zarathustra
RefChat Addict
But the laws don't make that distinction.
The keeper is either on the line or not.
A human might not see the keeper being 1cm off the line, but a still photo from the correct angle can.
JAM ITA penalty mess
- Thread starter QuaverRef
- Start date
But the laws don't make that distinction.
The keeper is either on the line or not.
A human might not see the keeper being 1cm off the line, but a still photo from the correct angle can.
Correct, and I agree had it have been saved but for me, it feels wrong to punish a goalkeeper when the attacker doesn’t even hit the target.
Whatever you call the system, it was used differently in the FA Cup. As I highlighted before, there were decisions made in the FA Cup when the VAR changed the decision without on on-field review, the obvious one being the reversal of Martin Atkinson's decision to send off Lindelof for SFP (when arguably the initial decision was totally correct, and certainly wasn't obviously wrong). The FA might not have applied for permission, but that is certainly how they used it.
My understanding is the same will happen next season, in that on-field reviews will be discouraged. Only time will tell, but I fully expect VAR in the Premier League to be far less invasive than we are seeing in the WWC. That said, the WWC is far more intrusive than the WC was, which makes me worry they are using it as an experiment, which would belittle the women's game.
Last edited:
Turns out there is VAR
Very dodgy pen given against England for handball
Not seen a goal line camera angle replay to conclusively confirm but Henderson was moving very early and looked at least a step off his line. Hate that this waisn't retaken (if I'm right) and the pens at the women's world cup were
Cricket is laughing at the mess of VAR, their bloke upstairs make the decision and we move on. What’s this insistence that the ref has to make the final decision, it’s just silly.
In principle VAR is a good idea, it’s turned out to be farcical in its current format, the crowd, the players, the commentators, even the refs on the pitch don’t know what’s happening or what's going to happen next.. sort it out!
In principle VAR is a good idea, it’s turned out to be farcical in its current format, the crowd, the players, the commentators, even the refs on the pitch don’t know what’s happening or what's going to happen next.. sort it out!
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Yup, sure seems a completely different standard is being applied. Read elsewhere that the VAR involved worked either the u20 or WWC or both where it was rigid, so this seems to be different instructions to the VARs. And VAR is supposed to give us the consistency that ends controversy . . . tell that to Nigeria who is probably going home instead of to the knock out round as a result of that retaken PK . . .
Lack of consistency where the whole thing falls down.
Agree, there is way more movement there than there was in the WWC game, although difficult to see where his back foot is (as it would have been in the WWC game without a camera on the goal line).
Penalty is ridiculous as it is headed onto him from point blank distance as is he jumping, really not sure where IFAB want players arms to be when jumping. Try jumping as high as you can with your arms by your side, you won't get anywhere near as high as when you have your arms up. That said, those will be given now whether we like it or not, another example of people making laws that have never played so don't understand..
Tyler did say something about rules changing at the end of the month...
And players are all waiting for the ball to leave the box on goal kicks...
But I don't think it's a pen with old or new laws!
Not sure I've ever liked so many posts in one thread
a. good to know that the majority vote agrees with mine
b. some contributors desperately cling on to the deep meaning of a letter of law that has never amounted to the paper it's written on
c. it's my personal opinion that the sponsors are influencing how the game is refereed (unsubstantiated of course)
d. I'm hoping that the Premier league will suffocate this Americanism by implementing the protocol with due consideration, just as they deviate from the ROTW with the (more correct) interpretation of the LOTG
Aside: the first PK awarded to France v England in the U21 was disgusting, yet that's what FIFA seemingly want
a. good to know that the majority vote agrees with mine
b. some contributors desperately cling on to the deep meaning of a letter of law that has never amounted to the paper it's written on
c. it's my personal opinion that the sponsors are influencing how the game is refereed (unsubstantiated of course)
d. I'm hoping that the Premier league will suffocate this Americanism by implementing the protocol with due consideration, just as they deviate from the ROTW with the (more correct) interpretation of the LOTG
Aside: the first PK awarded to France v England in the U21 was disgusting, yet that's what FIFA seemingly want
Last edited:
Yampy
RefChat Addict
Is that the same sport where it's administrators mandated UDRS only to change their minds to make it optional if both teams agree? Is that the same cricket where the captain of the world's biggest cricket playing nation still calls it 'inconsistent'? The same sport that still has a margin of uncertainty for lbw decisions in which 'umpire's call' overrides the third umpire?
And is it the same sport that doesn't review errors unless requested to and only if you have a remaining review available?
Let's not forget, it is also the sport where you have to ask the umpire if the batsman is out no matter what degree of certainty there is on the matter?
BTW, I love cricket but the comparison is chalk and cheese.
as it happens, i'd much prefer a similar challenge based system rather than one where everything is reviewed
Pretty much this.
Make it the captains responsibility to initiate a review before the next stoppage/restart in play.
You give 1 or 2 reviews per half/per game and the review is retained on success and lost upon failure.
Refer the review to video and act upon advice of video ref as you would an AR.
I am sure with a bit more thougt a better process than this could be thought up but it's what I would like as a general outline
one
RefChat Addict
Disagree. Results of the game can hang on how well you managed your reviews more so than how well you played the game. It's a no brainer for me.
I get quiet frustrated (with the rules and the players) in both cricket and tennis when the official make a very obvious error, every one knows it but the officials, and nothing can be done because you are out of reviews.
I get quiet frustrated (with the rules and the players) in both cricket and tennis when the official make a very obvious error, every one knows it but the officials, and nothing can be done because you are out of reviews.
Yes there is that element. But it should stop frivolous reviewing. You learn to only contest clear and obvious errors.
I know in tennis it can get tedious at the end of a set and they just review on the off-chance but I think it would give greater premise to the clear and obvious mantra that clearly is not being adhered to.
I think the main point is that most people are unhappy with VAR in its current format. I am yet to here much complimentary about it due to its inconsistent applications and interventions and the overall process so people are suggesting alternatives many of which appear more attractive.
Football, aside from skill is a game of tactics. Having a a review mechanism falls into tactics.
Many games are lost by the more skilful team because one team uses better tactics to combat the other so I cant buy that games would be imbalanced by reviews as that's not anything new when you consider reviewing as part of tactics