Will VAR Change Football for the Better?
Discussion
SWoll said:
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.
A straight high leg with studs showing always has the potential to cause harm. It is dangerous. 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.
Firstly I don't think the contact was as delicate as others. Clyne's leg was knocked backwards when his leg was moving forwards. I think him going down in pain was genuine. Studs hurt.
If Clyne's leg was his standing leg, and not in mid air, there wouldn't be the deflection of the legs. There would be serious contact and there wouldn't be any debate it was red. It is the minimal contact that is making people overlook the endangering.
SWoll said:
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.
If the rules were to be applied consistantly, which they should be, then every game would probably see 2/3 red cards.Nothing to do with VAR.
Edited by SWoll on Sunday 7th January 11:41
As well as running junior teams, I played at a reasonable level for many years but not pro so I wouldn’t say I know the nuances of football the way pro players do. However, at the time of the DCL incident the referee didn't even give a free kick and had a clear view, but if under the rules VAR can review it in slow motion / freeze frame by frame and then "apply the rules" and overule the onfield ref (as the ref is not gong to stick to his guns and be sanctioned later now is he?) and the ref then declares that this was not just a foul but a red card, then sadly I will just have to learn to accept that the football I have known , partcipated in and enjoyed for more than 50 years is gone.
LimmerickLad said:
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. And there's every need to be rude! If you're still wittering on about intent and contact, you know nothing about the laws of the game and should stfu and leave it to the referees.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LimmerickLad said:
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. And there's every need to be rude! If you're still wittering on about intent and contact, you know nothing about the laws of the game and should stfu and leave it to the referees.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I don't think VAR had any right to get involved in it. The ref gave a yellow. It was definitely a yellow at least, and had the ref given a straight red, I don't think, within the current laws, it would have been a wrong decision. But neither is a yellow the wrong decision, because the excessive force, reckless and endangerment aspects were borderline. Either colour card shown by the ref would have been acceptable. It could have been yellow or red, but what it definitely wasn't was a clear and obvious error. And the rules are the VAR should only deal with clear and obvious errors when it comes to subjective decisions like this.
The referee didn't give anything. Play continued. I also share the opinion that if the referee gave a yellow card that would have been the end of it. As he missed what happened VAR had to step in.
Driver101 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I don't think VAR had any right to get involved in it. The ref gave a yellow. It was definitely a yellow at least, and had the ref given a straight red, I don't think, within the current laws, it would have been a wrong decision. But neither is a yellow the wrong decision, because the excessive force, reckless and endangerment aspects were borderline. Either colour card shown by the ref would have been acceptable. It could have been yellow or red, but what it definitely wasn't was a clear and obvious error. And the rules are the VAR should only deal with clear and obvious errors when it comes to subjective decisions like this.
The referee didn't give anything. Play continued. I also share the opinion that if the referee gave a yellow card that would have been the end of it. As he missed what happened VAR had to step in.
Driver101 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I don't think VAR had any right to get involved in it. The ref gave a yellow. It was definitely a yellow at least, and had the ref given a straight red, I don't think, within the current laws, it would have been a wrong decision. But neither is a yellow the wrong decision, because the excessive force, reckless and endangerment aspects were borderline. Either colour card shown by the ref would have been acceptable. It could have been yellow or red, but what it definitely wasn't was a clear and obvious error. And the rules are the VAR should only deal with clear and obvious errors when it comes to subjective decisions like this.
The referee didn't give anything. Play continued. Well Twig I gave you a few hours to apologise for being unneccessarily rude but not only did you double down you also refused to answer whether you are a ref or not.....we all make mistakes and it is what you do after that matters would you not agree?
Fortunately for you Driver101 was on VAR duties and picked up on your clear and obvious error and put you straight fancy that eh?
Just to remind you:
Fortunately for you Driver101 was on VAR duties and picked up on your clear and obvious error and put you straight fancy that eh?
Just to remind you:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you're with Warnock, can you explain how, within the laws of the game , intent and level of contact are relevant to the decision?
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.
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?LimmerickLad said:
No need to be rude!...................So you admit VAR got it wrong then? .....you a ref BTW?
