-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
So, is VAR coming to Argyle? (Video ref)
- Thread starter mervyn
- Start date
Wrong I’m afraid it was used discretely to confirm that the winning goal did not involve a handball. Hodgson was disputing the goal initially and giving the ref an unjustified hard time until he confirmed VAR had been used to support his decision.mervyn":26wltztj said:
Old Gunner":3akzz2fw said:
You misunderstand me. I meant it had no affect on the game in terms of the watching experience or changing the ref's mind. If you hadn't known VAR was in use you'd never have guessed. Incidentally I thought he was an excellent ref.
Contentious decisions are part and parcel of football.Something that can be discussed down the pub afterwards, in the TV studio and on the back pages. It's all part of the "fun"! I can see there may be some advantages with it but it's another step away from the grassroots game we all love.
warney":1p8dges8 said:
I know what you mean Warney, but here's a thought. I read last week that if the Stanley Matthews cup final had been played at Premiership speed the game would have lasted 62 minutes! Whether we like it or not the game has changed irreparably, and we have no choice but to change game management to keep up with it.
Another Australian A League match last evening involving the VAR and resulting in 8 minutes added time.
Before anyone asks , yes the correct decision was made , but 8 minutes is pathetic..
Before anyone asks , yes the correct decision was made , but 8 minutes is pathetic..
In the NHL it is the refs or the linesman that do the review, it's not another official, the linesman check if their was a offside when a goal is scored and the refs check to see if the puck actually crossed the line or if the puck crossed the line before the buzzer went off to indicate the period or the game was over. They review it by checking the tv replays. In the NFL it is the coach that requests a review, for such as did the player actually catch the ball did the player step out of bounds etc, again the ref checks using the tv replays. In cricket certain plays are reviewed and nearly all sports the officials had it right in the first place.
What seems to chew up the time OG in the Aussie league is when the ref has to go over to the screen. I presume this means that VAR was inconclusive and it's the refs call .Maybe the English version will be an improved version , I hope so ..
VAR is on trial. They need to find what works and what doesn't. We are likely to have to suffer some poor implementation before they settle on the procedure they feel is best to follow.
I do think it's being implemented for all the wrong reasons.
It's seems rather than to improve entertainment, in fact arguably at a loss of entertainment value. This system is being brought in to appease the multi-billionaire owners at the top of the game. We constantly hear pundits say things like "with the money at stake we can't afford for these errors to keep happening". Why can't we afford them? If some billionaire has sunk their money in a team relegated from the Premier League because of a dodgy penalty then more fool them for putting the money into a game to begin with.
Football should be a sport first and an industry second. The unpredictable nature, fast pace and minimal stoppages are what makes it entertaining and what made it the world's favourite game; sanitising games, increased stoppages and perfecting refereeing although a nice sound bite for the dullard pundits is just another step towards killing off the fun simply to appease the traders IMO.
Don't get me wrong I'm open to change, as Argyle fans safe to say we all welcome better refereeing. That said I would rather it was achieved by the FA investing in better training for referees. Better accountability for bad referees (refereeing relegations, promotions, awards). Better communication/respect between referees and players, open and transparent decision making whether that be putting mics on refs similar to rugby or putting referees in front of the media to question and to give their side of a decision.
Better refereeing helps the game and is something I hugely support but it has to be done in the right way for the right reasons. I just think technology beyond the goal line check could cause more problems than it's worth. Open to being proven wrong though.
It's seems rather than to improve entertainment, in fact arguably at a loss of entertainment value. This system is being brought in to appease the multi-billionaire owners at the top of the game. We constantly hear pundits say things like "with the money at stake we can't afford for these errors to keep happening". Why can't we afford them? If some billionaire has sunk their money in a team relegated from the Premier League because of a dodgy penalty then more fool them for putting the money into a game to begin with.
Football should be a sport first and an industry second. The unpredictable nature, fast pace and minimal stoppages are what makes it entertaining and what made it the world's favourite game; sanitising games, increased stoppages and perfecting refereeing although a nice sound bite for the dullard pundits is just another step towards killing off the fun simply to appease the traders IMO.
Don't get me wrong I'm open to change, as Argyle fans safe to say we all welcome better refereeing. That said I would rather it was achieved by the FA investing in better training for referees. Better accountability for bad referees (refereeing relegations, promotions, awards). Better communication/respect between referees and players, open and transparent decision making whether that be putting mics on refs similar to rugby or putting referees in front of the media to question and to give their side of a decision.
Better refereeing helps the game and is something I hugely support but it has to be done in the right way for the right reasons. I just think technology beyond the goal line check could cause more problems than it's worth. Open to being proven wrong though.
- Nov 17, 2009
- 4,124
- 116
In the Chelsea v Arsenal game last night the game was held up at one point for over two minutes discussing if there should have been a penalty, the ref said no penalty VAR eventually agreed no penalty.
Stoppages like this will only slow the game down.
Referees mistakes are part and parcel of the game, the PC brigade are winning again.
Stoppages like this will only slow the game down.
Referees mistakes are part and parcel of the game, the PC brigade are winning again.
Its ok because today they have started to iron out some of the issue they identified in the first two games.... like what signal to use to request VAR. Well done... thats critical guys, great prioritisation!
dunlop":1739it2w said:
So let's take a theoretical situation. Argyle are in the FA Cup Final against Manchester City, it's the final minute of regulation time and the score is 0-0. Taylor legs it through the opposition defence into the penalty area when he is upended by a City defender (Dirty Northern Bas***ds etc.), the referee says 'no penalty' he adjudges Taylor dived and he is given a yellow card. The score remains at 0-0 and in extra time City go on to win 5-0. After the game TV replays clearly show that Taylor was indeed failed and a penalty should have been awarded to Argyle. If VAR had been used a penalty may have been awarded and Argyle may have gone on to win the match. So in this theoretical situation would we as Argyle fans have shrugged our shoulders at the biggest injustice in our footballing history and said "never mind referee mistakes are all part of the game" or would we be burning down FA headquarters at the sheer stupidity of not utilising the available technology?
