Dogawful Officiating

[El Prontonise]

12 minutes ago, Boo Boy said:

The other 'top ref' didn't give a red card to the millwall keeper and had to be dragged over to the monitor to look at it again.

 

That was Oliver who I think is shite.

 

Can't say that though since he's a toon fan. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

13 hours ago, gbandit said:

Really? I have no recollection of him having a period where he was anything other than total shit. Constantly misreads the game and appears to guess what to do. I think he’s probably in my top two refs to avoid 

Worst thing about him is the dramatic finger wagging when he decides to ignore a blatant foul. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Is the Millwall keeper likely to get an extended ban or will he and Gordon both get 3 games? And is there any chance we can get Oliver reffing the Liverpool Soton game with a few soft reds please

[Kaizero]

On 02/03/2025 at 09:22, joeyt said:

You can't compare a quick glance at the lino to having in the back of your mind that VAR could cancel a goal for any reason minutes after the goal has been scored

 

You absolutely can. The amount of times it's been unclear whether a goal would receive a VAR review taking a negligible amount of time longer than it takes a linesman to decide whether to raise their flag or not is so low I can't even think of any examples off the top of my head. As a non-local, and thus someone that watches most our games on the TV rather than in-person, my experience is that I know quicker (from the commentators) that a VAR review is to take place than I'd know a lino had raised their flag for offside (as you'd have to wait for the camera to cut to the linesman before you'd know). 

 

Whilst I understand that it's vastly different when watching in person in a stadium, as you can just look at the lino yourself rather than wait for the feed to cut to the lino with a raised flag – the fact I know in the back of my mind that the feed could cut to a lino with a raised flag, sometimes taking up to a minute to do so, doesn't have any effect on my immediate joy/celebration of a goal. I'd only restrain any joy/celebration of a goal scored that I'd seen something that could make it be overturned happen in the build-up with my own eyes, thus expecting either a raised flag or a VAR check.

 

I realize that the actual argument I was trying to make has become lost in a semantics discussion, though. That being the fact there's so many valid, genuine, and reasonable arguments that could be made against VAR. Either with the intent of having it stop being used, forcing faster and greater development of the technology and/or the concept as a hole – all being lost/not raised due to the obsession the majority of football fans who actively raise their voices in dissent have with the "impacting how I celebrate goals" issue. That issue is a non-starter for FA's and other Footballing organizations, due to the variety of reasons I've already raised several times, which in turn only make the complaints act as the perfect smokescreen for VAR to not actually be put under any public scrutiny/criticisms holding water. 

 

During the last EC we even saw it play out in the media, as the clicks/views from enraged fans complaining about referee/VAR decisions got their flames fanned by clickbait-articles and VAR-specific debates on TV – rather than any of the experts just calmly pointing out the fact that the referees/VAR were making correct calls and was being utilized properly, just that FIFA/IFAB had made horrid adjustments to the Laws of the Game two-three weeks ahead of the EC and nobody knew about the alterations made yet. In an ideal world, the outrage would have been about the unnecessary, dumb, changes to the Laws of the Game – getting them successfully overturned  to what they used to be – instead of FIFA/IFAB getting away with it, all thanks to their beloved smokescreen, VAR. 

 

I have many things against VAR and how it's being implemented/utilized, and as I've already said, I'd back a motion to stop using it until such a time when the technology was already close to perfect prior to its implementation – rather than it being developed in use. Much like the NFL did when their first attempt at video refereeing failed, they didn't "force it through" claiming it being in use was what would remedy its many existing flaws. They put it on the shelf until the providers offering the service had a product that worked as advertised. In that sense, I'm way more anti-VAR than I am pro-VAR, at present. I'm just beyond frustrated and annoyed by the fact the majority of people who could actively be making a difference are choosing to focus on something that isn't even a thing, but something they've made themselves do based on their own thoughts about the mere existence of something. 

 

Instead, we're just letting FIFA keep on keeping on and accepting it, because not complaining about tangible real things and having those complaints amplified by the media won't bring about any actual change. 

 

The fact there's not even a universal rulebook for referees on how to utilize and implement VAR into their refereeing is disgraceful. Currently, it is up to each individual nation's FA's to instruct their referees on how to utilize and implement VAR into their game – which is very visible when watching any European game, as referees from different nation have different "instructions" on how to use VAR, leading to outrage amongst fans of a team from a nation where their referees utilize VAR completely different than the refs in the game they're watching does. 

