VAR

[The Enfield Royal71]

We've already established you didn't, stop saying you did

Nobody has established I didn't. You and your tin foil hat said I didn't. But you have no idea really do you.

I've got a pretty good idea.

[Hoop Blah]

It was what Shearer on MoTD and the chaps on Goals on Sunday both made of it, so might be a tweak. A welcome one if so.

What the laws say and what VAR is entitled to be used for in relation to supporting decision-making are not necessarily the same thing .

In the case of encroachment, VAR may only be used to change a decision (or non-decision) when it is identified that the encroachment had a direct impact on the outcome.

Got it - and that explanation completes the circle between the pundits' assertion on MoTD, and the laws paps linked to.

Separately, I happen to think that it would be a sensible tweak to the laws anyway.

Again it shows a bit of a flaw in the idea of having VAR in the first place though doesn't it? It's picking and choosing what to look at as an infringement.

Either you use it to look at encroachment, or you don't. Surely that would make more sense?

[Sanguine]

What the laws say and what VAR is entitled to be used for in relation to supporting decision-making are not necessarily the same thing .

In the case of encroachment, VAR may only be used to change a decision (or non-decision) when it is identified that the encroachment had a direct impact on the outcome.

Got it - and that explanation completes the circle between the pundits' assertion on MoTD, and the laws paps linked to.

Separately, I happen to think that it would be a sensible tweak to the laws anyway.

Again it shows a bit of a flaw in the idea of having VAR in the first place though doesn't it? It's picking and choosing what to look at as an infringement.

Either you use it to look at encroachment, or you don't. Surely that would make more sense?

I'm saying that it makes sense to me that the encroachment laws reflect whether a defending team actually gains an advantage - and fwiw I expect the laws might be refined as such at some point. VAR has just shone a light on it.

[Hoop Blah]

I'm saying that it makes sense to me that the encroachment laws reflect whether a defending team actually gains an advantage - and fwiw I expect the laws might be refined as such at some point. VAR has just shone a light on it.

Maybe so, but it's still picking and choosing which infringements to officiate on and, it would seem in this instance, making up it's own laws as well.

The current law is supposedly the way it is to discourage encroachment and, maybe, to stop defending players potentially distracting the penalty taker by running past him during his run up!

[Sanguine]

I'm saying that it makes sense to me that the encroachment laws reflect whether a defending team actually gains an advantage - and fwiw I expect the laws might be refined as such at some point. VAR has just shone a light on it.

Maybe so, but it's still picking and choosing which infringements to officiate on and, it would seem in this instance, making up it's own laws as well.

The current law is supposedly the way it is to discourage encroachment and, maybe, to stop defending players potentially distracting the penalty taker by running past him during his run up!

That's clutching at straws I think.

As I said, I think the way the law was applied in this instance, whilst not to the letter, made sense. Using it as a stick to beat VAR with is silly. There's plenty of such more valid sticks.

[Hoop Blah]

I'm saying that it makes sense to me that the encroachment laws reflect whether a defending team actually gains an advantage - and fwiw I expect the laws might be refined as such at some point. VAR has just shone a light on it.

Maybe so, but it's still picking and choosing which infringements to officiate on and, it would seem in this instance, making up it's own laws as well.

The current law is supposedly the way it is to discourage encroachment and, maybe, to stop defending players potentially distracting the penalty taker by running past him during his run up!

That's clutching at straws I think.

As I said, I think the way the law was applied in this instance, whilst not to the letter, made sense. Using it as a stick to beat VAR with is silly. There's plenty of such more valid sticks.

It was a little tongue in cheek!

[Hoop Blah]

Another joy-sapping moment from VAR yesterday.

I know fans of VAR will say it's the correct decision by the letter of the (revised) law, but that change to the interpretation has only been brought in because of the use of VAR, and, IMO, it's totally against the spirit of the game.

Such moments are not for the good for the game.

[The Enfield Royal71]

Another joy-sapping moment from VAR yesterday.

