VAR is going to ruin football



scott934 said:
How many penalties are taken where the keeper has a foot on the line? I've not seen the footage tonight but based on the above pictures it's ridiculous if the keeper was penalised for it. You can't just randomly apply a strict rule on a one-off occasion man.

I hate VAR, I'd much rather live with a bit of human error. As we can see VAR doesn't solve anything, it just changes the arguments.
Click to expand...
With VAR it's going to be applied every time now. It does solve the old arguments about keepers coming off the line too quick.

If we'd had VAR in 1990 Hardyman wouldn't have been sent off and we'd have taken the pen again because a mag was encroaching by 4 yards.
 
North Yorks Mackem said:
Why the hell should the game be radically changed on the back of something that is universally disliked by fans? The sole reason the sport exists in a professional capacity is because of the supporters.

Use var, but not to the detriment of the fast flowing nature of the game. It's clearly not working at the moment.
Click to expand...
changing the shootout isn't radically changing the game really.
 
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
With VAR it's going to be applied every time now. It does solve the old arguments about keepers coming off the line too quick.

If we'd had VAR in 1990 Hardyman wouldn't have been sent off and we'd have taken the pen again because a mag was encroaching by 4 yards.
Click to expand...

It's going to be applied every time, in competitions where VAR is used, so the rules are different.

If we'd have had VAR in 2014 Borini's pen vs the Mags would've been ruled out. Or any other penalty scored in the last 20 years, where there's encroachment.

I prefer the grey area to be left alone. Goal line technology is great, and it's instant. Even offsides sometimes are too tight to call.
 
scott934 said:
You could say the same for a foul not given 50 seconds before a goal goes in. Is VAR gonna start giving them?
Click to expand...
I think they should just kick off again :lol:
Doberman said:
she clearly has. It's amazing what happens when you change the angle. Imagine thinking football can be decided by hand-selecting a camera angle to suit what you want to see.

Logon or register to see this image




I'm saying that technology can be altered to suit an appropriate argument.

change the camera angle and you've got a totally different perspective.

I've proven that with two images that show a completely different story to the one that the VAR robots settled on. Which one is correct? Who knows?

it's wrong.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that image from, someone on a Nokia 3310 on full zoom? :lol: As @TwasOnTheFifthOfMay that freezeframe image is a misleading perspective given the distance and angle to the keeper and the goal line and I think the behind the goal camera view made it pretty clear it needed to be retaken so no altering going on at all.

The rule is 1 foot on or in line with the goal line and the Scottish keeper has her left foot on and even slightly behind the line. She then jumps forward with both feet in the air before the ball is kicked but you can see how far forward she moves and by the time the ball is kicked, she's move ahead of the line for certain. This snapshot the shitty BBC iplayer video shows her off the line before the kick is even made.

Logon or register to see this image


Watch it here again at 3:29 but you can see it in this shit quality gif below anyway.

Women's World Cup: Scotland knocked out after 3-3 draw with Argentina

 
Last edited by a moderator:
thecloughywobble said:
More football. Bring it on. The technology is there, so let's use it. Unless you prefer guesswork? If so, hard lines, I suspect.
Click to expand...
I prefer a fast paced game. That's what football is. Use var to eradicate clear and obvious errors. Not to rule someone offside cos they didn't cut their toe nails before the game or for a penalty to be retaken cos the keeper is 2 cm's off the line.
 
scott934 said:
"If it aids correct decisions, yes, it is progress."
Click to expand...
We are talking about VAR. It follows as a matter of both logic & grammatical construction that my reference to correct decisions referred to the framework of VAR. Your point sought to extend that framework to the absurd.

North Yorks Mackem said:
I prefer a fast paced game. That's what football is. Use var to eradicate clear and obvious errors. Not to rule someone offside cos they didn't cut their toe nails before the game or for a penalty to be retaken cos the keeper is 2 cm's off the line.
Click to expand...
Watch table tennis, then! The remit of VAR is quite clear, I think. Anyway, I'm off to bed now. You have your fixed opinions & I'm not trying to convert you!
 
Last edited:
thecloughywobble said:
We are talking about VAR. It follows as a matter of both logic & grammatical construction that my reference to correct decisions referred to the framework of VAR. Your point sought to extend that framework to the absurd.
Click to expand...

You think checking every throw-in, goal kick and corner is absurd. The only difference between us is that I think giving VAR as much use as we do now is absurd.

So to sum up, we're both willing to live with incorrect decisions as long as it means the game is all the better for it.
 
North Yorks Mackem said:
It'll remove the wild celebrations that follow late goals in big games. Arguably the best part of the sport. If you're happy about that fair enough. But it will ruin the sport for many.
Click to expand...
I'm happy with that. There may be wild celebrations by side A, followed by weeping, wailing & gnashing of teeth by side A, followed by wild celebrations by side B! Arguably doubling or trebling that element.

scott934 said:
You think checking every throw-in, goal kick and corner is absurd. The only difference between us is that I think giving VAR as much use as we do now is absurd.

So to sum up, we're both willing to live with incorrect decisions as long as it means the game is all the better for it.
Click to expand...
To sum up, I'm content with VAR as it is, not as you propose it might be, should or could be.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top