Will VAR Change Football for the Better?
Discussion
Pitre said:
LimmerickLad said:
I don't care what the "laws" say..........It wasn't even a foul let alone a red card but if you think it was then, the "laws" are crap and clearly our views on VAR, and probably anything else to do with football, will never align..IMO VAR is ruining football.
Not much to be said if you don't accept the current laws of the game as governing principles.The current law states that a red should be given when "Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."
Intent is not mentioned, nor is the extent of contact. So I'm sorry to have to tell you that DCL was properly sent off.
LimmerickLad said:
IMO It was not "excessive force" nor was it "endangering the safety of an opponent"...it was an excellent tackle!!............not every tackle that involves contact is a foul and football is a contact sport.........clearly your, Twigs and the Refs interpretation of what is excessive of dangerous are entirely different to my own.......that was never a foul let alone a red card end of!
If Clyne's leg wasn't in mid air it wouldn't have moved backwards and that has the potential to be a serious injury. I didn't watch the game, but it looks like Clyne stayed down injured for a while. Is injuring a player justified part of contact?
We always talk about how our referees are poor and how European referees are better. This is a recent CL game.
Holm made even less contact and was travelling slower. High foot, studs showing and this was a red direct from the referee. VAR confirmed the decision and there was no appeal.
https://streamin.me/v/613a4db6
Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 6th January 17:17
LimmerickLad said:
IMO It was not "excessive force" nor was it "endangering the safety of an opponent"...it was an excellent tackle!!............not every tackle that involves contact is a foul and football is a contact sport.........clearly your, Twigs and the Refs interpretation of what is excessive of dangerous are entirely different to my own.......that was never a foul let alone a red card end of!
Hmmm. Blue tinted specs 
Pitre said:
LimmerickLad said:
IMO It was not "excessive force" nor was it "endangering the safety of an opponent"...it was an excellent tackle!!............not every tackle that involves contact is a foul and football is a contact sport.........clearly your, Twigs and the Refs interpretation of what is excessive of dangerous are entirely different to my own.......that was never a foul let alone a red card end of!
Hmmm. Blue tinted specs 
LimmerickLad said:
I don't care what the "laws" say..........
This sums up about 95% of people that constantly moan about referees. Including ex players and managers. They either have no idea what the laws are, or do know but don't care, have their own idea of what the laws should be, and expect the referee to officiate the game according to their made up laws, and not the actual laws.
LimmerickLad said:
IMO It was not "excessive force" nor was it "endangering the safety of an opponent"...
You see, that's a reasonable argument. You're looking at the laws and saying why you don't think it was a red card, or even a foul. But banging on about intent and level of contact is just complete nonsense. You might as well say it wasn't a red because DCL's mum's star sign is Taurus. LimmerickLad said:
Twigs and the Refs interpretation of what is excessive of dangerous are entirely different to my own.......that was never a foul let alone a red card end of!
Are you hard of reading? At no point have i ever said I thought it was a red card. All I've said is that coming to that conclusion because of intent or contact is moronic. TwigtheWonderkid said:
LimmerickLad said:
Twigs and the Refs interpretation of what is excessive of dangerous are entirely different to my own.......that was never a foul let alone a red card end of!
Are you hard of reading? At no point have i ever said I thought it was a red card. All I've said is that coming to that conclusion because of intent or contact is moronic. Don't get me started on allowing play to continue after a clear and obvious infringement i.e obvious offside, let the goalie try to make a save or defender a recovering tackle risking injury and then putting the flag up....wtf is that all about?.........as I said before VAR has changed fotball for the worse IMO but clearly other have differing opinions.....you a ref BTW?
Edited by LimmerickLad on Sunday 7th January 10:26
LimmerickLad said:
As it happens the ref in the Newc V Sund got a few things wrong as well but the difference was that without VAR the game still flowed, his mistakes did not spoil the game for the fans or the club as a whole..
Don't get me started on allowing play to continue after a clear and obvious infringement i.e obvious offside, let the goalie try to make a save or defender a recovering tackle risking injury and then putting the flag up....wtf is that all about?.........
When the mistakes the referee makes starts costing teams goals, points and cards that's when those mistakes become major talking points and spoil the game. That's why VAR was introduced. Don't get me started on allowing play to continue after a clear and obvious infringement i.e obvious offside, let the goalie try to make a save or defender a recovering tackle risking injury and then putting the flag up....wtf is that all about?.........
They don't allow play to continue after something clear and obvious. The assistants do flag for obvious offsides. They are told to keep their flag down if they are not sure. If they flag for offside and it's not offside their is uproar.
If you are worried about the possibility of players being injured, how can you be ok with players leading with high feet and studs showing?
Edited by Driver101 on Sunday 7th January 10:33
LimmerickLad said:
Driver101 said:
If you are worried about the possibility of players being injured, how can you be ok with players leading with high feet and studs showing?
It wasn't even a foul let alone a red card. HTH.Edited by Driver101 on Sunday 7th January 10:33
Do you think it is ok to lead with a high foot, the studs showing and to make contact with the studs?
You are complaining about the possibility of a player being injured, but you are ignoring Clyne was injured in this incident.
I'm still struggling with the uproar over the DCL "challenge" and subsequent red card.