I know fans of VAR will say it's the correct decision by the letter of the (revised) law, but that change to the interpretation has only been brought in because of the use of VAR, and, IMO, it's totally against the spirit of the game.

Such moments are not for the good for the game.

Tbf tbat is as much as the new stupid rule that is in place only for handballs accidentally or not that result in a goal.

Although if var wasn't a thing nobody ever would have noticed or in any game in any league ever. It was an absolute non handball and a stupid rule.

The FA knew all of this though and were warned and didn't listen.....

[Hoop Blah]

Tbf tbat is as much as the new stupid rule that is in place only for handballs accidentally or not that result in a goal.

Although if var wasn't a thing nobody ever would have noticed or in any game in any league ever. It was an absolute non handball and a stupid rule.

If it wasn't for VAR there wouldn't be the scrutiny on that incident or the change in the rule, so it's absolutely a impact of VAR in my eyes.

[Sanguine]

It's getting a but monotonous now - VAR gives football an opportunity to refine its laws alongside the use of technology. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than whinging that we'd rather let infringements go because 'joy'.
The ball hit Laporte's hand and deflected to the goalscorer. If Reading lost a play-off final to that we'd be spitting feathers, and rightly so.

A huge positive impact of VAR is that penalty box swan dives seem to have become a thing of the past.

[Hoop Blah]

It's getting a but monotonous now - VAR gives football an opportunity to refine its laws alongside the use of technology. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than whinging that we'd rather let infringements go because 'joy'.
The ball hit Laporte's hand and deflected to the goalscorer. If Reading lost a play-off final to that we'd be spitting feathers, and rightly so.

A huge positive impact of VAR is that penalty box swan dives seem to have become a thing of the past.

You're kidding? If that goal was scored against us I'd not bat an eyelid about the handball.

I don't think that would ever have been considered a handball at any stage in the history of football. It flicked his arm, unintentionally, as two players came together.

I don't think we needed refine the law on this kind of thing. It worked perfectly well before and we're seeing changes made to try and make black and white decisions out of areas of grey and I think the game will be worse off for it.

[The Enfield Royal71]

It's getting a but monotonous now - VAR gives football an opportunity to refine its laws alongside the use of technology. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than whinging that we'd rather let infringements go because 'joy'.
The ball hit Laporte's hand and deflected to the goalscorer. If Reading lost a play-off final to that we'd be spitting feathers, and rightly so.

A huge positive impact of VAR is that penalty box swan dives seem to have become a thing of the past.

You're kidding? If that goal was scored against us I'd not bat an eyelid about the handball.

I don't think that would ever have been considered a handball at any stage in the history of football. It flicked his arm, unintentionally, as two players came together.

I don't think we needed refine the law on this kind of thing. It worked perfectly well before and we're seeing changes made to try and make black and white decisions out of areas of grey and I think the game will be worse off for it.

I can guarentee if that were to cost city they title they would be rightfully furious.

Like last season where stones cleared the ball against liverpool that was mm's not over the line, Liverpool couldn't be mad because there was indisputable evidence. Thats a good piece of technology that. If it didnt exist it probably would have been a goal.

[Sanguine]

It's getting a but monotonous now - VAR gives football an opportunity to refine its laws alongside the use of technology. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than whinging that we'd rather let infringements go because 'joy'.
The ball hit Laporte's hand and deflected to the goalscorer. If Reading lost a play-off final to that we'd be spitting feathers, and rightly so.

A huge positive impact of VAR is that penalty box swan dives seem to have become a thing of the past.

You're kidding? If that goal was scored against us I'd not bat an eyelid about the handball.

I don't think that would ever have been considered a handball at any stage in the history of football. It flicked his arm, unintentionally, as two players came together.

I don't think we needed refine the law on this kind of thing. It worked perfectly well before and we're seeing changes made to try and make black and white decisions out of areas of grey and I think the game will be worse off for it.

it didn't work perfectly well before - there were countless discussion about intent and natural vs unnatural positions. The change in the law makes it unambiguous - you can't score a goal either directly or indirectly from a handball, deliberate or not. That makes sense to me. Or would we be okay if Laporte had handballed it over the line?

