| 01:00 - Jan 1 with views | |
| | | |  |
| Simple question on 17:35 - Sep 22 with 816 views | dirk_doone |
It's clearly benefiting teams like ours but not the big six. I wonder what might have been if there had always been VAR in football? We'd almost certainly have got better results and might even have won a few more trophies. Manchester United are certainly going to suffer from it. Although Liverpool and Man City are clearly better than the other teams, it will be interesting to see if VAR results in a shakeup of the top six this season.
In terms of the action itself, it is a bit intrusive. But, as long as Saints benefit from it, that's a reasonable price to pay.
So, that's a YES from me.
It was similar when the video referral system was introduced in cricket. It benefited England but not India or Australia. There used to be entire Ashes series when England didn't get a single lbw decision. Now we can appeal against them and it is significant that even in the latest test series the umpires were giving far more wrong decisions in favour of Australia than England so we had a much higher percentage of successful referrals. [Post edited 22 Sep 2019 17:50]
| |
| |
| Simple question on 17:38 - Sep 22 with 811 views | Buggalugs |
I think they have used VAR pretty well in that the on-field refs haven’t had their original decisions overturned all the time....which is the way it should be and backs up the clear and obvious argument. It’s only really been used with offsides and as you’re either offside or not, no matter how close, again they’ve used it well.
Having said all that and even though we’ve had VAR decisions go in our favour in nearly every game this season, I still detest it. | |
| |
| Simple question on 18:14 - Sep 22 with 755 views | PatfromPoole |
It benefits people watching at home on the telly. | |
| |
| Simple question on 18:38 - Sep 22 with 738 views | saint22 |
I think that’s very true
It is undoing those unjust decisions which have cost us in years past for sure so far
I don’t like the way it disrupts the flow of the game | | | |
| Simple question (n/t) on 20:25 - Sep 22 with 684 views | DellHero |
[Post edited 26 Oct 2019 21:55]
| | | |
| Simple question on 20:49 - Sep 22 with 668 views | grumpy |
I don’t think it adds to the entertainment the reason I say that is that controversy was part of the fun of watching the game. [Post edited 22 Sep 2019 20:51]
| | | |
| Simple question on 23:07 - Sep 22 with 581 views | DorsetIan |
I hate VAR.
It’s been implemented in a cack handed way and has not improved the game.
Some years ago they changed the offside rule so that if you were in line with the defender you were onside. The spurs player yesterday was inline for their second goal and yet it was ruled offside by 1mm. Completely ridiculous. The people watching the screens must be cretins.
I would prefer to suffer one or two complete howlers every season than have to suffer this ridiculous sh1t every game. If I want to watch video football, my children have a PS4. | |
| |
| Simple question on 09:01 - Sep 23 with 446 views | darthvader |
I'm verging towards yes . It does disrupt yes, however the number of times we have been done by shocking decisions ...well I've lost count .
It is still new and will take time to quicken up but it will be ,in my opinion a bit of a leveller .
The bigger top 6 teams won't get away with quite so much like they do against the rest of us, so the league may squash up a bit = more to play for .
I reserve the right to change my mind but it's a yes from me
 | |
| |
| Simple question on 09:03 - Sep 23 with 445 views | SonicBoom |
I am in favour of it.
It's early days but it is here to stay so they will get better at using it as we go.
But I like the fact the ref's are less influenced by the crowd and being surrounded by howling united players. Us smaller clubs will get fairer decisions.
And yes it's clunky but for things like offside you are either on of off. OK it seems petty to give it for a few mm but it's still the correct decision. I'd rather have consistently correct decisions than inconsistency.
I also like the fact that it's robbed lots of whining managers of the chance to blame the ref for everything after a game. | | | |
| Simple question on 09:48 - Sep 23 with 417 views | DeargDoom |
"Clear and Obvious" is not applicable to offsides. VAR is working correctly for offsides given the ridiculous current (since 1984) law. The problem is the law needs to be changed. Offside is about stoppiing an attacker gaining an unfair advantage. There is no advantage in having a part of your body 5mm ahead of the last defender. I don't know how they should reform the Law, how it should be specified, but until they do they should not use VAR to police what should be a bit more of a subjective decision. | | | |
| Simple question on 10:11 - Sep 23 with 402 views | DorsetIan |
The should build in a margin of error to the use of VAR for offside - like they do in cricket with the 'umpire's call' outcome on ball tracking.
It would be easy to do. They simply have to made the lines they use on their stupid video system much thicker (the same width as a player perhaps) and then if they are overlapping at all, it's 'assistant referee's call' and you go with whatever was decided on the pitch.
Only if there is a clear gap between the lines would the VAR override the on field decision. | |
| |
| Simple question on 10:31 - Sep 23 with 394 views | ericofarabia |
Changing the line of infringement to where the attacking players feet are rather than nose, nipple, knee or testicles are would be a good starting point. | | | |
| Simple question on 11:39 - Sep 23 with 361 views | 130yrs_and_one_Cup |
It clearly would have disallowed the 76 cup final goal which was offside. And who were the opponents? Oh yes, Man Utd
Selective memory, oh yes!
 | |
| |
| Simple question on 11:46 - Sep 23 with 355 views | SonicBoom |
What if the player was 1mm over that line?
At the end of the day there has to be a line of some description somewhere.
Otherwise you have a decision go your way one week and against you the next. People say it evens out over a season. No it doesn't. There is no justice when you get a wrong call and lose 1-0 but a call goes in your favour in a game where you are already winning 3-0 for example. | | | |
| Simple question on 12:08 - Sep 23 with 329 views | DorsetIan |
The point is that if the lines were thicker they could overlap and if they overlapped, then the assistant referee's call would stand. And if there was a gap between the lines then the person would be much more clearly on or offside, so the decision could be overruled.
It's exactly as it works in cricket, if the ball is hitting the stumps but not by much (less than half a ball I think) it's 'umpire's call' - and whatever the umpire says stands.
It acknowledges that the technology is not 100% accurate and it also gives a continuing role to the on field officials. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