[Kaizero]

On 02/03/2025 at 10:57, Hanshithispantz said:

Any arguments @Kaizero?

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

There's no need to make an argument against something that's not even put forward as an argument, it's just subjective opinion written as a novelization. VAR doesn't line the pockets of anyone, it's fucking expensive. Nobody is saying kids matches should have VAR technology used, nor could that ever be a reality due to the high costs incurred by implementing it. 

 

It also seems to argue that VAR somehow creates "distrust", when it is proven to increase the amount of correct decisions made by referees (even though it still has errors – which is why I'm of the opinion it shouldn't have been introduced until they'd sorted all those issues out, and in favor of "benching" VAR until they do).

 

The PL itself (I'm aware its a biased source and could have reached the numbers it's done by adapting stats to fit said bias) has claimed VAR has made a PL season now have 96% correct decisions vs. 82% pre-VAR. Now, someone else brought up "who decides what a correct/incorrect decision was after the fact", which is very easy to answer; anyone familiar with the Laws of the Game and/or any national FA imposed rules to consider, reviewing the footage of incidents that occured. It goes without saying that some of these incidents will be so close they just couldn't objectively be called for either player/side, even with hindsight. But the majority of decisions/incidents can be objectively called by referencing the Laws of the Game and/or any local rules that may or may not apply.

 

 

 

All that said, my main argument to the weird England-fanfic bit in your spoiler, would be this:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Kaizero

[JigsawGoesToPieces]

On 02/03/2025 at 22:36, Armchair Pundit said:

Amazing that in one game a referee can influence the outcome of our entire season - going from still being in two cups and chasing Europe, to ending one cup run, sabotaging the final of another and also weakening our squad for the league run-in, all with some wank officiating. Do I blame Gordon? A little, but nowhere near as much as the ref in today's match. I know the FA think the sun shines out of his arse, but personally, I thought he was shit today.

 

A little?

 

I blame Gordon a lot. 

 

Not the refs fault Gordon decided to bitch slapp a Brighton player. Gordons stupididity cost us there as if we wasnt so thick he woupdnt have been sent off

 

Lampety then gets sent off and we have 30 mins advantage to win the game.

[joeyt]

7 hours ago, Kaizero said:

 

You absolutely can. The amount of times it's been unclear whether a goal would receive a VAR review taking a negligible amount of time longer than it takes a linesman to decide whether to raise their flag or not is so low I can't even think of any examples off the top of my head. As a non-local, and thus someone that watches most our games on the TV rather than in-person, my experience is that I know quicker (from the commentators) that a VAR review is to take place than I'd know a lino had raised their flag for offside (as you'd have to wait for the camera to cut to the linesman before you'd know). 

 

Again this just isn't true

[joeyt]

And also that's the whole point.

 

We know there's going to be VAR looking at everything for every single goal which is why we can't celebrate properly as you have to constantly try to think about the passage of play you've just watched to think of any reason that VAR might get involved. 

 

It's exhausting and takes the emotion away from that moment

[mattypnufc]

Tbf, Schars at the weekend I didn't celebrate too wildly as I thought he was offside from my seat in the Leazes. But aye, it should be a quick check to the linesman and then that should be it. I'm not having this offside by a toe/end of a cock/pube any longer mind. Fuck VAR.

[Lush Vlad]

18 minutes ago, mattypnufc said:

Tbf, Schars at the weekend I didn't celebrate too wildly as I thought he was offside from my seat in the Leazes. But aye, it should be a quick check to the linesman and then that should be it. I'm not having this offside by a toe/end of a cock/pube any longer mind. Fuck VAR.

I just assumed he was offside. As he was that unmarked and they were playing such a high line. I’m surprised it was that close TBH. Him and I think Wilson were standing offside or right on the edge from the get go. 

 

FWIW, I’m not like this for every goal. Which is the metric Kaizero seems to be using for his ridiculous asteroid analogy  and I’m not so safety first when I’m in the ground. You get more caught up with it all and rarely have a vantage point to be calling something like offside. 
 

But when you’re watching with a TV angle and you can see it might be tight. I feel like VAR means you’re at least a bit more reserved with your celebrations. 
 

The way VAR is used, for offside in particular. Has become an absolute farce and is ruining the game for myself and also many others by the sounds of it. 

[Kaizero]

1 hour ago, joeyt said:

Again this just isn't true

 

I agree that from your subjective standpoint, it may not hold true. But, again:

 

1 hour ago, joeyt said:

And also that's the whole point.