LimmerickLad said:
at the time of the DCL incident the referee didn't even give a free kick and had a clear view,
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The ref gave a yellow.
And there's every need to be rude! If you're still wittering on about intent and contact, you know nothing about the laws of the game and should stfu and leave it to the referees.
And there's every need to be rude! If you're still wittering on about intent and contact, you know nothing about the laws of the game and should stfu and leave it to the referees.
LimmerickLad said:
Noted.. so you are ref then.
VAR said:
The referee didn't give anything. Play continued.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
OK, I though he gave a yellow.
So I ask again Twigs old bean...Are you a referee? Did you make a clear and obvious error? Should all non referees still SFU and leave it to referees? Is a forum a place for people to discuss their differing views on topics such as football and VAR? Is it still reasonable to have been so unneccessarily rude?Edited by LimmerickLad on Sunday 7th January 16:52
addey said:
Oh dear. Did your wife run off with a referee?
Much like traffic wardens, anyone who sticks their hand up to be a ref should be instantly barred 
N.B. Having reffed a few games as a biased/spare member of my team (and my kids team too) I qualified as a ref many years ago, did one game as an 'official' ref (where i didn't know any of the players or fans) and decided it wasn't for me. Never did another.
Edited by Pitre on Sunday 7th January 17:23
LimmerickLad said:
So I ask again Twigs old bean...Are you a referee? Did you make a clear and obvious error? Should all non referees still SFU and leave it to referees? Is a forum a place for people to discuss their differing views on topics such as football and VAR? Is it still reasonable to have been so unneccessarily rude?
People should stfu about intent and contact. If they don't, they don't understand the laws of football. As said, it's about as relevant as star signs. Edited by LimmerickLad on Sunday 7th January 16:52
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LimmerickLad said:
So I ask again Twigs old bean...Are you a referee? Did you make a clear and obvious error? Should all non referees still SFU and leave it to referees? Is a forum a place for people to discuss their differing views on topics such as football and VAR? Is it still reasonable to have been so unneccessarily rude?
People should stfu about intent and contact. If they don't, they don't understand the laws of football. As said, it's about as relevant as star signs. Edited by LimmerickLad on Sunday 7th January 16:52
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LimmerickLad said:
Oh well never mind............shame you aren't big enough to admit your mistakes.
Well according to you, as the mistake wasn't intentional and you weren't badly injured, it wasn't a mistake. 
LimmerickLad said:
You get something so basic wrong, won't even answer a simple question and are extremely rude and arrogant yet expect your opinions to be given credence.........Paul the world cup octopus has more creditibility (and spine ) than you..............
While you’re busy being offended, there is something for you to consider. You also got something very basic wrong about your whole argument and are now playing the victim whilst being just as arrogant and arguably rude yourself. Just let it go. Football has some rules that we all disagree with, especially when they go against our team, or against a team playing an arch rival, alongside that VAR is generally considered crap. However, in this case VAR did its job correctly. It identified a clear and obvious error, a foul with no action by the onfield ref. It only intervened in the game when the tackle was serious foul play and a red card offence. It implemented the rules correctly around this.
Some of the rules may be weak, overly soft, or whatever, but that isn’t the fault of VAR, it’s the fault of the lawmakers trying to take the contact out of a contact sport.
I am not passing any judgment of whether it was a red card offence or not in my opinion as a fan, just what the rules say.
LimmerickLad said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LimmerickLad said:
Oh well never mind............shame you aren't big enough to admit your mistakes.
Well according to you, as the mistake wasn't intentional and you weren't badly injured, it wasn't a mistake. LF5335 said:
While you’re busy being offended, there is something for you to consider. You also got something very basic wrong about your whole argument and are now playing the victim whilst being just as arrogant and arguably rude yourself.
Just let it go. Football has some rules that we all disagree with, especially when they go against our team, or against a team playing an arch rival, alongside that VAR is generally considered crap. However, in this case VAR did its job correctly. It identified a clear and obvious error, a foul with no action by the onfield ref. It only intervened in the game when the tackle was serious foul play and a red card offence. It implemented the rules correctly around this.
Some of the rules may be weak, overly soft, or whatever, but that isn’t the fault of VAR, it’s the fault of the lawmakers trying to take the contact out of a contact sport.
