Nutsin 7:41 Tue Dec 28
VAR
|
|
Seems like every week we get a bad VAR decision.
I thought a foul outside the box was not a reviewable offense unless it’s West Ham of course.
Anyway here’s an article in it.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/english-premier-league/story/4452736/how-var-decisions-have-affected-every-premier-league-club-in-2021-22?platform=amp
|
|
|
Replies - In Chronological Order ( Show Newest Messages First)
Fifth Column
7:44 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
Both decisions today were spot on and were clearly the correct decisions.
I agree we've been ####ed over in previous matches but not today.
|
ATBOG
7:54 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
The issue is the consistency. The decision against us the other day was clearly the VAR ref editing the footage. Today they went back first of all to Soucek's "foul" (not a clear and obvious mistake by the ref on the pitch) and for the penalty they had a glance to see if the ball went out of play when Antonio crossed it. No wonder we think it's bent when that level of inconsistency infects the game.
|
Iron Duke
7:58 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
Remember when Bowen got fouled in the buildup an Arsenal goal last season, when we drew 3-3 after being 3-0 up? Did VAR want to check that? Nope.
|
Fifth Column
7:59 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
Of course Soucek's challenge was a foul. It was a clear and obvious error from the ref. I know we're all pissed off at VAR but it wasn't a marginal decision, Soucek tripped him up.
Yet we've been stitched up by previous decisions in previous matches - that is very true.
|
Pee Wee
8:02 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
The Dawson pen in the last game was a penalty and todays was a foul in the lead up to the goal.
I dislike VAR for the amount it gets wrong. It hasn’t the last two games for us
|
Kaiser Zoso
8:03 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
No one would’ve noticed that ‘foul’ if it hadn’t resulted in a goal, because it wasn’t a clear and obvious error
|
Nutsin
8:03 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
Read the article,
Apparently a foul outside the box is not reviewable unless it warrants a red card.
Bit like a pass interference call is not reviewable in the NFL.
So if it is NOW reviewable then change the fucking rule:
|
Pee Wee
8:04 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
It was a clear foul that led to a goal. It really is that simple
|
Kaiser Zoso
8:05 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
So is nutsins point
|
,
8:05 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
Nothing wrong with the technology it’s the inconsistency of interpretation that annoys.
|
Syd Puddefoot
8:06 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
Sucks the joy out of the game. Yes Soucek did commit a tiny little foul but if it ain't given just get on with it, how far back do you want to go? Negatives outweigh the positives for me, and all the "positives" seem to be are some marginal offsides and the odd pen, and not enough of them are overruled when they should be.
|
Jaan Kenbrovin
8:07 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
Didn’t think the contact was the reason the player lost the ball, nor was it enough to send the bloke to the floor. We had plenty of fouls not given, but somehow they only become important if a goal is scored later on?
It’s much like the ruling they had for if a ball strikes a hand before a goal, even if it’s not deemed to have been caused by an unnatural arm movement. They are simply looking for reasons to disallow goals now, which isn’t clear and obvious.
|
Pee Wee
8:09 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
Yes, missed fouls only become important if they are in the lead up to a goal.
Todays decision was spot on and you’d all be agreeing with it if it were the other way around
|
Pee Wee
8:10 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
All goals scored in the Premier League will automatically be checked by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR).
They will check for any infringements by the attacking team in the attacking possession phase that led to the goal.
For factual decisions such as offside or the ball being out of play, the VAR will inform the referee, who will overturn any award of a goal.
For subjective decisions such as a foul or a handball, VAR can be used to overturn if a “clear and obvious error” has been identified.
|
Stevethehammer
8:11 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
It's the inconsistency that's the issue.
The Coufal incident at Arsenal, the clear penalty on Dawson at Burnley, if those decisions are for the sky sports top 6 then they are given the other way.
Don't get me wrong we have had ones go our way but if you look at what's given and not given you can only come to a conclusion that even with all this technology we still have bias towards the bigger clubs and one question I would like to know does VAR look at fouls and incidents involving the big players such as Kane, Ronaldo etc as they both should have walked in recent weeks.
|
ATBOG
8:12 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
If that was Liverpool instead of us playing today then that disallowed goal would have stood.
|
Jaan Kenbrovin
8:16 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
It’s fine if it’s clear and obvious but not if it is contentious and based solely on the most minimal contact that needs various replays to confirm.
It’s not benefitting the game imo, whether they are for or against us.
|
Pee Wee
8:16 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
I agree
Todays was clear though
|
Iron Duke
8:18 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
It’s not just about what is given and what is not given. It’s also about what they can be bothered to even look at. And it’s also the length of time it takes. At the beginning of the season, they were much quicker, probably after seeing how it could be done effectively at the Euros. Now they have gone back to forensic analysis of tiny details. But only when it suits them.
|
ATBOG
8:18 Tue Dec 28
Re: VAR
|
"For factual decisions such as offside or the ball being out of play, the VAR will inform the referee, who will overturn any award of a goal."
So that scouse goal where Milner was a yard offside against us two odd years ago should've been ruled out. Face it pee wee the stated rules leave a wide margin of interpretation for the refs/PL to fuck over whoever they choose to if they wish.
|
| 
