• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

VAR: Sponsored by Chelsea

monkeybarry said:
Which raises a debate about offside.
It certainly used to be where your feet were that determined offside, but obviously that has its own restrictions.

Perhaps VAR isn't suitable for offside or it needs an instruction to review multiple angles first. Like they do in rugby when something is really really close.
Think about a close try in rugby - they take as long as needed and stop the clock.
That would have worked yesterday.
I don't get the argument re; time taken. What's the rush?
Click to expand...
trains?
 
Gutter Boy said:
Fans get bored/start booing/channel surfing

TV needs their minimum of 9 minutes of adverts per hour
Click to expand...
Fans need to grow up decide if they want a fair game or not.

I'm sure TV will cope. Perfect opportunity for a scrolling banner ad if necessary. Alternatively just cut the more quality "punditry" by two.minutes per game
 
monkeybarry said:
Fans need to grow up decide if they want a fair game or not.

I'm sure TV will cope. Perfect opportunity for a scrolling banner ad if necessary. Alternatively just cut the more quality "punditry" by two.minutes per game
Click to expand...
a lot don't they want a game that flows, there was about 60% against VAR in the last poll before they introduced it. This may have changed since the "success" at the world cup.
 
monkeybarry said:
Fans need to grow up decide if they want a fair game or not.

I'm sure TV will cope. Perfect opportunity for a scrolling banner ad if necessary. Alternatively just cut the more quality "punditry" by two.minutes per game
Click to expand...

Watching football with VAR is like trying to shag with Teresa May sat in the corner criticising your technique
 
monkeybarry said:
I'm sure TV will cope. Perfect opportunity for a scrolling banner ad if necessary. Alternatively just cut the more quality "punditry" by two.minutes per game
Click to expand...

In game ads are coming. VAR will soon = an ad break. That's actually part of the motivation for introducing it
 
monkeybarry said:
Which raises a debate about offside.
It certainly used to be where your feet were that determined offside, but obviously that has its own restrictions.

Perhaps VAR isn't suitable for offside or it needs an instruction to review multiple angles first. Like they do in rugby when something is really really close.
Think about a close try in rugby - they take as long as needed and stop the clock.
That would have worked yesterday.
I don't get the argument re; time taken. What's the rush?
Click to expand...
Boredom?
 
r-u-s-x said:
a lot don't they want a game that flows, there was about 60% against VAR in the last poll before they introduced it. This may have changed since the "success" at the world cup.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many of those will bemoan every incorrect decision though.
Big difference between;
Do you want var? No.
And
Do you want var? No and I'm happy to accept the consequences of that.

By Nature people are resistant to change, but then hypocritical
 
monkeybarry said:
I wonder how many of those will bemoan every incorrect decision though.
Big difference between;
Do you want var? No.
And
Do you want var? No and I'm happy to accept the consequences of that.

By Nature people are resistant to change, but then hypocritical
Click to expand...
you can moan about one thing and still think the alternative is worse.

cant moan if I punch you in the face as i offered to kick you in the balls.
 
r-u-s-x said:
until you get every decision right apparently - people are still not decided if Kane was off this morning.
Click to expand...
That is nowhere near the truth and also two different issues.

But as you used last as example, it added two (?) minutes?
Certainly no more than Chelsea surrounding the ref would have taken.
Or a high scoring game.
Or bad injury.
Or two medium injuries.
Or six subs.
Or a bit of crowd congestion leaving the ground.

The "ill miss my train argument just doesn't stand up".

Re; whether the decision last night was right or wrong. I think it's great it's happened. It clearly shows a limitation (the point of a trial) that's needs considering.
 
r-u-s-x said:
you can moan about one thing and still think the alternative is worse.

cant moan if I punch you in the face as i offered to kick you in the balls.
Click to expand...
Not quite.
If you moan about decision making and reject the solution based on other factors (IE flow of the game) then you are choosing to accept incorrect decision making to retain/increase the entertainment value.
And that's fine if that is why you watch football, but you have to accept the limitations that choice encompasses.
 
one of the first decisions made when deciding to trial VAR was that the time it takes is unimportant

its fair enough to dislike the delay but it's not a negative of correctly implemented VAR as its not a concern of VAR
 
monkeybarry said:
Not quite.
If you moan about decision making and reject the solution based on other factors (IE flow of the game) then you are choosing to accept incorrect decision making to retain/increase the entertainment value.
And that's fine if that is why you watch football, but you have to accept the limitations that choice encompasses.
Click to expand...
it and the fact there will still be wrong decisions that go against you and the ones that go against you feel worse as you can put up with human error. feel free to moan as long as you would moan more about the alternative.
 
r-u-s-x said:
a lot don't they want a game that flows, there was about 60% against VAR in the last poll before they introduced it. This may have changed since the "success" at the world cup.
Click to expand...

Heres the catch for me.

They said after the game it was 93 seconds for the decision. Is that really disrupting the flow of the game?

Considering, without VAR, it would have been

whistle
ref checks with linesman
calls offisde (for eg)
Spurs players rally round ref and argue (ref gave it the other way, substitute for Chelsea players moaning...)
another 20+ seconds before the game is actually ready to restart
Keeper takes ages to set and take the free kick...

Id wager its no different. If not, even, VAR was ultimately quicker.

And when the VAR decision came through that was it, no drama, penalty taken, game goes on having had the correct outcome and no controversy.

IMO the disconnect is where those at the ground have 93 seconds of "WTF is going on?", which will seem like an absolute age. Put up on screen what the VAR is seeing and everyone (well, mostly) recognises the decision is good and they know whats happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back