You can't expect to go into a tackle like that and not get sent off at this point. The fact he didn't make serious contact is irrelevant as was far more down to luck than any sort of judgement.
You can't expect to go into a tackle like that and not get sent off at this point. The fact he didn't make serious contact is irrelevant as was far more down to luck than any sort of judgement.
LimmerickLad said:
It wasn't even a foul let alone a red card. HTH.
Not a foul? You're joking surely?Driver101 said:
Why do you think it wasn't a foul?
Do you think it is ok to lead with a high foot, the studs showing and to make contact with the studs?
You are complaining about the possibility of a player being injured, but you are ignoring Clyne was injured in this incident.
Because it wasn't a foul end of.......no idea or interest about the other stuff you are on about. Do you think it is ok to lead with a high foot, the studs showing and to make contact with the studs?
You are complaining about the possibility of a player being injured, but you are ignoring Clyne was injured in this incident.
eta even Roy Hodgson won't say whether he thought it was a red card or not "It's a modern-day situation" according to him...as an aside I played with him in the 70's
Edited by LimmerickLad on Sunday 7th January 11:06
LimmerickLad said:
Driver101 said:
Why do you think it wasn't a foul?
Do you think it is ok to lead with a high foot, the studs showing and to make contact with the studs?
You are complaining about the possibility of a player being injured, but you are ignoring Clyne was injured in this incident.
Because it wasn't a foul end of.......no idea or interest about the other stuff you are on about. Do you think it is ok to lead with a high foot, the studs showing and to make contact with the studs?
You are complaining about the possibility of a player being injured, but you are ignoring Clyne was injured in this incident.
If you can't explain why you don't think that was a foul then none of us are going to understand the point you are trying to make.
The other stuff is related to the challenge. Why would you want to avoid answering easy questions?
Driver101 said:
You don't understand the rules and a few of us are struggling to understand where you are coming from.
If you can't explain why you don't think that was a foul then none of us are going to understand the point you are trying to make.
The other stuff is related to the challenge. Why would you want to avoid answering easy questions?
Even Liverpool fans agree with me.whodathunkit?If you can't explain why you don't think that was a foul then none of us are going to understand the point you are trying to make.
The other stuff is related to the challenge. Why would you want to avoid answering easy questions?
https://www.thisisanfield.com/2024/01/liverpool-fa...
LimmerickLad said:
Even Liverpool fans agree with me.whodathunkit?
https://www.thisisanfield.com/2024/01/liverpool-fa...
That doesn’t say it wasn’t a foul? https://www.thisisanfield.com/2024/01/liverpool-fa...
LimmerickLad said:
Driver101 said:
You don't understand the rules and a few of us are struggling to understand where you are coming from.
If you can't explain why you don't think that was a foul then none of us are going to understand the point you are trying to make.
The other stuff is related to the challenge. Why would you want to avoid answering easy questions?
Even Liverpool fans agree with me.whodathunkit?If you can't explain why you don't think that was a foul then none of us are going to understand the point you are trying to make.
The other stuff is related to the challenge. Why would you want to avoid answering easy questions?
https://www.thisisanfield.com/2024/01/liverpool-fa...
The first few tweets are made by people that haven't read the rules.
Phil McNulty repeats the pundits claims that there was hardly an appeal. That's plain wrong if you watch the video. The crowd noise went up and players appealed as play continued and after the ball was played away.
LimmerickLad said:
Because it wasn't a foul end of.......no idea or interest about the other stuff you are on about.
eta even Roy Hodgson won't say whether he thought it was a red card or not "It's a modern-day situation" according to him...as an aside I played with him in the 70's
I think that’s where your problem rests. You probably still think a couple of players having a punch up would be OK. The game has changed a lot in 50 years, whether it’s all for the better is unlikely, but there is a lot of good that’s happened. The other problem is that VAR isn’t the problem here. They applied the rules correctly. It’s the rules that may or may not be the problem. eta even Roy Hodgson won't say whether he thought it was a red card or not "It's a modern-day situation" according to him...as an aside I played with him in the 70's
Edited by LimmerickLad on Sunday 7th January 11:06
It’s most definitely a foul, but stills like above aren’t helpful as they can distort an incident.
Reading here and elsewhere, the reason there's such a debate going on is because of the two points of view. Either you accept the current laws of the game, under which it's a red, or you believe the law is wrong and needs changing, in which case it's either a yellow or "you're all softies, it's a man's game" and not even a foul.
IMHO you're both right to a large degree, hence the row rumbles on....
IMHO you're both right to a large degree, hence the row rumbles on....
This seems about the most sensible take in that link for me.
We're back into the subjective nature of whether it was potentially dangerous or not, which it clearly was. I've seen far worse decisions go either way this season so not sure why this is getting so much attention TBH.
Nothing to do with VAR.
We're back into the subjective nature of whether it was potentially dangerous or not, which it clearly was. I've seen far worse decisions go either way this season so not sure why this is getting so much attention TBH.
Pitre said:
Either you accept the current laws of the game, under which it's a red, or you believe the law is wrong and needs changing.
This is the point. Those are the rules and whether players/fans/managers/pundits agree with them or not is immaterial.Nothing to do with VAR.
Edited by SWoll on Sunday 7th January 11:41
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff