Time to get rid of VAR

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:16 pm

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.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:21 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I keep saying the same thing to your missus, but she still kicks me out.

Are you shagging Stephen Ward too?

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:24 pm

Dumb and dumber....

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:30 pm

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;

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!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:12 pm

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!

It would definitely have been awkward for him to clear it, just because his stride wouldn't been set up for him to clear it easily, but it's still within reach of being cleared, and this is why i can't understand how people can claim that he was "never" getting to it.

But that argument is moot anyway because it's not the referee's job to determine that. It's only his job to determine if a foul was committed, which on viewing the video replay, a foul can clearly be seen, and that foul clearly denied Evans the chance to clear it.

MDWat · Post by **MDWat** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:59 pm

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?

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:38 pm

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?

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.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 3:44 pm

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.

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)

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:15 pm

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)

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.

I think the rationale behind it is that fouls are a subjective matter so if the referee's description of what happened matches what the VAR team see on the replays they'll defer to his decision.

As far as your second paragraph goes, I'm saying that I think Moss had the discussion with the VAR team and his description didn't tally with the footage (or more likely he couldn't give a proper description as he wasn't positioned properly), so they decided that they could overrule.him.

Aclaret · Post by **Aclaret** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:36 pm

It's causing more confusion than it solves, Get rid.

Texanclaret16 · Post by **Texanclaret16** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:42 pm

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.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:46 pm

It's having a shocker of a weekend.

An absolute shocker

fidelcastro · Post by **fidelcastro** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:47 pm

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.

But would we get a second referendum if it was only a 4% majority?

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:22 pm

Ok, it is a game for the fans (to watch and enjoy). It has never been to my knowledge a game for the fans (to make policy decisions or amendments to the laws of the game, or to decide how referees should interpret the laws of the game).

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:12 am

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.

Long live turtles fluffer, just in case you are unsure coward I couldn't give a **** what you think or say.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:22 am

evensteadiereddie wrote:Says the right-wing bully boy.

Love you to explain how I am right wing, I have stated many times on here that I find anyone really stupid who says " I am right wing" "left wing" or any other label. Now if you mean anyone who won't vote for someone like Corbyn is automatically right wing then I understand your point even though it is stupid.

Your bully boy quote is funny too, this from someone who with a group of little bravehearts on here target the same person over and over while having safety in numbers. If you are unsure read through the brexit threads the same 7 or 8 dishing out abuse and ridicule all at one poster as oppose to ignoring it ( sounds more like bullying to me) when I call someone I call them on my own and it is normally people who deserve. Not my fault people like swizzles bottom lip moves quickly is it.

Lord Beamish · Post by **Lord Beamish** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:56 am

Claretonthecoast1882

#rattled

BOYSIE31 · Post by **BOYSIE31** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:19 am

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!

For Evans to clear that he would have had to have kicked it right at the point Wood ever so slightly touched him so goal all day long.

HarryPottsDesk · Post by **HarryPottsDesk** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:26 am

Keith Hackett in today's Torygraph says Burnley denied a legitimate goal by misuse of VAR. I agree with him.

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:45 am

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

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:49 am

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.

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:59 am

He also said the ball hit Alli’s chest for Spurs....

What chance do you have with these clowns.....

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:00 pm

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

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.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:17 pm

Hibsclaret wrote:He also said the ball hit Alli’s chest for Spurs....

What chance do you have with these clowns.....

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”

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:20 pm

TVC15 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”

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

simonclaret · Post by **simonclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:43 pm

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.

The guys using the technology, not the technology.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:49 pm

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

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.
Just also watched the Harry Kane bit again and he makes no attempt to jump for the ball - shoves the defender in the back which directly causes him to head it in the direction of Alli....can`t believe the VAR debate is not about this. Its an awful decision but still nowhere near as bad as the decision on the penalty Watford should have had.
I don't care about Watford or Spurs - I'm only bothered about Burnley....but this is about VAR and this weekend its imploded. I just hope it leads to the changes it warrants and I would actually suspend it for a while until there is some consensus and consistency as to how it is used.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:52 pm

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.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:58 pm

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.

Exactly this.
If 2 people accidentally clashed with each other in a penalty area causing either or both of them to fall over and neither of them had the ball would that be a penalty or foul for either side ? No it wouldn't...and this happens frequently when penalty areas are congested with players and they are all making runs across each other etc.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:00 pm

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 · Post by **Firthy** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:19 pm

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.

But he didn't roll around as a result, he rolled around because he tripped over his own leg.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:22 pm

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....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.

simonclaret · Post by **simonclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:58 pm

This will surprise no-one reading this thread but... Dermot Gallagher says 'Correct decision'...

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."

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... e-analysed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SalisburyClaret · Post by **SalisburyClaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:14 pm

Time to stop VAR for this season and re-assess what’s working and what isn’t. The idea is good but the execution is shambolic and needs a lot more work

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:19 pm

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.

True.

There were others such as the Wolves pen which was a clear dive (instigate the contact), a goal at Everton not given for a foul when there was a holding of the shirt at the same time so could easily be a pen.....that’s off the top of my head.

They got more wrong than right this weekend and it’s the inconsistency and high bar nonsense that gets on my nerves. The VAR official needs to give what he sees irrespective of what the ref gives. Until we have this VAR is a nonsense and definitely open to favouring certain teams....

If we can’t get the Barnes pen we have no chance of getting a decision. VAR has cost us points so far, definitely 1 and arguably another 2 at Wolves...

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:19 pm

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;

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.

Same with ours. If the two players had crashed into each other immediately after contact, the ref couldn't have missed seeing the contact but would still have given the goal. Because it was a tiny touch, the ref didn't see it and so VAR was given the chance to disallow it.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:24 pm

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.

No it's not a biased view but that has to be one of the worst decisions that I've ever seen. I was a fan of VAR but not now, it stops the game, ruins the flow and the wrong decisons are still being made and have become even more obvious because everyone can see it.

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:29 pm

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.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:43 pm

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.

So very true, Notts!! The PL is now playing to a different set of Laws, with different interpretation, to the rest of the EFL.
Goal line technology is excellent, however, even that is not used in the lower leagues!

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!

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:18 pm

I agree with both the above posts from Ashington and Notts....the spontaneity has now gone out of the game. A goal is scored and we have to wait for it to be verified by VAR which is still the opinion of a bloke in a room looking at it through 15 different angles, if we are to believe Sean Dyche. Was it offside was it hand ball was anyone fouled either intentionally or accidentally. It's becoming ridiculous. If the bar has been set so high as to not correct the match referee when a penalty is given then clear cases of mistakes by the said official are going to remain uncorrected. Sorry, I'm going to change my initial view from ridiculous to farcical.

superdimitri · Post by **superdimitri** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:31 pm

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.

Nonayforever · Post by **Nonayforever** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:01 pm

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 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.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:02 pm

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.

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.

I agree with everyone else when they say it ruins the match experience and won't improve anything while humans are reviewing it.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:07 pm

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.

Every goal is reviewed by VAR so Evans' protestations had nothing to do with it.

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:33 pm

Has anyone ever thought that VAR might be with us now because of the constant complaints about the poor refereeing and how with the technology now available, something had to be done, using said technology. I very much doubt that VAR will be reviewed before the end of the season. The trialling of the system was done last season and this is what we have arrived at. If people would accept that human error cannot be eliminated, it would be a start. Also it appears that nothing will be ignored if it happens in the penalty area and is connected to the scoring of a goal, or the prevention of a goal. If people can start with that mindset, things might be easier to bear and understand. But mistakes will only be reduced, not eliminated.

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:38 pm

Just said that was not a foul on the Sheff U player in the penalty area. Well it wasn’t a shoulder charge. One thing VAR has done is increase the number of talking points in a game. I remember the ‘worries’ that after match discussions/arguments on a game would be wiped out. How wrong we were!!

Granny WeatherWax · Post by **Granny WeatherWax** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:39 pm

VAR is the worst thing to come into football since Leeds United.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:08 pm

Granny WeatherWax wrote:VAR is the worst thing to come into football since Leeds United.

Sadly, I have to disagree because the media driven transfer windows were far worse than Leeds United and were more recent!

fidelcastro · Post by **fidelcastro** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:09 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:Sadly, I have to disagree because the media driven transfer windows were far worse than Leeds United and were more recent!

Don't forget stupid kick off times!

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:17 pm

VAR is simply not doing what it was supposed to do and Saturday at Leicester was just one in a long line of examples of that. Far from clearing up dodgy and contentious decisions, it's actually producing more, so what's the point? And as an aside I was at the game and never for one minute expected that goal to be reviewed and then overturned, but the wait for a decision to be made is interminable and completely spoils one of (if not THE) most attractive part of any game. Namely seeing the ball hit the back of the net! It's utter pobs!!!