VAR - It's Football But Not As You Know It

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Premy

VAR in the World Cup. Costa throws elbows around, goes on to score.

VAR in the A-League. O'Donovan clips someone with his elbow by accident gets suspended for 2 matches.

This thing is a ****ing joke and I long for the day it gets thrown out.

---

Cmon Costa barely touches Pepe. Pepe is a dog who always goes to ground trying to win a foul

in real time i thought the same way as Premy. the replays made me think like Stanny. then i noticed who was "fouled" and i remembered how much i dislike Pepe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belchardo

in real time i thought the same way as Premy. the replays made me think like Stanny. then i noticed who was "fouled" and i remembered how much i dislike Pepe.

---

I read somewhere that the refs were like "look we ain't checking on your bullshit. Its offsides and maybe handballs because if its fouls then y'all be diving like even bigger pussies than you already are".


Or words to that effect.


That def seemed to be the case this morning. And the decision was correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

I read somewhere that the refs were like "look we ain't checking on your bullshit. Its offsides and maybe handballs because if its fouls then y'all be diving like even bigger pussies than you already are".


Or words to that effect.


That def seemed to be the case this morning. And the decision was correct.

---

I agree

Pepe tried to claim a foul due to some minimal contact

If VAR had of disallowed the goal then you are basically rewarding his play acting

FfS the **** was that injured he still got up and nearly closed Costa down before he shot home

If he had of got straight up he probably tackles him

Pepe cost his team there

Wasn't an obvious error...end of. Here the "Maccas VAR" would have taken 4 minutes of analysis.

Hello Boys

Lol

**** this.

Screwed by the VAR again.

How good is the VAR

First up we have Griezemann pen
Secondly we have the Peru pen

Both nit picking subjective things that without VAR would never be given


Then to contrast it we have the Pavon no call penalty in the Argie game where the ****ers dont even look at it.


Notice Bozza and the VAR supporters squad are quiet

How does the Swiss goal stand??

It clear as day shit defending from Brazil

But

There are hands in the back



How does VAR not pick this shit up??

The last two nights they appear to have realised the "clear and obvious error" thing.
Unfortunately it took the twits running our game to wake everyone up.
David Elleray's explanation was torn to shreds by Fozzie last night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetmaster

The last two nights they appear to have realised the "clear and obvious error" thing.
Unfortunately it took the twits running our game to wake everyone up.
David Elleray's explanation was torn to shreds by Fozzie last night.

---

Fozz was 100% right though

To me Fifa response was just justifying their boys not ****ing up



On another note if Griezemann is fouled and that is a penalty as Risdons contact is sufficientthen by that definition Costas goal is rubbed oyt for his arm grazing Pepe


****s have opened up a right can of worms now

Personally I have no issue with the contact on Griezmann being a foul - heel clip like that is easily enough to make you fall.
However there were angles not viewed by the VAR (???) that showed Risdon did touch the ball before making contact with Griezmann. Why were these angles unavailable to the VAR? Ref clearly thought Risdon got the ball live.

Then a couple hours later Argentina is denied a clear cut pen which the VAR doesn't look at at all?
Consistency was, is and continues to be the biggest problem with it.

On another note, does anyone know if the "clear and obvious error" was an A-league memo, or is it also being used that way for the world cup too? I mean officially - has it been stated that that's how they will be using it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Personally I have no issue with the contact on Griezmann being a foul - heel clip like that is easily enough to make you fall.
However there were angles not viewed by the VAR (???) that showed Risdon did touch the ball before making contact with Griezmann. Why were these angles unavailable to the VAR? Ref clearly thought Risdon got the ball live.

Then a couple hours later Argentina is denied a clear cut pen which the VAR doesn't look at at all?
Consistency was, is and continues to be the biggest problem with it.

On another note, does anyone know if the "clear and obvious error" was an A-league memo, or is it also being used that way for the world cup too? I mean officially - has it been stated that that's how they will be using it?

---

I've heard it somewhere though that VAR are still reviewing things all the time, but they only alert the ref if they think he should have another look. That obviously has it's pros and cons, but if true, then at least there's some consistency in what is being viewed.

I'm also sick to god of seeing the phrase "VAR Controversy" whenever a call is made using VAR, despite it being 100% correct.

If the Risdon one was a pen, then the Swiss goal was not a goal and the Costa one was a foul.

However. Im more than happy how the ref called all of these incidents.

Anyway, England play tomorrow, and you just know they are gonna cop something stupid.

hashtagthoughtsandprayers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

If the Risdon one was a pen, then the Swiss goal was not a goal and the Costa one was a foul.

However. Im more than happy how the ref called all of these incidents.

Anyway, England play tomorrow, and you just know they are gonna cop something stupid.

hashtagthoughtsandprayers

---

I haven't seen last night's games yet so won't comment on the Swiss one. But the Risdon one and Costa one are completely different - a slide tackle like that going for the ball, you pretty much need to determine if the defender got the ball, and if he got the player. Sometimes not easy to tell, and there's definitely grey in the player contact one (but in my opinion there was no grey in the France pen incident).

For upper body contact stuff its so subjective and up for interpretation. If you ask Pepe he was lucky to stay conscious, while Costa would say he barely touched him. Judging which one is right off slow motion replays is a useless endeavour. Good to see the pen given in the Croatia game for holding in the box, but generally so much shit goes on at corners and free kicks that "should" be a foul but is never called. The rules are applied with so much variation and discretion in many instances in our sport that it makes trying to obtain an objectively correct decision impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

For upper body contact stuff its so subjective and up for interpretation.

---

Yeah that's my point.

There is a foul on every corner.
There are arms and legs flying in every contested ball.

So far I'm way happier with the refs on field calls on everything than the interpretations of VAR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

I haven't seen last night's games yet so won't comment on the Swiss one. But the Risdon one and Costa one are completely different - a slide tackle like that going for the ball, you pretty much need to determine if the defender got the ball, and if he got the player. Sometimes not easy to tell, and there's definitely grey in the player contact one (but in my opinion there was no grey in the France pen incident).

For upper body contact stuff its so subjective and up for interpretation. If you ask Pepe he was lucky to stay conscious, while Costa would say he barely touched him. Judging which one is right off slow motion replays is a useless endeavour. Good to see the pen given in the Croatia game for holding in the box, but generally so much shit goes on at corners and free kicks that "should" be a foul but is never called. The rules are applied with so much variation and discretion in many instances in our sport that it makes trying to obtain an objectively correct decision impossible.

---

But when you say it up for interpretation you are hitting the nail on the head

If the contact on Griezemann by Risdon after he has played the ball although minimal and not an intentional trip is sufficient to award a penalty as these ****wits are claiming....

Then Costas goal is disallowed
Then Argies get a pen
Then Swiss goal is disallowed
Then Jesus gets a pen
Then Humnels gives away a pen


There is no consistency

Because they have brought interpretation into it.

Whilst ever it is interpretation it is flawed.

Which is no different than the 100 odd years of blind ****s with a whistle.

Now we just have a blind **** with the whistle and the VAR lottery which may or may not fall in your favour today

The thing is shit and needs to go

Anyone supporting VAR being retained is a ****ing moron

If it's all an interpretation then why don't we just allow the referee to interpret

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imyourhero

If it's all an interpretation then why don't we just allow the referee to interpret

---

Close the internet

This guy gets it



It is just another level of beuracracy to **** something up more

Lets face reality. Refs make shit calls every game

Now we have them making shit calls
+
VAR getting involved to make some more shit calls