I am not passing any judgment of whether it was a red card offence or not in my opinion as a fan, just what the rules say.
Broadly agree.Just let it go. Football has some rules that we all disagree with, especially when they go against our team, or against a team playing an arch rival, alongside that VAR is generally considered crap. However, in this case VAR did its job correctly. It identified a clear and obvious error, a foul with no action by the onfield ref. It only intervened in the game when the tackle was serious foul play and a red card offence. It implemented the rules correctly around this.
Some of the rules may be weak, overly soft, or whatever, but that isn’t the fault of VAR, it’s the fault of the lawmakers trying to take the contact out of a contact sport.
I am not passing any judgment of whether it was a red card offence or not in my opinion as a fan, just what the rules say.
I do think there's a discussion to be had around whether the ref missed it, or saw it and deemed it not a foul. In other words, did it spot a "clear and obvious" error, or re ref the game? I suppose you might say that by not giving it, he has missed it. Needs to go Specsavers then, he was right on top of it...
Ironically that's two we've had where if the ref had taken slightly more action, then technically/ probably VAR wouldn't have intervened further to our detriment. (If the Utd player - Martial? - hadn't been booked for diving then Young's block isn't checked for a pen)
This red isn't the hill I want to die on regarding VAR. But it's going to be a matter of weeks before one is referred to VAR and it isn't given as a red. If that's the desired outcome then the red should be overturned and apologies issued (for what they are worth). However I think it will be upheld, and this is "the new normal". If it's applied consistently then zero problem from me. We shall see...
There's just been a long list of borderline / subjective calls going against us which might be technically correct but feel wrong even in isolation. Put together, they stink.
johnboy1975 said:
Broadly agree.
I do think there's a discussion to be had around whether the ref missed it, or saw it and deemed it not a foul. In other words, did it spot a "clear and obvious" error, or re ref the game? I suppose you might say that by not giving it, he has missed it. Needs to go Specsavers then, he was right on top of it...
Ironically that's two we've had where if the ref had taken slightly more action, then technically/ probably VAR wouldn't have intervened further to our detriment. (If the Utd player - Martial? - hadn't been booked for diving then Young's block isn't checked for a pen)
This red isn't the hill I want to die on regarding VAR. But it's going to be a matter of weeks before one is referred to VAR and it isn't given as a red. If that's the desired outcome then the red should be overturned and apologies issued (for what they are worth). However I think it will be upheld, and this is "the new normal". If it's applied consistently then zero problem from me. We shall see...
There's just been a long list of borderline / subjective calls going against us which might be technically correct but feel wrong even in isolation. Put together, they stink.
If the ref has seen it and deemed it not to be a foul then he should be strong enough to stand by that decision when VAR ask him to review it on screen. If he hasn’t seen it then fair enough, but that’s where we should get the audio and specific questions asked by VAR of the ref at the point of review. The problem is that VAR is re-reffing the match. Plus refs are abdicating decisions to VAR. Penalty claims are far too common so unless it’s a stonewall pen refs wait for VAR to give it. Much like umpires in cricket never give run outs anymore and let the 3rd umpire do the work, no matter how obvious it is. I do think there's a discussion to be had around whether the ref missed it, or saw it and deemed it not a foul. In other words, did it spot a "clear and obvious" error, or re ref the game? I suppose you might say that by not giving it, he has missed it. Needs to go Specsavers then, he was right on top of it...
Ironically that's two we've had where if the ref had taken slightly more action, then technically/ probably VAR wouldn't have intervened further to our detriment. (If the Utd player - Martial? - hadn't been booked for diving then Young's block isn't checked for a pen)
This red isn't the hill I want to die on regarding VAR. But it's going to be a matter of weeks before one is referred to VAR and it isn't given as a red. If that's the desired outcome then the red should be overturned and apologies issued (for what they are worth). However I think it will be upheld, and this is "the new normal". If it's applied consistently then zero problem from me. We shall see...
There's just been a long list of borderline / subjective calls going against us which might be technically correct but feel wrong even in isolation. Put together, they stink.
I think you’re overplaying the VAR decisions that go against you and ignoring the ones that go for you. Just like every fan of every club does.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff