Will VAR Change Football for the Better?
Discussion
The more I see of it the more I'm against it. It's even more inconsistent than the referee at realtime.
Some really dubious calls at the women's world cup. Some given that were never penalties, then strong penalty shouts not even reviewed.
Today they had a penalty retaken as the keeper stepped inches off her line.
The variance on the usage of the VAR is massive. The questions are being asked if favouritism is being shown to the big teams.
Some really dubious calls at the women's world cup. Some given that were never penalties, then strong penalty shouts not even reviewed.
Today they had a penalty retaken as the keeper stepped inches off her line.
The variance on the usage of the VAR is massive. The questions are being asked if favouritism is being shown to the big teams.
snake_oil said:
Women's World Cup. Penalty retake.
f
king joke. Football is in danger of eating itself.
Absolutely st.
That's twice they've done that now, but other games they've let it go. f
king joke. Football is in danger of eating itself.Absolutely s
t.It's been the big teams that have had all of the calls and France have had a couple so far.
The one tonight they noticed the keeper came 2 inches on the line with her back foot, but they didn't notice the French attacker a couple of yards into the box.
VAR has been used very selectively and very badly in the women's world cup. If any more calls go for France there is going to be questions marks over the integrity of the competition.
Driver101 said:
The one tonight they noticed the keeper came 2 inches on the line with her back foot, but they didn't notice the French attacker a couple of yards into the box.
VAR has been used very selectively and very badly in the women's world cup. If any more calls go for France there is going to be questions marks over the integrity of the competition.
VAR has been used very selectively and very badly in the women's world cup. If any more calls go for France there is going to be questions marks over the integrity of the competition.
I hate VAR, but now people are moaning because it's doing what it should do, but in favour of the team they don't like. The idea that VAR would end unfairness against the big teams was always cobblers, because there is no unfairness. Big teams get more decisions because they have the ball more, attack more, spend more time in the opposition penalty area. VAR won't change that. Man City will still get more pens than Sheffied Utd next season. Look at the keeper. Back foot 2" off the line, but front foot about 4ft off the line. That's a definite retake, and that offence isn't cancelled out by the encroachment.
Twig will keep spouting that big teams get the decisions because they attack more, but it's cobblers.
As proven by 2 incidents involving Watford this season. Man City versus Watford goal last season at Emirates Nothing to do with attacking intent, as it wasn't a penalty. A correct offside decision by the linesman was overruled incorrectly by the referee.
Secondly a clear penalty to Watford vs Liverpool at Vicarage Road early in the season not given. So we show attacking intent and are denied a clear scoring opp in the form of a penalty. Explain that Twig?
Both incidents happened at 0-0 and Watford went on to lose - I don't deny that both teams were the better side on the day. But both decisions absolutely gave the big teams the step they needed to go on to win. VAR would have decided for Watford.
As proven by 2 incidents involving Watford this season. Man City versus Watford goal last season at Emirates Nothing to do with attacking intent, as it wasn't a penalty. A correct offside decision by the linesman was overruled incorrectly by the referee.
Secondly a clear penalty to Watford vs Liverpool at Vicarage Road early in the season not given. So we show attacking intent and are denied a clear scoring opp in the form of a penalty. Explain that Twig?
Both incidents happened at 0-0 and Watford went on to lose - I don't deny that both teams were the better side on the day. But both decisions absolutely gave the big teams the step they needed to go on to win. VAR would have decided for Watford.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I hate VAR, but now people are moaning because it's doing what it should do, but in favour of the team they don't like. The idea that VAR would end unfairness against the big teams was always cobblers, because there is no unfairness. Big teams get more decisions because they have the ball more, attack more, spend more time in the opposition penalty area. VAR won't change that. Man City will still get more pens than Sheffied Utd next season. Look at the keeper. Back foot 2" off the line, but front foot about 4ft off the line. That's a definite retake, and that offence isn't cancelled out by the encroachment.
The goalkeeper's front foot is irrelevant in this case. She is just a few inches off the line, but much worse than this happens with the vast majority of penalties.
The encroachment happened first, why wouldn't that be called an offence before the keeper moved?
It will be interesting to compare in 12 months time how many penalties have been awarded in the Premier League 2019/20 season compared to the one just ended. I think the number will go through the roof. Even Watford might be awarded more than one!
It may well become a tactic to focus on winning a penalty first (eg. kick ball at defender's arm), rather than working a shot at goal. So many goal-bound shots are blocked by defenders these days, that you may as well hit his arm and get a free shot from the spot.
It may well become a tactic to focus on winning a penalty first (eg. kick ball at defender's arm), rather than working a shot at goal. So many goal-bound shots are blocked by defenders these days, that you may as well hit his arm and get a free shot from the spot.
Puggit said:
Twig will keep spouting that big teams get the decisions because they attack more, but it's cobblers.
As proven by 2 incidents involving Watford this season. Man City versus Watford goal last season at Emirates Nothing to do with attacking intent, as it wasn't a penalty. A correct offside decision by the linesman was overruled incorrectly by the referee.
Secondly a clear penalty to Watford vs Liverpool at Vicarage Road early in the season not given. So we show attacking intent and are denied a clear scoring opp in the form of a penalty. Explain that Twig?
How many penalty appeals did Man City make last season, compared to Watford? That's they key thing. You didn't have many at all, some were given, some weren't. The ones that weren't stick in your mind, because they effected the result and you only had a handful of pen appeals all season. As proven by 2 incidents involving Watford this season. Man City versus Watford goal last season at Emirates Nothing to do with attacking intent, as it wasn't a penalty. A correct offside decision by the linesman was overruled incorrectly by the referee.
Secondly a clear penalty to Watford vs Liverpool at Vicarage Road early in the season not given. So we show attacking intent and are denied a clear scoring opp in the form of a penalty. Explain that Twig?
Man City would have had loads more pen appeals, some given, some not given. The ones that weren't given were probably no big deal anyway, because Man City went on to win the game easily. Fans don't bleat about penalties not awarded when they won 4-0.
In order to prove your point, you need to check what percentage of penalty appeals you had turned down, compared to Man City's percentage.
If you had 5 pen appeals during the season, but only 2 were awarded, and Man City had 50, and got 20, then there's no bias. But Man City fans can't remember the 30 they didn't get, and they don't care because it didn't effect the game results. But you can remember your 3, because you only had 3 turned down and they all effected the result.
Please tell me you get it now.
Driver101 said:
100% the more attacking teams will get more penalties. The discussion isn't about the quantity of the decisions, it's the accuracy. The point of VAR was to stop mistakes, but it's not being used equally or fairly.
The goalkeeper's front foot is irrelevant in this case. She is just a few inches off the line, but much worse than this happens with the vast majority of penalties.
The encroachment happened first, why wouldn't that be called an offence before the keeper moved?
It's not a few inches, front foot is about 3/4ft off the line.The goalkeeper's front foot is irrelevant in this case. She is just a few inches off the line, but much worse than this happens with the vast majority of penalties.
The encroachment happened first, why wouldn't that be called an offence before the keeper moved?
There's encroachment from both teams.
Champions Man City ate not the best example of a club winning lots of Premier League penalties last year. They were awarded a below average 4. By comparison Man Utd were awarded the most with 12. I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that Man Utd played more attacking football than Man City last season!
Maybe VAR will help contribute to giving Man City more penalties and Man Utd less penalties next season?
Maybe VAR will help contribute to giving Man City more penalties and Man Utd less penalties next season?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Driver101 said:
100% the more attacking teams will get more penalties. The discussion isn't about the quantity of the decisions, it's the accuracy. The point of VAR was to stop mistakes, but it's not being used equally or fairly.
The goalkeeper's front foot is irrelevant in this case. She is just a few inches off the line, but much worse than this happens with the vast majority of penalties.