[Hoop Blah]

it didn't work perfectly well before - there were countless discussion about intent and natural vs unnatural positions. The change in the law makes it unambiguous - you can't score a goal either directly or indirectly from a handball, deliberate or not. That makes sense to me. Or would we be okay if Laporte had handballed it over the line?

It may make it unambiguous, but it takes away from the game just to stop the bleating from those who didn't like a decision. Personally I prefer the game with some areas of grey if it avoids the needless chalking off of a goal like yesterday.

[Stranded]

Another joy-sapping moment from VAR yesterday.

I know fans of VAR will say it's the correct decision by the letter of the (revised) law, but that change to the interpretation has only been brought in because of the use of VAR, and, IMO, it's totally against the spirit of the game.

Such moments are not for the good for the game.

Saw an interesting thought on F365 I think, why should one teams fans joy being sapped be worth more than the other teams fans spending the next week (or however long) annoyed at a clear injustice.

I know this instance highlights the inadequecy of a new law but a goal being chalked off by VAR only ends joy slightly slower than those moments where your team have scored and you don't notice the whistle has blown.

[Winston Biscuit]

I don't like VAR. I prefer football without VAR.

[Victor Meldrew]

I don't like VAR. I prefer football without VAR.

In England most matches won't have VAR as it is only for Premier League teams.
BTW it is a bit rich for players to complain about having VAR-one of the reasons is because they are such cheating bastards.

[Hoop Blah]

Another joy-sapping moment from VAR yesterday.

I know fans of VAR will say it's the correct decision by the letter of the (revised) law, but that change to the interpretation has only been brought in because of the use of VAR, and, IMO, it's totally against the spirit of the game.

Such moments are not for the good for the game.

Saw an interesting thought on F365 I think, why should one teams fans joy being sapped be worth more than the other teams fans spending the next week (or however long) annoyed at a clear injustice.

I know this instance highlights the inadequecy of a new law but a goal being chalked off by VAR only ends joy slightly slower than those moments where your team have scored and you don't notice the whistle has blown.

Yep, there are always two sides to all of these things, but, in this instance, I don't think anyone would've felt a sense of injustice for that deflection off an arm that was next to Laporte's body as the ball squeezed between him and the Spurs defender.

[Snowflake Royal]

Another joy-sapping moment from VAR yesterday.

I know fans of VAR will say it's the correct decision by the letter of the (revised) law, but that change to the interpretation has only been brought in because of the use of VAR, and, IMO, it's totally against the spirit of the game.

Such moments are not for the good for the game.

Saw an interesting thought on F365 I think, why should one teams fans joy being sapped be worth more than the other teams fans spending the next week (or however long) annoyed at a clear injustice.

I know this instance highlights the inadequecy of a new law but a goal being chalked off by VAR only ends joy slightly slower than those moments where your team have scored and you don't notice the whistle has blown.

Yeah, the joy angle is an absolute nonsense for me.

Joy in this respect is a largely unconscious response not a decision. You'll get the joy anyway, and then either disappointment or more joy. And as you say, it's largely the same - just a bit slower - when compared to looking across to see if the linesman had flagged offside or not.

The new system has flaws that need to be fixed. But that can be achieved incrementally and with experience. Some ambiguous decisions going a way you don't agree with is nothing different to without VAR. And with VAR you have far fewer glaring errors that should have been spotted by the referee or linesman but weren't.

With VAR, there'll never be another Maradona 'hand of god' moment. That is positive.

[Silver Fox]

I didn’t see all the weekend’s games so have no opinion on the Man City VAR “controversy” but if anyone can explain how the lads in the VAR booth couldn’t see that Pogba clearly dived before eventually manufacturing contact with Coasy’s foot I’d really appreciate it.

The review of Wolves’ goal was also bullshit but at least they somehow managed to get that one right, try as they might to give United a break