They did say there was a goal check going on.
Not good enough. You've got the pundits guessing what's going on and why. It's not hard to do. Every other sport with a form of var does it so much better
They did say there was a goal check going on.
Well, if the R misses it on the field, sure. It,s usually the R that has to make that determination as the AR doesn’t have the angle. But the R often has other things to watch as well. And he can’t give it unless he’s sure. So it isn’t surprising to me that this is a kind of miss by the R that we see and that VAR corrects.Agree about telling us but do we really need a VAR screen review to decide interfering or not. Was VAR really intended for this use.
The pundits knew they were checking for possible offside. They even said as such.Not good enough. You've got the pundits guessing what's going on and why. It's not hard to do. Every other sport with a form of var does it so much better
My question here is, why didn't the AR and CR communicate unless the CR didn't realize the AR didn't move up the field. Or if they did communicate, what was said.I didn't think Ramos was good in this game, but I'll defend him on this play. With all of the commotion around that set piece, it would be pretty hard to put all of the pieces together. Plus, the Moroccan player was some distance from Courtois. AR2 stood still on the line instead of running up the touchline, so he was communicating a player in an offside position. I'd say this was a great call by AR2, a (tough but understandable) onfield miss by Ramos, and an excellent use of VAR to recommend the onfield review and subsequent decision to overturn the goal.
I've been a critic of VAR for a lot of reasons, but this is one where I think it was used very well (probably helped that the offside VAR is an American MLS AR, where they use VAR very well in my opinion). It's a tough call to nail on-field. Ramos awarded the goal, VAR recommended a review, and he got to the right call. We can debate a lot about VAR (and obviously have), but I think this is the type of play that shows it can be a force for good in the game.
No, you're not getting it. I want what rugby has, I want what cricket has, I want what field hockey has. Is that too much to ask for?The pundits knew they were checking for possible offside. They even said as such.
They put it up on the board. It is up on the TV screen. It isn't like there's no communication. I would love to overhear the conversation while watching on TV, i won't deny that but exclaiming that we don't know what's going on is false.No, you're not getting it. I want what rugby has, I want what cricket has, I want what field hockey has. Is that too much to ask for?
That is still so unsatisfactoryThey put it up on the board. It is up on the TV screen. It isn't like there's no communication. I would love to overhear the conversation while watching on TV, i won't deny that but exclaiming that we don't know what's going on is false.
Well then what is it that you want? Everyone to hear the conversation, both those in the stadium and watching?That is still so unsatisfactory
YES! it's what happens in cricket and field hockey. At the rugby league they have an announcer saying what the video ref was looking at and why.Well then what is it that you want? Everyone to hear the conversation, both those in the stadium and watching?
You are aware that they are seeing the replay and not hearing the actual audio right? Unless there is actual audio at an actual cricket match or rugby match. I don't think so but I could be mistaken.YES! it's what happens in cricket and field hockey. At the rugby league they have an announcer saying what the video ref was looking
There is at cricket yesYou are aware that they are seeing the replay and not hearing the actual audio right? Unless there is actual audio at an actual cricket match or rugby match. I don't think so but I could be mistaken.
Agree it would improve the process, and might happen once VAR is more mature. But whilst it is still fairly new, and being adapted over time, I doubt they will want to effectively air their dirty laundry in public.YES! it's what happens in cricket and field hockey. At the rugby league they have an announcer saying what the video ref was looking at and why.
Agree it would improve the process, and might happen once VAR is more mature. But whilst it is still fairly new, and being adapted over time, I doubt they will want to effectively air their dirty laundry in public.
It is also very different to the other sports. In those it is mainly black and white: was the ball hitting the stumps, was the ball grounded for a try, was a pass forward, etc. In football it is a lot more subjective for a lot of decisions that VAR looks at, I also think that fans of the other sports know the laws more than the average football fan does, so the audio might end up causing confusion rather than clarity.
Yes and yes. As @RustyRef pointed out, whether a player has interfered with an opponent "is a subjective rather than factual decision, which means the referee must check it."Agree about telling us but do we really need a VAR screen review to decide interfering or not. Was VAR really intended for this use.