• Current Donation Goals

Michael Tucker

Liverpool 2 Chelsea FC 2 (Liverpool wins 5-4 Pens)

Recommended Posts

I personally think with VAR, all decisions need to be shown fully to the tv audience and every rule needs to be black and white I.e. if you are 0.5mm offside it is offside, if no foot is on the line then it is retaken. Making grey areas just means that you're going to get inconsistencies. As for this game, I am not sure there was bias. I think it was just the grey areas playing out. For me, I wanted to see the two offsides a lot more and with the lines like they use in the PL, the pen to me looked soft but again they did not show the greatest angles and the last penalty should have been retaken. All in all, I just think it was poor implimentation and poor officiating which is permitted by the caveats they add. 

Edited by Conte Kante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Conte Kante said:

As for this game, I am not sure there was bias. I think it was just the grey areas playing out.

Me neither, but it showed plenty of scope for bias if the refs wanted to.  

53 minutes ago, Conte Kante said:

and every rule needs to be black and white I.e. if you are 0.5mm offside it is offside, if no foot is on the line then it is retaken.

 I remember making this point when it was first being talked about.  Certainly one or two of our offsides would have been taken as "benefit of doubt" without VAR.  There has in effect been a change in the rule already from about 1m to 10cm, and they ought to clarify the last 10cm.

More evidence to me that VAR was never planned properly except as a way of deflecting criticism from the ref.

But at base we have VAR presented as a way of getting all the decisions right without every discussing why they need to be all right.  There is plenty of randomness in football.  The way the ball bounces, the sequences of fixtures, injuries within and between games, shots hitting posts and lucky/unlucky rebounds.  We celebrate randomness in football - and that has traditionally included ref error.

So the right target for intervention is not randomness but consistent bias.  And we are using a tool, VAR that reduces randomness but increases the scope for bias.  Daft.

1 hour ago, Conte Kante said:

I personally think with VAR, all decisions need to be shown fully to the tv audience

Hasn't there been enough favouritism to TV viewers over match goers over the past 20 years?  The real thing should be showing it to match goers (with much improved pictures over what I've seen on visits to SB).  And if you can't show it to match-goers for fear of inciting violence, perhaps it shouldn't be shown at all - or even done at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

Me neither, but it showed plenty of scope for bias if the refs wanted to.  

 I remember making this point when it was first being talked about.  Certainly one or two of our offsides would have been taken as "benefit of doubt" without VAR.  There has in effect been a change in the rule already from about 1m to 10cm, and they ought to clarify the last 10cm.

More evidence to me that VAR was never planned properly except as a way of deflecting criticism from the ref.

But at base we have VAR presented as a way of getting all the decisions right without every discussing why they need to be all right.  There is plenty of randomness in football.  The way the ball bounces, the sequences of fixtures, injuries within and between games, shots hitting posts and lucky/unlucky rebounds.  We celebrate randomness in football - and that has traditionally included ref error.

So the right target for intervention is not randomness but consistent bias.  And we are using a tool, VAR that reduces randomness but increases the scope for bias.  Daft.

Hasn't there been enough favouritism to TV viewers over match goers over the past 20 years?  The real thing should be showing it to match goers (with much improved pictures over what I've seen on visits to SB).  And if you can't show it to match-goers for fear of inciting violence, perhaps it shouldn't be shown at all - or even done at all.

I think with offside, VAR, when impilmented properly, can get the decision down to the mm. As a result, I think it needs to be impilmented as such as otherwise it will give too much leeway I.e. he was 1.1 cm not 1cm offside. It will be draconian but at least it will be straight forward. 

I agree there has. However, as a season ticket holder and match goer, the problem of showing it in the ground is not just violence (especially if they are allowing grey areas.) It is more the players as if it is being replayed on the screens some will become distracted. I mean there are even some players now that watch the goals back after we score, if you have VAR going it would start impacting the game more. Additionally, with mobiles most people on the terrace can get details/clips up soon after the incident anyway. 

Edited by Conte Kante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Conte Kante said:

I agree there has. However, as a season ticket holder and match goer, the problem of showing it in the ground is not just violence (especially if they are allowing grey areas.) It is more the players as if it is being replayed on the screens some will become distracted. I mean there are even some players now that watch the goals back after we score, if you have VAR going it would start impacting the game more. Additionally, with mobiles most people on the terrace can get details/clips up soon after the incident anyway. 

Not so much the yobs in the crowd but super yobs  on the pitch - yes.
But the real thing for me is that football is becoming a TV sport where the match goers are only  incidental.  Whereas once it was a national game, where boys and men played every week, every break time at work or school, and where match watchers were outnumbered by players.
We sink deeper and deeper into the couch every day.

What I'd really like are a set of rules that are designed for the park game, not for Sky.  There was a brief moment when Respect was announced that the major concern was treatment of amateur refs and encouraging young refs to go and ref park games.  That quickly became taken over by Sky and co as a campaign for "nice behaviour" by professionals so as to make good daytime TV.  Nowadays the main aim is a set of rules that distracts from actual bias by professional refs and emphasises the power of Sky to show you the real game in all its detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.