 

We know there's going to be VAR looking at everything for every single goal which is why we can't celebrate properly as you have to constantly try to think about the passage of play you've just watched to think of any reason that VAR might get involved. 

 

It's exhausting and takes the emotion away from that moment

 

You are literally admitting that you're only doing what you're complaining about to yourself, by yourself, based solely on the fact a technology exists. That being a technology where it's, statistically for NUFC, 97.38% certain it won't happen when NUFC score a goal. If something happened 1 in 42 times, I'd not live my life assuming that 1 time out of 42 would happen every time it happened. It serves no purpose to even think about that 1 in 42 chance existing as you'd not do it for pretty much anything else that'd have a 1 in 42 chance of happening. 

 

If VAR overturns a goal, damn, okay. Guess that happened  

 

If the chances of VAR overturning a goal were significantly higher than they actually are, I'd probably share your view on the matter. But it's not, so I don't, and I struggle to understand the thought process behind it. As mentioned, more asteroids out of 100 asteroids similar to the 2032 asteroid reported in the media recently would impact earth than the amount of goals out of 100 likely to be overturned by VAR. Everyone nodded in agreement when it came to chances of the asteroid impacting earth being miniscule and nothing to really worry about whatsoever, yet something with an even less chance of happening (per 100 possibilities) somehow ruins people's experience of celebrating goals? 

 

I'm not trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult. I genuinely can't wrap my head around the thought process behind this, and I would actually be grateful if someone managed to make me understand it. I've tried to explain why I don't understand it, and my reasoning for not understanding it. I'd wholeheartedly welcome someone doing the same for why it makes sense. 

 

That said, I don't really think anyone actively posting in this thread is very likely to change their standpoints on this matter anytime soon – so this is probably as good a point as any to just agree to disagree 🤝🏼 (I'd still love an in-depth breakdown of the reasoning behind why VAR ruins goal celebrations for people, meaning deeper than the surface level "just knowing VAR exists ruins it" that's been repeated quite a bit 🙏🏼

 

Also, this goes without saying, but I genuinely value your opinions (goes for pretty much everyone that's posted in here about VAR since my initial post) and even though we sometimes disagree, I fully respect everyone's opinion about pretty much everything other than, say, "noncing isn't that bad" and similar  I know I've had a tendency to end up sounding way more aggressive/conflict-seeking that I've ever intended recently, but that's never been my intent and apologies to anyone whose feathers I've accidentally ruffled if I've come across that way  

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I don’t know how important the amount of goals that get disallowed is. The point is that a wait period has been created, involving something that the fans in the ground cannot know.
 

So if there’s a chance of offside, it’s now more a potential goal than an actual goal. It’s not a goal until a couple of minutes later. 

 

It’s mainly those goals with a possibility of offside that I can’t celebrate now. This may make me an asteroid denier, I don’t know. But it’s how I feel. 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by AyeDubbleYoo

[Kid Icarus]

The cautious celebration thing is definitely real. I do it and I've spoken to many people on here and irl who do it.

 

I'm pro-VAR on the scale despite its obvious existing flaws, but I'm not sure why some of those flaws are being talked about like they don't exist and/or are just individual personal failings that need correction, despite them being known and having a wide impact. 

[Erikse]

What if I do worry about the asteroid? Would it never make sense for me to celebrate goals then, because VAR?

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Erikse

[Kaizero]

46 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

I'm not sure why some of those flaws are being talked about like they don't exist and/or are just individual personal failings that need correction, despite them being known and having a wide impact. 

 

From my point of view, with regards to my side of the argument on the subject, it's that whilst it's undeniable that the effects exist – I can't comprehend the logic behind it existing en masse. A quick google search tells me the odds of getting in a car accident is 1 in 366 (regardless of the severity of the "accident, so any accident and not just accidents resulting in injury/death), given the amount of car rides the average person takes over the course of a year, the risk of an accident* appears, and feels, quite high. 

 

i've never gotten in a car and worried about the chance of an accident happening, though. And I guess that's the crux of my issue trying to comprehend why some people (not all) complain about VAR ruining their goal-celebratory experience as a supporter watching a match. To me, it feels like these people have been told the odds of a goal being overturned and can't get it out of their heads, thus making them unable to celebrate goals as they used to. But the same people, if told the odds of being in a car crash, wouldn't give that a second  thought or let the statistic affect their "enjoyment" of a car ride. That's the point I'm "stuck" at, because I don't understand why one thing is different to all others, seemingly just because it's football-related  

 

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I don’t know how important the amount of goals that get disallowed is. The point is that a wait period has been created, involving something that the fans in the ground cannot know.

