I was wondering why , Portugal pen due for Var was canceled Thought it was still in active play , so what if Portugal player had scored than taken down Say var took 6 mins and 3 goals scored by then ??
Once play hasn't restarted they can make any decision they want. If Portugal scored then it only changed the outcome to penalty to Switzerland or goal to Portugal. There can't be any action once the game has stopped and then restarted. Next season I do wonder if someone will be clever enough to know they done something they shouldn't have and then be cute enough to win a throw in or free and take it immediately and therefore ruling out the involvement of VAR.
Had a right laugh at Lingaard goal being disallowed last night but once again got me thinking that the Premier League next year is going to be a different animal. Great moments cancelled out for the tiniest of things and long stoppages while VAR decide and people in stadium not have a clue what is going on.
It was offside mate so not a tiny thing and I read yesterday that the VAR will be shown on a screen in all stadiums(not sure how they're going to square that off in stadiums with no screens at the moment).
I look at every decision with the thought process of how would I feel if that was given against Liverpool? That offside was tiny, if a goal is awarded no one complains, you accept it and move on. I have grown to accept VAR and the fact it's here to stay but I haven't changed my mind that it will kill the game eventually. What Gary said above is 100% correct, the moment when you score that decisive goal is the best part of football, now you can't commit to it in case something obscure happened. That will catch up on people, Pep may be a little more reluctant to go running down the line of City score a last minute winner like they did against spurs, tge fans won't give it socks. For Divocks goal on Saturday there was a challenge between Van Djik and Vertoghan on the edge of the box, we had just scored to win the European Cup and I had a bit of doubt that they will take this from us, that moment was tainted for me, that's the future and it's shit. They need to really define "clear and obvious error", put a time limit on it, 30 seconds say, if its not spotted in that time continue with the game. The handball appeal last night is a perfect example, there is 4 guys checking replays from various angles, if one of them doesn't spot something immediately move on.
I think the merits and impact of VAR debate has been done to death Bob so I'll probably stay away from that side of it although I've had no issue committing to any goal celebration for our goals in games involving VAR.But I look at every decision in was the ref right or wrong? Offside is definitive so being a tiny bit offside is like being a tiny bit pregnant,you either are or you aren't.
I agree with this. But I also agree with this. My understanding is that VAR was being introduced to correct clear and obvious errors. If you are offside by a hair on your ballsack and the officials don't spot it, that cannot be clear and obvious to me. Equally I don't know how you can define "clear and obvious error" more than what it says on the tin. I think it is a case of VAR being misapplied in dissecting everything, which is not what it was intended to be for (as I understand it).
I'm open to correction but I'm pretty sure that unseen offsides arent subject to the clear and obvious rule because of the fact they're definitive. Or to put it another way,when you have the technology thats available in the VAR room,a mistake on an offside decision is clear and obvious.
I've no idea to be honest how the clear and obvious rule is applied. If it doesn't apply to offside, that would be fair enough,
I think everybody is struggling with the interpretation of clear and obvious and it needs looking at.
Well no,more often than not it's perfectly clear and obvious what's happening and why but that term leaves a lot of room for interpretation. How they could improve it I don't know,I dont think time pressure is the answer with a system brought in to improve the accuracy of refereeing decisions and maybe there isn't a better way,but anybody expecting a system without flaws was always going to be disappointed.
Wink emoji didn't add to my sarcastic post so you may have picked me up wrong. I am in favour of VAR and feel it's implementation will improve over time. It has been in action in Serie A and La Liga this season and I have seen a good bit of Serie A. I would like to see it speeder up and would consider a couple of options for this. 1. Have an uneven group in VAR room and then the decision be a majority one. 2. Remove the need for the on the field ref to review it, VAR group decide. 3. Instant review from the VAR group and an announcement straight away that the there is a VAR review happening. 4. Time limit on the review. 5. Announcement of the result of the VAR review to go straight to referee and he then stops the game or proceeds with a signal indicating his on the field decision stands or the VAR decision is to be implemented. The VAR review reason and result can then be displayed in the ground and on a phone APP. No system can ever be perfect but as long as it improves the decisions it has to be better.
100% in favour of the VAR officials making the decision and relaying it to the ref. I'm pretty sure they're making arrangements to keep the crowd well informed of what's going on. I'm not in favour of putting a time limit on the decision.Once it goes to VAR the principle of introducing it in the first place needs to be adhered to imo,and that's coming to the correct decision. A time delay that results in a wrong decision is worse than a longer delay that results in the right one. I do think delays are the biggest issue it faces though.