Hibsclaret wrote:I don’t reckon your qualified to get out of bed in the morning
I keep saying the same thing to your missus, but she still kicks me out.
Hibsclaret wrote:I don’t reckon your qualified to get out of bed in the morning
Are you shagging Stephen Ward too?Imploding Turtle wrote:I keep saying the same thing to your missus, but she still kicks me out.
First, excellent clip.Imploding Turtle wrote:I don't understand how you guys can reach the conclusion that Evans was never getting to the ball. It seems pretty clear that it was certainly possible he could have cleared it. It was less than a metre from him when he was fouled.
It's right there in front of him. Maybe he wasn't getting to it anyway, but i think the idea that it was so unlikely that the referee should be able to decide he wasn't is just fantasy https://imgur.com/knxgNv9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If it be your will wrote:First, excellent clip.
Right, so I think we can all agree the ball is travelling significantly faster than the player. That is, once it went beyond his reach, there was absolutely no chance of him 'catching up with it' again. So the only hope would be a desperate swipe right at that point when he caught his own calf instead. I keep watching it and visualising where this swipe would have got too, had he not hit his own calf.
I don't think I'm being biased when I say that, to me, by the time his foot would have elevated to the required height to even touch the ball, the ball would have clearly gone beyond his reach anyway. Had he been able to touch it at all (unlikely), it would have been little more than an inconsequential 'brush'. Is this not how you visualise it?
Edit - I've just watched it another 10 times. I don't think he would even have got within 1' of the ball!
I think it's because the referee has seen them and decided that they weren't fouls. In this case, Jon Moss probably told the VAR team that he didn't see any contact.MDWat wrote:I think the bit that rankles is all these other instances where clear trips (non-accidental too, which I know is irrelevant but still...) are there to see on a replay (Barnes v Norwich, De Bruyne and Deulofeu yesterday) are sticking with the on-field decision. Why?
Why should it make a difference whether the referee thought it was a foul or not ? I thought that was the whole point of VAR - to correct things that a referee gets wrong. If the referee were to see the replay of the Watford incident for example there is no way he could argue that this was not a penalty. We can excuse the referee for making a mistake in real time - but there is no excuse for VAR on an incident as clear cut as the Watford one.Tall Paul wrote:I think it's because the referee has seen them and decided that they weren't fouls. In this case, Jon Moss probably told the VAR team that he didn't see any contact.
I'm not agreeing with the way it's being implemented, I'm merely offering an explanation why I think this incident has been treated differently to the examples given in MDWat's question.TVC15 wrote:Why should it make a difference whether the referee thought it was a foul or not ? I thought that was the whole point of VAR - to correct things that a referee gets wrong. If the referee were to see the replay of the Watford incident for example there is no way he could argue that this was not a penalty. We can excuse the referee for making a mistake in real time - but there is no excuse for VAR on an incident as clear cut as the Watford one.
As for John Moss - he gave the goal. Whether he told VAR officials he saw no contact or not is debatable. He might have seen the contact and thought it was purely accidental and it was impossible to tell who instigated the contact. He might have seen it and thought the ball was already going in. Which ever scenario took place there is no way you can ever say that it was clear and obvious (unlike the Watford one)
But would we get a second referendum if it was only a 4% majority?Texanclaret16 wrote:Ok if this is a game for the fans then let them decide simply every season ticket holder at every club gets to vote. Each club then gives its fans verdict and that will solve it as I am sure it will be 20 against 0 for VAR. Sadly fans are getting less and less say and football is going away from the fans.
Swizzlestick wrote:You’ve got some brass neck I’ll give you that. All you contribute to this forum are snide comments.
And he’s clearly living rent free in your head.
evensteadiereddie wrote:Says the right-wing bully boy.
If it be your will wrote:First, excellent clip.