 

I don't really understand why the fact the "waiting period" now exists really factors into any of these scenarios. Before VAR the ref would blow his whistle after the ball crosses the goal line to either award the goal or disallow it. After VAR, the possibility that the ref blows his whistle after the ball has crossed the goal line to call for a VAR review has been introduced – so far we're on the same page. But the ref blowing his whistle to call for a VAR review doesn't remove the moment the ball crosses the goal line, which should be the moment of spontaneous celebration for supporters of the scoring team. The "wait" to discover if the goal stands or not is a new aspect of the modern game, but it's clearly a positive – as fewer goals that should have been disallowed, stand, and more goals that shouldn't have been disallowed, also stand. 

 

Pierluigi Collina described his view on the "wait" as something that inherently shouldn't stop spontaneous celebrations occurring the moment fans observe the ball cross the goal line, as well as adding a "secondary moment of celebration" in the cases where a goal is awarded that was originally disallowed – or a goal sent for a VAR check, standing. Which, according to him, created more celebration amongst fans rather than less. Now, I fully accept that him being the FIFA referee boss and one of the men spearheading VAR's implementation and continued development means he'll be speaking with a fair amount of bias in his takes. Still, I struggle to make it not make sense. 

 

––––––––––––

 

TL;DR I don't think I'll ever understand it, but I acknowledge the fact that it has an effect on a lot of people. The main reason it bothers me is that I feel it's an argument that overshadows arguments being made that could actually improve VAR for the better, as no change/improvement to VAR will ever remove the possibility that a goal gets overturned by it – ensuring goals scored are legitimate kinda is its main reason for existing, after all. 

 

In short; I'll not understand why anyone would rather the below goal never happens than there being a "waiting time" for VAR to give it:

 

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

For me it’s mainly the fact there’s something a fan watching the game can never see (a millimetre offside call) that can potentially rule out a goal. And we won’t know for sure that it’s a goal until the check is complete. And there’s also a chance a replay will be reviewed and an inexplicable decision will still be made (a foul that was a dive, a handball that was accidental). 

 

Of course goals could be disallowed by referees and assistants before, but it was instant and pretty rare. Although goals being disallowed is relatively rare, the check is routine and the possibility always exists.
 

It can’t really be compared to an asteroid or car crash because it’s forced into the front of mind by design. It’s more like if there was a thing on your screen every time you started the car saying how likely this journey was to end in an accident

 

Don’t get me wrong, I still forget VAR exists sometimes and celebrate a goal fully. But after a second or two I’ll be looking for the VAR. It’s mainly when it’s a through-ball or something like that where I don’t celebrate because of the offside potential. The feeling is more like, “OK, we’ve registered a potential goal here, let’s see if there’s anything that stops it”. 
 

I mean, decisions are a thing in football and always have and will be. So in that sense nothing has changed. I just feel the addition of this extra examination has killed some of the joy. 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by AyeDubbleYoo

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I think speeding up the communication and the decision would obviously help. It normally takes about a minute for the screen in the stadium to update to tell us there’s a check. And usually the game has been restarted by the referee before the result of the check even comes up. Those practicalities are a shambles and TBH a disgrace to an elite sport. 
 

With automated offside it might eventually even be possible to indicate whether a player is offside before they even shoot. 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by AyeDubbleYoo

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, Kaizero said:

 

From my point of view, with regards to my side of the argument on the subject, it's that whilst it's undeniable that the effects exist – I can't comprehend the logic behind it existing en masse. A quick google search tells me the odds of getting in a car accident is 1 in 366 (regardless of the severity of the "accident, so any accident and not just accidents resulting in injury/death), given the amount of car rides the average person takes over the course of a year, the risk of an accident* appears, and feels, quite high. 

 

i've never gotten in a car and worried about the chance of an accident happening, though. And I guess that's the crux of my issue trying to comprehend why some people (not all) complain about VAR ruining their goal-celebratory experience as a supporter watching a match. To me, it feels like these people have been told the odds of a goal being overturned and can't get it out of their heads, thus making them unable to celebrate goals as they used to. But the same people, if told the odds of being in a car crash, wouldn't give that a second  thought or let the statistic affect their "enjoyment" of a car ride. That's the point I'm "stuck" at, because I don't understand why one thing is different to all others, seemingly just because it's football-related  

 

Those odds might be fine from a pure perspective, but from an applied perspective they're demonstrably perceived differently and ignore a few key things like. Whatever way you want to slice it, the end result is that human fan behaviour has changed as a result of VAR. You can look at the goals scored, look at those disallowed by VAR and reverse engineer how people should act based on the percentage of goals disallowed goals vs total goals, but you're doing that with hindsight, ignoring the regularity that it happens per match, and ignoring the human, emotional element.

