F*CK VAR

Nano said:
I'm sure Bolton fans would have a very different opinion than you do on those situations.
Click to expand...

junos_boots said:
Put Var and Festa together and I would have been all for it
Click to expand...

Exactly this - swings and roundabouts… just like in the times before VAR.
It’s achieved nothing other than disrupting the flow of games and stealing an ounce of the spontaneity of celebration.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
It is ok to block and foul a player but not from an offside position. :unsure:
Click to expand...
Yes. A player is entitled to take a position on the pitch and, as long as you don't move across into someone, a block is allowed. You aren't obliged to move out of the way.

The offside comes into it because a goal was scored and he interfered directly with a player that could have prevented the goal.

The VAR could have called a foul in the build-up but didn't, because there wasn't one - if that makes sense...

Norman_Conquest said:
Chesterfield might have had something to say prior to that.
Click to expand...
The ref had blown for something before the shot came in.
 
I found it hugely interesting to hear what both Neville and Carragher were saying about the Liverpool "goal". Two international defenders, won more trophies than you can remember off the top of your head and they both pointed out that blocking is part of the game at corners. Endo does start in an offside position and he gets penalised, but noticeably not for a foul or for blocking off the man who was clearly marking Van Dyke. That decision will now be used as part of the defending teams training in that they'll be telling defenders to deliberately initiate contact with anyone stood offside and make sure that they are then seen as interfering with play.
For all those games without VAR, the buffeting and jockeying at corners will carry on as it has for years and years and be reliant on the ref keeping an eye on everything going on in the box
Yet another case of VAR changing the game for some, but not for others.
 
Scrote said:
The ref had blown for something before the shot came in.
Click to expand...
I thought this was a myth so I had a look online. It is actually true and elleray confirms it here.

Football: Referee Elleray admits 'the ball crossed the line'

David Elleray last night admitted that the Chesterfield shot which would have made FA Cup history was over the line. However, the referee insisted that he had already blown before Jonathan Howard rifled a drive against the Middlesbrough bar.
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Exactly this - swings and roundabouts… just like in the times before VAR.
It’s achieved nothing other than disrupting the flow of games and stealing an ounce of the spontaneity of celebration.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely. VAR is all about TV and getting more talking points. We managed for years with my grandparents whinging about being robbed vs Burnley in a cup qf back in the days of radio. They will only have 'watched' it on the radio but it didn't stop them whinging about it for at least 50 years
 
Scrote said:
The ref had blown for something before the shot came in.
Click to expand...
I can't remember the decision and I can't be pested trolling through for it, but Elleray mentions aa important decision that favoured us that if he could go back he would change to Chesterfield's favour.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I thought this was a myth so I had a look online. It is actually true and elleray confirms it here.

Football: Referee Elleray admits 'the ball crossed the line'

David Elleray last night admitted that the Chesterfield shot which would have made FA Cup history was over the line. However, the referee insisted that he had already blown before Jonathan Howard rifled a drive against the Middlesbrough bar.
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
I've heard Elleray explain that decision in different ways and he did say it was one of his biggest mistakes.
 
dooderooni said:
I found it hugely interesting to hear what both Neville and Carragher were saying about the Liverpool "goal". Two international defenders, won more trophies than you can remember off the top of your head and they both pointed out that blocking is part of the game at corners. Endo does start in an offside position and he gets penalised, but noticeably not for a foul or for blocking off the man who was clearly marking Van Dyke. That decision will now be used as part of the defending teams training in that they'll be telling defenders to deliberately initiate contact with anyone stood offside and make sure that they are then seen as interfering with play.
For all those games without VAR, the buffeting and jockeying at corners will carry on as it has for years and years and be reliant on the ref keeping an eye on everything going on in the box
Yet another case of VAR changing the game for some, but not for others.
Click to expand...
Or it might make attacking teams think twice about cheating because that is what they've done here. They've deliberately blocked a player which should really be a foul. They've deliberately stood offside so they have more space to use their momentum to block the defender.

You'll notice the pundits were complaining because the foul was given but it isn't always so there is no consistency. The problem is really all the times it isn't given, not the time it is.