Right, so I think we can all agree the ball is travelling significantly faster than the player. That is, once it went beyond his reach, there was absolutely no chance of him 'catching up with it' again. So the only hope would be a desperate swipe right at that point when he caught his own calf instead. I keep watching it and visualising where this swipe would have got too, had he not hit his own calf.
I don't think I'm being biased when I say that, to me, by the time his foot would have elevated to the required height to even touch the ball, the ball would have clearly gone beyond his reach anyway. Had he been able to touch it at all (unlikely), it would have been little more than an inconsequential 'brush'. Is this not how you visualise it?
Edit - I've just watched it another 10 times. I don't think he would even have got within 1' of the ball!
Shame that Warnock wasn’t able to give his view on the Wood decision but he’d already said VAR was embarrassing and should be scrapped.Hibsclaret wrote:Dermot time. Embarrassing.....beyond belief. Warwick is giving him hell. Says the Man U goal is not a VAR decision...... make it up as they go along
I don’t think it was handball but everyone seems to be focusing on the handball rather than the fact that Kane very clearly fouled their player in the box in the lead up and surely VAR should have chalked it off for this - it was a hundred times more “clear and obvious” than the Wood incident.Hibsclaret wrote:He also said the ball hit Alli’s chest for Spurs....
What chance do you have with these clowns.....
I was just referring to the fact he said it hit his chest. It was high on his arm....to suggest it was chest is someone with very poor sight beyond his other nonsenseTVC15 wrote:I don’t think it was handball but everyone seems to be focusing on the handball rather than the fact that Kane very clearly fouled their player in the box in the lead up and surely VAR should have chalked it off for this - it was a hundred times more “clear and obvious” than the Wood incident.
As the Americans would say it’s an absolute “clusterf-uck”
The guys using the technology, not the technology.Steve1956 wrote:I had so much faith with the introduction of VAR ....sadly clubs like Burnley are still getting shafted,what a sorry state of affairs when even the technology is cheating us.
Just watched it again a couple of times and tbf it looks like a combination of the top of his chest and the shoulder - neither of them handball.Hibsclaret wrote:I was just referring to the fact he said it hit his chest. It was high on his arm....to suggest it was chest is someone with very poor sight beyond his other nonsense
Exactly this.Firthy wrote:I've watchrd the clip over and over again, and I come to the same conclusion. Wood is watching the ball and all he does is place his foot down, it's not a tackle and Evans isn't in control of the ball so how the hell can it be a foul. If anything Evans gets the slightest touch on his foot and then trips over his own leg and no way on earth is he reaching that ball. Just winds me up every time I see it.
It's a foul because under modern rules, any sort of contact is a foul if the player rolls about as a result. See Liverpool's penalty against Leicester for an example.Firthy wrote:I've watchrd the clip over and over again, and I come to the same conclusion. Wood is watching the ball and all he does is place his foot down, it's not a tackle and Evans isn't in control of the ball so how the hell can it be a foul. If anything Evans gets the slightest touch on his foot and then trips over his own leg and no way on earth is he reaching that ball. Just winds me up every time I see it.
But he didn't roll around as a result, he rolled around because he tripped over his own leg.dsr wrote:It's a foul because under modern rules, any sort of contact is a foul if the player rolls about as a result. See Liverpool's penalty against Leicester for an example.
Depends which player and for what team....and which referee....and at what ground....etcdsr wrote:It's a foul because under modern rules, any sort of contact is a foul if the player rolls about as a result. See Liverpool's penalty against Leicester for an example.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... e-analysed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;INCIDENT: Chris Wood scores an equaliser 10 minutes from time at the King Power Stadium. But a VAR review disallows the goal for a foul on Jonny Evans.
DERMOT'S VERDICT: Correct decision.
DERMOT SAYS: "I think the key thing here is that the referee doesn't see him clip his heels, which I think he did. Jon Moss doesn't see it and gives a goal, but when it's reviewed they see it. It's relayed to the referee that he's clipped his heel, you didn't see it, so you give a foul."
