Get VAR in the fucking bin (3 Viewers)

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Nope. In that scenario yesterday, no.

It's such a close call isn't it. So, I think, as VAR, you look at it and if it's that close, you go with the on-field decision. So if the linesman raised his flag, that's what you go with.

There wasn't enough evidence to overturn it. Should be like in cricket.

No clear and obvious error whichever way the officials called it yesterday. Should have gone with that.
This isn’t in reality how VAR works is it?
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
So what non-tiny margin would you use? There has to be some sort of limit, and any event at or near that limit would cause the same sort of discussion/uproar
Limit of if they have to start drawing lines it isn't obvious and they go with on field decision.

We fuck up VAR so much in this country, every time a World Cup or Euros comes around then it is fine.

This time we were just cheated though.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
This isn’t in reality how VAR works is it?
No. It would be common sense though to implement it that way.

I have consistently said, VAR needs fine-tuning and changing, because as it stands, it is detrimental to the game
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
I work with a Barcelona fan who said they had a goal chalked off against Madrid last night because La Liga don’t use goalline tech, just relying on VAR to see if the ball crosses the line. This being despite the Bernabeu having the technology, they just turned it off for league games.

Why is common sense so hard to find in this sport?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
No. It would be common sense though to implement it that way.

I have consistently said, VAR needs fine-tuning and changing, because as it stands, it is detrimental to the game

But that’s never going to be the reality - it isn’t in cricket
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Or even have a clear definition of when the ball is deemed to be played
That’s it email doing into John Taylor coo saying he has our full auppprt to ask for pictures and audio and to clarify the playing of the ball as it appears the wrong still is being used
They should demand compensation
In order of importance I’d be fine with:

1. Compensation
2. The audio
3. An apology
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
What’s nonsense about asking for clarity on the law and some transparency

It’s bonkers as it suggests a conspiracy and suddenly we along with Forest fight some stupid campaign we can’t win

For the record I think VAR is a joke system and should be scrapped but it’s not a hill to die on
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
It’s bonkers as it suggests a conspiracy and suddenly we along with Forest fight some stupid campaign we can’t win

For the record I think VAR is a joke system and should be scrapped but it’s not a hill to die on
Nobody is suggesting going down the Forest route of threatening legal action. Just some transparency about what happened and some official acceptance that they fucked up.

Howard Webb apologises on behalf of PGMOL most weeks
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Nobody is suggesting going down the Forest route of threatening legal action. Just some transparency about what happened and some official acceptance that they fucked up.

Howard Webb apologises on behalf of PGMOL most weeks

You said push for compensation?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
So how do you get that without taking on the EFL and setting a precedent?
It isn’t the EFL’s competition for a start. We are talking about a winning goal with essentially the last kick of the game. The money is of no consequence to Man Utd either
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It isn’t the EFL’s competition for a start. We are talking about a winning goal with essentially the last kick of the game. The money is of no consequence to Man Utd either

Oh ok so it’s the FA and / or Man U you want to take on?

Bit silly and hot headed - hence my original comment
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Oh ok so it’s the FA and / or Man U you want to take on?

Bit silly and hot headed - hence my original comment
‘Take on’, it’s a request to be made, nothing like what Forest are doing.

Bit silly and hot headed to want Robins sacked every time we go through a sticky patch yet it never stops you
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
‘Take on’, it’s a request to be made, nothing like what Forest are doing.

Bit silly and hot headed to want Robins sacked every time we go through a sticky patch yet it never stops you

Asking for compensation isn’t a request - it’s trying to get an admission of wrong doing and setting a precedent
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Yeah, won't happen and pointless to even try going up that blind alley. Calling for more transparency is probably more realistic, I would love an explanation for yesterday.

Again though it’s questioning integrity and will achieve nothing

it’s not the worst miscarriage of justice in a semi final at Wembley - poor decisions happen
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Again though it’s questioning integrity and will achieve nothing

it’s not the worst miscarriage of justice in a semi final at Wembley - poor decisions happen
I see it as just providing clarity.

Surely the football authorities would prefer not to have this sort of negative press week in and week out?
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Or even have a clear definition of when the ball is deemed to be played
That’s it email doing into John Taylor coo saying he has our full auppprt to ask for pictures and audio and to clarify the playing of the ball as it appears the wrong still is being used
They should demand compensation
Pete, thinking about this, the definition is played or touched, with touched being defined as first point of contact.
There has to be a difference between playing the ball and touching the ball.

For example, a striker is alone in the opposition’s half when his goalkeeper catches the ball from an opponents cross. That is first contact.

The GK holds the ball, only for 6 seconds obviously, during which time the aforementioned striker moves in to his own half. The GK kicks the ball and the striker heads it on to a fellow player who runs through and scores a goal. No one would be saying the striker was offside, would they, but if first contact by the GK was the rule, the striker would have been.

The reality is that, in general, it is when the ball is played. The “touched” element comes in to force when a ball played by player 1 hits (touches, first contacts) player 2 and rebounds to player 3 who is in an offside position.

So, in this case, the offside should have been measured when the ball leaves O’Hare’s foot, which it does in a very unconventional way. The ball hasn’t left his foot when it’s still on or very near the ground. The frame is, therefore, the wrong one. Haji is holding his run and pointing where he wants the ball whilst AWB continues his wrong. Haji is more likely to be onside than not at the point the ball is played to him.
 

gspotgaz

Well-Known Member
Another angle found from a Man Utd vlog on YouTube exact moment it leaves o’hares foot. Did VAR fucking photoshop that angle they used or something
 

Attachments

  • 5DBDB608-3173-40DB-B48C-4EED8DE1382E.png
    5DBDB608-3173-40DB-B48C-4EED8DE1382E.png
    4.5 MB · Views: 50

Users who are viewing this thread

Top