Anything that causes teams to think twice about cheating is fine with me.

In even older times this would've been automatically ruled as offside because ever 6 player was offside whether they were interfering or not.

Good decision for me and one which would have been missed without VAR.
 
I don't care whether it corrects the odd (debatable) error. It ruins football as a spectacle for those in attendance.

It is a bad idea, poorly implemented and officiated by the barely competent. Cheating could be massively reduced by penalising those who cheat. Don't wave play on, book the cheat, do it every time, yes we'll have a few games with only 8 a side for a few weeks but it will prevent the automatic cheating. E.g. every time a defender facing his own goal feels the merest breath from an attacker and flops to the floor, play on and when the ball goes dead, yellow card the cheat.
 
Nano said:
In even older times this would've been automatically ruled as offside because ever 6 player was offside whether they were interfering or not.
Click to expand...
This is a myth, although a surprisingly widely believed one. An offside offence has always required you to do something and not merely be standing somewhere.

Below is the Law from 1901 which states that the offence requires you to play the ball or interfere with an opponent. You’ll note it’s still in the three defenders era, and you can be offside from a throw in, and in your own half, but when it comes to the wording regarding playing the ball or interfering with an opponent, it pretty much matches the current Law. it’s true that the interpretation has changed over time as to what constitutes interfering, being broader in the middle of the 20th century and narrower now. But you have always had to interfere.

1901 “When a player plays the ball, or throws it in from touch, any player of the same side who at such moment of playing or throwing in is nearer to his opponents' goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever interfere with an opponent, until the ball has been played, unless there are at such moment of playing or throwing in at least three of his opponents nearer their own goal line. A player is not out of play in the case of a corner kick, or when the ball is kicked off from goal, or when it has been last played by an opponent.”
 
FishofContemplation said:
This is a myth, although a surprisingly widely believed one. An offside offence has always required you to do something and not merely be standing somewhere.

Below is the Law from 1901 which states that the offence requires you to play the ball or interfere with an opponent. You’ll note it’s still in the three defenders era, and you can be offside from a throw in, and in your own half, but when it comes to the wording regarding playing the ball or interfering with an opponent, it pretty much matches the current Law. it’s true that the interpretation has changed over time as to what constitutes interfering, being broader in the middle of the 20th century and narrower now. But you have always had to interfere.

1901 “When a player plays the ball, or throws it in from touch, any player of the same side who at such moment of playing or throwing in is nearer to his opponents' goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever interfere with an opponent, until the ball has been played, unless there are at such moment of playing or throwing in at least three of his opponents nearer their own goal line. A player is not out of play in the case of a corner kick, or when the ball is kicked off from goal, or when it has been last played by an opponent.”
Click to expand...
Or as Brian Clough said 'if you are not interfering with play you shouldn't be on the pitch'

It has always been subjective and all VAR does is give you somebody else's opinion
 
Nano said:
Or it might make attacking teams think twice about cheating because that is what they've done here. They've deliberately blocked a player which should really be a foul. They've deliberately stood offside so they have more space to use their momentum to block the defender.

You'll notice the pundits were complaining because the foul was given but it isn't always so there is no consistency. The problem is really all the times it isn't given, not the time it is.

Anything that causes teams to think twice about cheating is fine with me.

In even older times this would've been automatically ruled as offside because ever 6 player was offside whether they were interfering or not.

Good decision for me and one which would have been missed without VAR.
Click to expand...
Blocking isn't cheating. It's covered in the rules. A player is entitled to hold a position on the pitch and isn't required to move out of the way of an opposing player.

You can't move across a players line. This is a foul and, again, is covered by the rules. What we used to call obstruction. And again that isn't cheating; unless you see any foul as cheating which doesn't make sense to me.
 
Scrote said:
Blocking isn't cheating. It's covered in the rules. A player is entitled to hold a position on the pitch and isn't required to move out of the way of an opposing player.

You can't move across a players line. This is a foul and, again, is covered by the rules. What we used to call obstruction. And again that isn't cheating; unless you see any foul as cheating which didn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
I think we all know there is blocking and there is also all in wrestling, that is the part we all want to see out of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top