True.TVC15 wrote:Depends which player and for what team....and which referee....and at what ground....etc
I don't think Evans rolled around - he fell because there was accidental contact between him and Wood...which neither of them instigated.
Lindeloff slightly touched Origi yesterday - and he did deliberately instigate it because it was impossible for him to touch the ball and it was in no way accidental. Origi then cheated by flinging himself to the ground and exaggerating the impact. Under current rules that should have 100% been a foul (i have always advocated changing the rule that if a player exaggerates then he is cheating and that should then over-ride the original foul / contact as he is trying to deceive the official).
The Watford penalty that should have been given was just a clear and obvious foul which was 100% deliberate and the Watford player did not exaggerate his fall whatsoever.
So we have 3 difference incidents here and everyone of them the law was applied differently and inconsistently and each one of them they got badly wrong.
This is why VAR is so rubbish. The smaller the contact, the less likely it is that the ref sees it, which means VAR can say the ref was wrong. For the Watford non-penalty, the VAR man asks "did you know that Spurs man touched Watford man", and the ref of course says yes because he was all over him. If the Spurs man had just brushed him with his little finger and he had gone over, VAR might have given a penalty. Because the contact was so strong that it couldn't be missed, it was no penalty.simonclaret wrote:This will surprise no-one reading this thread but... Dermot Gallagher says 'Correct decision'...
https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... e-analysed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But Woods didn't clip his heel. I'm not even convinced there was actually any contact, Evans tripped over his own leg. All Wood does his place his foot on the ground in a perfectly natural position and it happened to be in the same place as Evans was running. There is most definitely nothing clear or obvious enough to overturn the goal and change the refs decision.simonclaret wrote:This will surprise no-one reading this thread but... Dermot Gallagher says 'Correct decision'...
https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... e-analysed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So very true, Notts!! The PL is now playing to a different set of Laws, with different interpretation, to the rest of the EFL.NottsClaret wrote:VAR is not going to get better than it is now. This is it, the extent of the 'technology' is a man watching a TV expressing an opinion.
As we've seen so far this season, the frustration and 'injustice' is there as much as it ever was. The downside now is that watching games live is a bit crap. People who watch on TV probably love it. But I'd honestly rather watch us play in the Championship without VAR, than put up with this in the Prem.
VAR is here to stay. Every goal ( or no goal ) will be assessed with an average time lapse becoming the norm before the end of the season. This will then become an "accepted" break which next season will allow premium commercial breaks on cable / sky TV.Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:
The whole VAR system is media driven and does absolutely nothing to enhance the game for those who pay their money to actually attend the games.
It is here to stay, however, after 68 seasons I shall not be going to the Turf when my ST finishes. The Northern League, without VAR, beckons!
VAR itself will never be at fault but it's only as good as the people reviewing it which at present is pretty diabolical. It's open to interpretation and bias so will never be what it was intended to be.superdimitri wrote: 3. VAR or not it makes no difference, the difference was the referee in a room making the wrong decision. Can't blame VAR itself, decisions as always will sometimes go for and against.
Every goal is reviewed by VAR so Evans' protestations had nothing to do with it.superdimitri wrote:1. Refs shouldn't feel the need to review every time a player complains to them. Evans clearly was pushing his luck and because of VAR now every player will push their luck.
2. We shouldn't sit back and be the nice guys, make sure we crowd and argue with the ref just the same as other teams do. If that decision went against another team I think the ref would have been mobbed.
3. VAR or not it makes no difference, the difference was the referee in a room making the wrong decision. Can't blame VAR itself, decisions as always will sometimes go for and against.
Sadly, I have to disagree because the media driven transfer windows were far worse than Leeds United and were more recent!Granny WeatherWax wrote:VAR is the worst thing to come into football since Leeds United.
Don't forget stupid kick off times!Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:Sadly, I have to disagree because the media driven transfer windows were far worse than Leeds United and were more recent!