 

You can easily flatten the creases and present the odds by average in a way that I think gives you a better (albeit still rough) indication of why people act in the way that they do.

 

• Last season there were 110 decisions overturned by VAR, 33 of which lead to goals and 50 of which lead to overturned goals.
• 83 goal decisions over 38 weeks comes to just over 2 a week on average.
• 10 games per week so the perception of roughly a 1 in 5 chance it happens at some point in your match. 
• Pretty decent odds that it'll happen in your match and by extension, to the team you support.
• All of that is not even including the goal decisions that get checked and not changed, with everyone in the stadium and often at home, being in the dark about what the decision will be and what they're even checking for

 

Add in the hope, worry, paranoia, and pessemism that comes baked-in to being a football fan, along with the previous experience of goals being taken away from your team and you're basically at the point of inevitable human behaviour. In fact I think you'd be better off looking at this from an anthropology POV rather than stats one.

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Kid Icarus

[Kaizero]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Those odds might be fine from a pure perspective, but from an applied perspective they're demonstrably perceived differently and ignore a few key things like. Whatever way you want to slice it, the end result is that human fan behaviour has changed as a result of VAR. You can look at the goals scored, look at those disallowed by VAR and reverse engineer how people should act based on the percentage of goals disallowed goals vs total goals, but you're doing that with hindsight, ignoring the regularity that it happens per match, and ignoring the human, emotional element.

 

You can easily flatten the creases and present the odds by average in a way that I think gives you a better indication of why people act in the way that they do.

 

• Last season there were 110 decisions overturned by VAR, 33 of which lead to goals and 50 of which lead to overturned goals.
• 83 goal decisions over 38 weeks comes to just over 2 a week on average.
• 10 games per week so the perception of roughly a 1 in 5 chance it happens at some point in your match. 
• Pretty decent odds that it'll happen in your match and by extension, to the team you support.

Add in the hope, worry, paranoia, and pessemism that comes baked-in to being a football fan, along with the previous experience of goals being taken away from your team and you're basically at the point of inevitable human behaviour. In fact I think you'd be better off looking at this from an anthropology POV rather than stats one.

 

Just want to say that I really appreciate the effort it appears you've put into this post, this is the kind of rebuttal I hoped to receive as it genuinely gives a lot better insight into things than the standard type of response given in a discussion like this  

 

That said, I was along for the ride with you all the way up to this point of your post: "Add in the hope, worry, paranoia, and pessemism that comes baked-in to being a football fan, along with the previous experience of goals being taken away from your team and you're basically at the point of inevitable human behaviour."

 

The bold+cursive part of inadvertently restarted my mental loop of "not understanding", as it felt like you essentially said/owned up to the fact that goals could be taken away before VAR was a thing, as well.

 

Whilst I do accept and understand that at the present time, technology isn't advanced enough to avoid there being a "waiting period" if a goal gets sent for a more in-depth VAR review that requires a period of uncertainty to take place before a decision gets made. I'm sure most are aware of this, but just in case they're not; all goals scored in the PL undergoes a VAR review before "officially" counting – the ones that require waiting for a decision are just the most uncertain on-field calls made by the on-field refs.

 

But, yeah... when all is said and done, goals could be overturned/given before VAR, just as they can after VAR. The issue I'm left struggling to understand is perhaps what makes it so much different than knowing refs could overturn a goal before VAR? To me, the fact that the VAR reviews are as "visible" and "disruptive" as they are, combine to create an illusory effect that "VAR" is the reason a goal scored could be overturned and not just the fact the goal wasn't actually a goal and rightly got overturned by the refs/VAR? I mean that in the sense that, even with VAR, goals do still get overturned by on-field referee/linesman calls – and that fact just entirely undermines the argument against VAR when it comes to "ruining goals", for me, as incorrect goals can and will get overturned; be it by use of VAR or on-field calls by refs/linos  

 

TL;DR the complaint aimed at VAR for "ruining goals" feels like complaining to have something to complain about because in the end, the complaint boils down to "I can't celebrate a goal before I know it's a legitimate goal", which would be the case both with and without VAR.