The encroachment happened first, why wouldn't that be called an offence before the keeper moved?
It's not a few inches, front foot is about 3/4ft off the line.The goalkeeper's front foot is irrelevant in this case. She is just a few inches off the line, but much worse than this happens with the vast majority of penalties.
The encroachment happened first, why wouldn't that be called an offence before the keeper moved?
There's encroachment from both teams.
LotusOmega375D said:
Champions Man City ate not the best example of a club winning lots of Premier League penalties last year. They were awarded a below average 4. By comparison Man Utd were awarded the most with 12. I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that Man Utd played more attacking football than Man City last season!
Maybe VAR will help contribute to giving Man City more penalties and Man Utd less penalties next season?
Surprised to read Crystal Palace got 9, the 3rd highest. I wonder why they seem to be immune from this bias in favour of the big teams? Maybe VAR will help contribute to giving Man City more penalties and Man Utd less penalties next season?
LotusOmega375D said:
The front foot is irrelevant as the previous poster said. Only one foot must be on the line.
Fair enough, but if we're having this stupid VAR, surely decisions like this are binary, like goal line decisions. One foot is either on the line or it isn't. No one moans when a goal is disallowed when 95% of the ball is over the line, but a few mms aren't. So surely a pen save should be disallowed if the back foot is a few inches off the line. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Driver101 said:
100% the more attacking teams will get more penalties. The discussion isn't about the quantity of the decisions, it's the accuracy. The point of VAR was to stop mistakes, but it's not being used equally or fairly.
The goalkeeper's front foot is irrelevant in this case. She is just a few inches off the line, but much worse than this happens with the vast majority of penalties.
The encroachment happened first, why wouldn't that be called an offence before the keeper moved?
It's not a few inches, front foot is about 3/4ft off the line.The goalkeeper's front foot is irrelevant in this case. She is just a few inches off the line, but much worse than this happens with the vast majority of penalties.
The encroachment happened first, why wouldn't that be called an offence before the keeper moved?
There's encroachment from both teams.
The French woman is the first in the box. She commits an offence first.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LotusOmega375D said:
The front foot is irrelevant as the previous poster said. Only one foot must be on the line.
Fair enough, but if we're having this stupid VAR, surely decisions like this are binary, like goal line decisions. One foot is either on the line or it isn't. No one moans when a goal is disallowed when 95% of the ball is over the line, but a few mms aren't. So surely a pen save should be disallowed if the back foot is a few inches off the line. Encroachment is also binary. You've either committed that offence or not. You still seem to manage to ignore one offence and not the other.
You're demonstrating the issues with VAR. You're selectively picking and choosing what rules you're going to apply.
Driver101 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Driver101 said:
100% the more attacking teams will get more penalties. The discussion isn't about the quantity of the decisions, it's the accuracy. The point of VAR was to stop mistakes, but it's not being used equally or fairly.
The goalkeeper's front foot is irrelevant in this case. She is just a few inches off the line, but much worse than this happens with the vast majority of penalties.
The encroachment happened first, why wouldn't that be called an offence before the keeper moved?
It's not a few inches, front foot is about 3/4ft off the line.The goalkeeper's front foot is irrelevant in this case. She is just a few inches off the line, but much worse than this happens with the vast majority of penalties.
The encroachment happened first, why wouldn't that be called an offence before the keeper moved?
There's encroachment from both teams.
The French woman is the first in the box. She commits an offence first.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
LotusOmega375D said:
The front foot is irrelevant as the previous poster said. Only one foot must be on the line.
Fair enough, but if we're having this stupid VAR, surely decisions like this are binary, like goal line decisions. One foot is either on the line or it isn't. No one moans when a goal is disallowed when 95% of the ball is over the line, but a few mms aren't. So surely a pen save should be disallowed if the back foot is a few inches off the line. Encroachment is also binary. You've either committed that offence or not. You still seem to manage to ignore one offence and not the other.
