• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

VARguments

A) 'getting the right decision ' shouldn't be prioritised over protecting the essence of the game.

B) the vast majority of these decisions are impossible to define in 'right' or 'wrong' . They are subjective. Even after 1000 replays most decisions still split fans and pundits. So why aim for something that is physically impossible to achieve?

A) It just needs binning off. Simply having VAR affects the essence of the game. A time limit is just a tiny detail.

B) Are they?

It shouldn't be there at all. But if you're going to have, you make the best of its ability to come to the best possible decision.
There’s uproar whatever happens. So a fear of uproar is meaningless.

You're adding to the uproar.
 
Last edited:

You know what would decrease the shit storm? A simple system where the on field ref just refs the game as he sees it. Not ideal, but the best option we have by a country mile

The introduction of VAR has increased the amount of controversy over decision making, not decreased it.

I agree but then we'd just constantly get 'that wouldnt have been given if we still had VAR, let's bring it back'. Every single weekend.
 
I agree but then we'd just constantly get 'that wouldnt have been given if we still had VAR, let's bring it back'. Every single weekend.

I don't think we would. I think the people who were for it originally have almost entirely came to the realisation deep down that it's utter shite and in the context of football, physically impossible to integrate efficiently
 
24hr media and social media firmly to blame for where we are now. They've whipped everybody to an absolute frenzy that has eventually lead us to where we are now. The mistakes (probably even more than now) happened years ago but people just shrugged them off after an initial moan. I maybe wrong here but can't really remember managers back then too having that must twist on unlike nowadays
 
I don't think we would. I think the people who were for it originally have almost entirely came to the realisation deep down that it's utter shite and in the context of football, physically impossible to integrate efficiently

Agreed, although I imagine many advocates still blame the usage over the system itself.

Which probably isn't an unfair point.
Maybe not you. Surely though you can hear the cries already. They'd throw in a caveat like 'but it needs to be done properly' meaning 'the decisions need to go the way I want them too.

I think they'd fall mostly on deaf ears in comparison to those relieved it's been binned.

Though we might never know for sure.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, although I imagine many advocates still blame the usage over the system itself.

Which probably isn't an unfair point.

But no one ever comes up with a workable system..

The whole '3 challenges per game' is ludicrously unworkable in football..sounds good as a headline statement, it falls to bits instantly when you think about the practicalities
 
100% agree. I despise it. But if it's to stay, I'd like to see radical reforms to it, to protect the essence of the game

As would I, though it'd be a different approach from my perspective.
24hr media and social media firmly to blame for where we are now. They've whipped everybody to an absolute frenzy that has eventually lead us to where we are now.

That sums up society in general mate.
But no one ever comes up with a workable system..

The whole '3 challenges per game' is ludicrously unworkable in football..sounds good as a headline statement, it falls to bits instantly when you think about the practicalities

The three challenges idea should be filed under the time limit idea as far as I'm concerned.

I'm coming round to the idea of micing up the refs. Bin VAR, mic up the refs and let them explain their decisions. The problem is I don't think football fans will accept the referee's explanation.
 
Last edited:
But no one ever comes up with a workable system..

The whole '3 challenges per game' is ludicrously unworkable in football..sounds good as a headline statement, it falls to bits instantly when you think about the practicalities
Yet it works perfectly well in cricket 🙄. And there's none of this uproar in rugby...
 
Yet it works perfectly well in cricket 🙄. And there's none of this uproar in rugby...

You're missing the blindingly obvious issue that subjectivity plays a huge role in football.
I'm coming round to the idea of micing up the refs. Bin VAR, mic up the refs and let them explain their decisions. The problem is I don't think football fans will accept the referee's explanation.

I can't think of a single instance where hearing the ref's reasoning would do anything other than inflame the situation even more. More often than not the fans already know why a ref has given a decision they just disagree won't the judgement because it's not gone in their favour.
 
Last edited:
They are different games. Different rules. Different speed. Rugby is very stop starty. Cricket is slow and games last 5 days.

Football isn't either of those games.
But all 3 games are subject to rules. 2 of them get the decisions right after a video review and the other Mickey Mouse sport doesn't. 1 of them is a joke.... Why have this "clear & obvious error" shite? Either it's a penalty or it isn't. Or offside, or it isn't. Or deliberate handball (note the use of deliberate... none of this unnnatural arm/hand position shite) or it isn't.
 
But all 3 games are subject to rules. 2 of them get the decisions right after a video review and the other Mickey Mouse sport doesn't. 1 of them is a joke.... Why have this "clear & obvious error" shite? Either it's a penalty or it isn't. Or offside, or it isn't. Or deliberate handball (note the use of deliberate... none of this unnnatural arm/hand position shite) or it isn't.

I could show you 1000s of examples of penalty incidents that if shown to a panel of 100 people would return a 50/50 verdict. That's football
 
I could show you 1000s of examples of penalty incidents that if shown to a panel of 100 people would return a 50/50 verdict. That's football

I just can't understand how people ever think we'll reach a position where something like a handball decision will ever be binary and consistent. The lack of understanding with regard to officiating is mental. A complete circus. Handball will always be ambiguous. Imagine thinking that deciding whether a handball is deliberate will ever fit neatly into a 'yes it was' 'no it wasn't' box.
 
I just can't understand how people ever think we'll reach a position where something like a handball decision will ever be binary and consistent. The lack of understanding with regard to officiating is mental. A complete circus. Handball will always be ambiguous. Imagine thinking that deciding whether a handball is deliberate will ever fit neatly into a 'yes it was' 'no it wasn't' box.

Or 'intent' . Football rules are open to interpretation that's the beauty of it. It's not binary
 
Or 'intent' . Football rules are open to interpretation that's the beauty of it. It's not binary

Pretty much every decision is completely subjective...

Excessive force
Unnatural position
Sufficient contact
Out of control
The list goes on.

All of these judgements will always bring contention. I really don't see how the rules of football can ever allow for satisfactory concensus. People just can't come to terms with it.
 
Back
Top