[Kaizero]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I think speeding up the communication and the decision would obviously help. It normally takes about a minute for the screen in the stadium to update to tell us there’s a check. And usually the game has been restarted by the referee before the result of the check even comes up. Those practicalities are a shambles and TBH a disgrace to an elite sport. 
 

With automated offside it might eventually even be possible to indicate whether a player is offside before they even shoot. 

 

My personal biggest gripe with VAR is how horribly it's been implemented and that it lacks a universal framework of rules for its implementation. Please don't mistake my annoyance/disbelief at the one particular anti-VAR sentiment I'm complaining about here as me being pro-VAR no matter the circumstance, as I'm extremely fed up and frustrated with the way it's been (and is being) implemented at the top level. IMO it was implemented waaaay before it was ready to be implemented, and the lack of guidelines given referees regarding how to make use of/implement VAR into their refereeing has been, and is, a total shambles. 

 

A refereeing team from England officiating a CL match between Spanish and German teams will be utilizing VAR in a very foreign way to both set of fans, as well as the players/staff on both teams. Same goes for a Norwegian refereeing team officiating, say, an EL match between Dutch and English sides. There should be a universal framework given referees of all nations making use of VAR that they are to follow when it comes to utilizing/implementing VAR into their game, but there isn't, and it's all a complete shambles.

[Cf]

Jesus Christ lads. No-one's reading all this stuff surely?

[Kid Icarus]

18 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

 

Just want to say that I really appreciate the effort it appears you've put into this post, this is the kind of rebuttal I hoped to receive as it genuinely gives a lot better insight into things than the standard type of response given in a discussion like this  

 

That said, I was along for the ride with you all the way up to this point of your post: "Add in the hope, worry, paranoia, and pessemism that comes baked-in to being a football fan, along with the previous experience of goals being taken away from your team and you're basically at the point of inevitable human behaviour."

 

The bold+cursive part of inadvertently restarted my mental loop of "not understanding", as it felt like you essentially said/owned up to the fact that goals could be taken away before VAR was a thing, as well.

 

Whilst I do accept and understand that at the present time, technology isn't advanced enough to avoid there being a "waiting period" if a goal gets sent for a more in-depth VAR review that requires a period of uncertainty to take place before a decision gets made. I'm sure most are aware of this, but just in case they're not; all goals scored in the PL undergoes a VAR review before "officially" counting – the ones that require waiting for a decision are just the most uncertain on-field calls made by the on-field refs.

 

But, yeah... when all is said and done, goals could be overturned/given before VAR, just as they can after VAR. The issue I'm left struggling to understand is perhaps what makes it so much different than knowing refs could overturn a goal before VAR? To me, the fact that the VAR reviews are as "visible" and "disruptive" as they are, combine to create an illusory effect that "VAR" is the reason a goal scored could be overturned and not just the fact the goal wasn't actually a goal and rightly got overturned by the refs/VAR? I mean that in the sense that, even with VAR, goals do still get overturned by on-field referee/linesman calls – and that fact just entirely undermines the argument against VAR when it comes to "ruining goals", for me, as incorrect goals can and will get overturned; be it by use of VAR or on-field calls by refs/linos  

 

TL;DR the complaint aimed at VAR for "ruining goals" feels like complaining to have something to complain about because in the end, the complaint boils down to "I can't celebrate a goal before I know it's a legitimate goal", which would be the case both with and without VAR.

Very easy one to clarify. I was talking about the previous experience of goals being taken away from your team by VAR, not before VAR.

[Kaizero]

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Very easy one to clarify. I was talking about the previous experience of goals being taken away from your team by VAR, not before VAR.

 

Even so, the goal's being taken away because it wasn't a goal? Meaning that if VAR takes a goal away, there wasn't actually a goal to celebrate to begin with? 

 

I guess at the end of the day the main problem might just be me not understanding human psychology  

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Kaizero

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, Kaizero said:

 

Even so, the goal's being taken away because it (with all likelihood with the exception of a rare VAR-ref horror show) wasn't a goal to begin with? If VAR takes the goal way, you didn't really have a goal to celebrate to begin with?

 

I guess at the end of the day the main problem might just be me not understanding human psychology  

Let me put this in a format that I think will make things clearer. 

 

 

[Hanshithispantz]

28 minutes ago, Cf said:

Jesus Christ lads. No-one's reading all this stuff surely?