You're demonstrating the issues with VAR. You're selectively picking and choosing what rules you're going to apply.
If the keeper comes off her line and the pen is not scored, it's a retake. It isn't balanced out by an attacking player encroaching. This was the case pre var.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If the penalty is scored, and the keeper comes off her line, it's still a goal. If the pen is missed and the keeper comes off her line, it's a retake. Even if the ball is put wide, it could be the pen taker was disadvantaged by the keeper coming off the line. That's the law, regardless of var. All var does is allow us to decide if she came off her line or not, which is a binary call. She did or she didn't. There's no "she did, but only a bit".
If the keeper comes off her line and the pen is not scored, it's a retake. It isn't balanced out by an attacking player encroaching. This was the case pre var.
You are offering your opinion on what happened and you didn't even see the incident. If the keeper comes off her line and the pen is not scored, it's a retake. It isn't balanced out by an attacking player encroaching. This was the case pre var.
The first offence in the incident was the French player running into the box. Encroachment into the box by an attacking player should also mean that a missed penalty results in a free-kick to the defending team.
You've so far excused encroachment on the basis other players followed. Not who committed the offence first. You're also choosing to ignore the encroachment which is binary and has the same punishable outcome.
Where are you extracting from the rules that we have to ignore the first offence and only look at the second? You're making no sense to me.
Do you honesty think the keeper being 2" off the line had any bearing on the penalty? Not a single person noticed she moved. Everyone was shocked about the call.
Driver101 said:
You are offering your opinion on what happened and you didn't even see the incident.
The first offence in the incident was the French player running into the box. Encroachment into the box by an attacking player should also mean that a missed penalty results in a free-kick to the defending team.
You've so far excused encroachment on the basis other players followed. Not who committed the offence first. You're also choosing to ignore the encroachment which is binary and has the same punishable outcome.
Where are you extracting from the rules that we have to ignore the first offence and only look at the second? You're making no sense to me.
Do you honesty think the keeper being 2" off the line had any bearing on the penalty? Not a single person noticed she moved. Everyone was shocked about the call.
No, I don't think it had any bearing. But that's the law. How far off the line do you think should be relevant. 4"?, 6"?, a foot? 2 feet?The first offence in the incident was the French player running into the box. Encroachment into the box by an attacking player should also mean that a missed penalty results in a free-kick to the defending team.
You've so far excused encroachment on the basis other players followed. Not who committed the offence first. You're also choosing to ignore the encroachment which is binary and has the same punishable outcome.
Where are you extracting from the rules that we have to ignore the first offence and only look at the second? You're making no sense to me.
Do you honesty think the keeper being 2" off the line had any bearing on the penalty? Not a single person noticed she moved. Everyone was shocked about the call.
If you are going to have the law at all, it's got to be binary.
The ref views the whole pen and is entitled to decide what to do about encroachment, keeper off the line, etc. I think the Fifa directive is keeper off the line trumps encroachment. It's the first offence he will consider. If the keeper stays on the line, he then considers encroachment.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, I don't think it had any bearing. But that's the law. How far off the line do you think should be relevant. 4"?, 6"?, a foot? 2 feet?
If you are going to have the law at all, it's got to be binary.
The ref views the whole pen and is entitled to decide what to do about encroachment, keeper off the line, etc. I think the Fifa directive is keeper off the line trumps encroachment. It's the first offence he will consider. If the keeper stays on the line, he then considers encroachment.
Where do you see this directive? I'm genuinely curious to see this. If you are going to have the law at all, it's got to be binary.
The ref views the whole pen and is entitled to decide what to do about encroachment, keeper off the line, etc. I think the Fifa directive is keeper off the line trumps encroachment. It's the first offence he will consider. If the keeper stays on the line, he then considers encroachment.
Again your lack of actually watching the incidents is making you get the wrong end of the stick.
Both the penalty decisions, with the keeper moving inches off the line, have been given by VAR. The ref has been instructed and not consulted.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff