not ashamed to admit it, but this just isn't the answer.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, 6666 said:

I don't get this idea of "it ruins celebrations"... it's basically the same as a goal being ruled out for offside before VAR existed. Goals being ruled out isn't a new thing.

Go back and watch the entirety of the last Copa America. It was almost taking the piss.

[Dan+]

There are too many variables to put everything down to one decision as well.

Last week in Leicester v Wolves, Wolves scored a goal that was disallowed for a carbon copy of what happened with Laporte today and the goal was chalked off. Leicester took the free kick, attacked and won a corner, a move that happened to include Ayoze Perez handling the ball twice. If Leicester score from that corner, it counts and is not over-ruled by VAR.

That to me is just utterly farcical.

[SirBalon]

7 hours ago, The Rebel CRS said:

They should just scrap VAR, it's shit anyway. I've never been in favour of it personally. 

 

I prefer BAR to VAR if I have to choose mate. 

In all seriousness, VAR has to be a good idea because it can right more wrongs and injustices than the potential controversial questionable moments it produces due to it not being the totally polished version it may or may not become.

But I will say this... As football fans we've been used to interpretation all our lives watching this sport. We've always been acustomed to complain and even argue till the cows comesjome about contentious refereeing decisions so my final view on all the complaining about VAR is that right now with the more imperfect version of this piece of technology we are still doing the same thing as before, only much less.

[Stan]

5 hours ago, Dan said:

There are too many variables to put everything down to one decision as well.

Last week in Leicester v Wolves, Wolves scored a goal that was disallowed for a carbon copy of what happened with Laporte today and the goal was chalked off. Leicester took the free kick, attacked and won a corner, a move that happened to include Ayoze Perez handling the ball twice. If Leicester score from that corner, it counts and is not over-ruled by VAR.

That to me is just utterly farcical.

So that's to do with the rules of the game and rules/instructions for VAR as opposed to VAR itself? 

[Storts]

8 hours ago, 6666 said:

I don't get this idea of "it ruins celebrations"... it's basically the same as a goal being ruled out for offside before VAR existed. Goals being ruled out isn't a new thing.

But you don’t go to games so you wouldn’t understand imo - it’s a very different scenario watching it on tv than being at the ground 

[LFCMike]

The issue for me yesterday wasn't the ruling out of the injury time goal. VAR has done its job there. I don't know why the penalty incident in the first half wasn't reviewed. Or was it and they decided it wasn't a penalty?

[Smiley Culture]

Blame the laws of the game, not VAR. The handball rules are awful, VAR isn’t. 

[Bluewolf]

8 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Arm tucked by his side, clearly going for the ball with his head, and not particularly relevant to the goal (the ball could have come off anything there and still gone on to Laporte) 

No fucking way that should have been chalked off. 

 

8 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

I do think it's mad to disallow that goal from a fairness perspective but I see what they're trying to do with the rule they've introduced, removing any grey areas and interpretation from decisions which is something football desperately needs

Agree with both points, on one hand it was an awful decision to disallow it for what it was as DDW pointed out that could have hit anybody or anything as that made it's way through so thought it was harsh especially as they would allow such blatant holding in the box and that was not even slightly questioned for what should have been a City penalty earlier in the game, On the other hand as Rando pointed out at least this way it's as clear as daylight now, touch the ball and it's scrapped simple as... harsh maybe but everyone will know where they stand and that won't change from ref to ref, game to game.. 

Overall City played well but were just not clinical enough for all their shots on goal and Spurs were.. 

[Storts]

23 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

The issue for me yesterday wasn't the ruling out of the injury time goal. VAR has done its job there. I don't know why the penalty incident in the first half wasn't reviewed. Or was it and they decided it wasn't a penalty?

It was reviewed - You can see Oliver saying he’s listened and no pen. 

[Bluewolf]

23 minutes ago, Storts said:

It was reviewed - You can see Oliver saying he’s listened and no pen. 

Strange then that an innocuous incident can lead to no goal and yet blatant man handling of a player with zero intention of going for the ball is deemed ok.. that's the sort of thing they need to be tackling for me, holding on to players in the box is just as bad if not worse than any unlucky handball incident that may occur.. 

[Storts]

27 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

Strange then that an innocuous incident can lead to no goal and yet blatant man handling of a player with zero intention of going for the ball is deemed ok.. that's the sort of thing they need to be tackling for me, holding on to players in the box is just as bad if not worse than any unlucky handball incident that may occur.. 

Yeah strange one - I think it looks worse because Toby comes in behind and pushes Lamela, but either way, definitely lucky to get away with it and no idea why in this VAR era you’d even take the risk. Lamela is pretty thick though 

[Happy Blue]

Now this paints a different picture   ..off the shoulder of Laporte, handball Spurs player  ..what should the call have been??   ..i think we need better VAR staff, they have the images but still manage to get the call wrong

[Danny]

10 hours ago, 6666 said:

I don't get this idea of "it ruins celebrations"... it's basically the same as a goal being ruled out for offside before VAR existed. Goals being ruled out isn't a new thing.

For people who go to games it’s different and definitely not the same as an offside as you can still be awarded the goal 

[SirBalon]

[Carnivore Chris]

6 hours ago, SirBalon said:

I prefer BAR to VAR if I have to choose mate. 

 

I'd rather get run over by a CAR..

[6666]

6 hours ago, Storts said:

But you don’t go to games so you wouldn’t understand imo - it’s a very different scenario watching it on tv than being at the ground 

Yeah, you actually know everything that's going on when watching on TV so there's less confusion but as I said, a goal being disallowed isn't a new thing. And the bottom line is, if it's the correct decision, you look like an imbecile taking a stance against it.

[Stan]

This is how imagine @SirBalon swears at people. Weirdly it's the same as how Indians swear