England

[Figures 1-0 Football]

They are 3 really average keepers like, wouldn’t be surprised if whoever turns out to be first choice makes a significant howler at some stage.

[Interpolic]

How can he still be picking Hart, man? 

 

Can only be for his experience, if he gets on the pitch it's guaranteed goal leakage.  He's completely and utterly finished.

[Optimistic Nut]

No issue at all with Pickford being number 1 as long as Southgate doesn't throw him under the bus first sign of a mistake. I'd just give him the shirt and let him have it until someone clearly better comes along.

[SEMTEX]

No issue at all with Pickford being number 1 as long as Southgate doesn't throw him under the bus first sign of a mistake. I'd just give him the shirt and let him have it until someone clearly better comes along.

 

Happy for anyone to be thrown under a bus personally. Tournament football. Kane can't hit a barn door like '16 when we face choonisia? bench the cunt.

 

Pickford shits the bed, bring in the next useless cunt. Keep doing it until Steve Harper gets a callup if we have to.

[Cronky]

I would also argue, that VAR was supposed to be for clear/obvious/mega-blatant decisions. I find it hard to classify this under one of those categories.

 

According to the Times, the FA are looking at leaving the decision to the VAR official, rather than the official alerting the referee to have another look.

 

I can see the wisdom of that. Once the referee was shown Tarkowski's challenge, he really had no choice but to give a pen. It would have been very difficult, under public scrutiny, to use the sort of informal discretion that people are talking about here (ie had the attacker lost control of the ball, was the contact accidental)

 

Similarly, the VAR official may have simply thought, in practice, that looks dodgy, the ref ought to have another look, rather than deciding that the mistake is 'clear and obvious', which is of course a subjective judgement anyway.

 

If you want decisions to be tempered by what you might call common sense, taking into account the 'grey areas', then I think it helps if the judgement rests with one person. All of which, for me, makes it annoying that they've decided to use VAR at the World Cup before it's been properly tested out and refined by experience.

[Ketsbaia]

I would also argue, that VAR was supposed to be for clear/obvious/mega-blatant decisions. I find it hard to classify this under one of those categories.

 

According to the Times, the FA are looking at leaving the decision to the VAR official, rather than the official alerting the referee to have another look.

 

I can see the wisdom of that. Once the referee was shown Tarkowski's challenge, he really had no choice but to give a pen. It would have been very difficult, under public scrutiny, to use the sort of informal discretion that people are talking about here (ie had the attacker lost control of the ball, was the contact accidental)

 

Similarly, the VAR official may have simply thought, in practice, that looks dodgy, the ref ought to have another look, rather than deciding that the mistake is 'clear and obvious', which is of course a subjective judgement anyway.

 

If you want decisions to be tempered by what you might call common sense, taking into account the 'grey areas', then I think it helps if the judgement rests with one person. All of which, for me, makes it annoying that they've decided to use VAR at the World Cup before it's been properly tested out and refined by experience.

 

That's what I originally thought it was - ref in another room watches the video, tells the ref his decision. And only for certain situations such as penalties, crossing the line etc.

 

There's a way that VAR can work but it needs a lot of adjustments.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

What’s the point in the referee making any decisions then? The VAR referee will just tell him when he should have given something.

 

May as well put a big electronic board up which shows adverts until a decision is needed and then the crowd all count down from 10 in unison whilst the decision is unveiled.

 

Hopefully we’ll have people selling popcorn in the stands soon too..

[Twinport53]

 

We may aswell get rid of the ref full stop. The Italian players wanted a corner the other night, nobody appealed for a pen until "VAR wants the ref to have a look at something".

 

It's just going to micromanage every decision and ruin the game. I for one, cannot wait.

[Hanshithispantz]

They've completely ruined the game like. I don't know why everyone isn't absolutely fuming. Baffled some are defending it.

[triggs]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

[Twinport53]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

 

Yeah, but that means VAR will be giving 6 pens a game for shirt grabbing in the box then?

[triggs]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

 

Yeah, but that means VAR will be giving 6 pens a game for shirt grabbing in the box then?

Fair point really, probably not, but it just seems to be a football wide acceptance that shirt pulling is allowed, video reffing or not

[Twinport53]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

 

Yeah, but that means VAR will be giving 6 pens a game for shirt grabbing in the box then?

Fair point really, probably not, but it just seems to be a football wide acceptance that shirt pulling is allowed, video reffing or not

 

Is part of football not based on luck and subjectivity? Different people have different opinions on what is a bad tackle or foul. The fact people can argue both for and against Italy getting a pen shows it simply isn't as easy as "VAR says it's a pen".

 

Would Italy have felt hard done by for not getting a pen? Probably not.

[triggs]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

 

Yeah, but that means VAR will be giving 6 pens a game for shirt grabbing in the box then?

Fair point really, probably not, but it just seems to be a football wide acceptance that shirt pulling is allowed, video reffing or not

 

Is part of football not based on luck and subjectivity? Different people have different opinions on what is a bad tackle or foul. The fact people can argue both for and against Italy getting a pen shows it simply isn't as easy as "VAR says it's a pen".

 

Would Italy have felt hard done by for not getting a pen? Probably not.

I don't understand those opinions though. Its clearly a penalty going by the rules of the game. VAR has generally been shambolic when trialled in the FA cup so far but I don't understand the outrage when it actually does its job the way it should

[Figures 1-0 Football]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

 

Yeah, but that means VAR will be giving 6 pens a game for shirt grabbing in the box then?

Fair point really, probably not, but it just seems to be a football wide acceptance that shirt pulling is allowed, video reffing or not

 

Is part of football not based on luck and subjectivity? Different people have different opinions on what is a bad tackle or foul. The fact people can argue both for and against Italy getting a pen shows it simply isn't as easy as "VAR says it's a pen".

 

Would Italy have felt hard done by for not getting a pen? Probably not.

 

Yup. VAR will never bring 100% accuracy because there is no such thing, it’s too subjective. How many times do different pundits, fans, players and managers see the same decision in a different way? The Italy one a prime example.

 

Any player going down in the box with any sort of contact will probably always be a penalty in the eyes of VAR, even though it probably shouldn’t.

 

The referee is influenced as soon as the VAR referee says ‘you should look at that’, it puts doubt into his mind straight away being told by another referee that they think it’s foul.

 

It’s all just a load of crap and totally unnecessary. Any sort of ‘pause’ in our game is a load of shite and can fuck off. Imagine the Forest game last season? Aye, we may have actually drew/won that game but it would have been totally unwatchable due to VAR.

[ohmelads]

I would also argue, that VAR was supposed to be for clear/obvious/mega-blatant decisions. I find it hard to classify this under one of those categories.

 

According to the Times, the FA are looking at leaving the decision to the VAR official, rather than the official alerting the referee to have another look.

 

I can see the wisdom of that. Once the referee was shown Tarkowski's challenge, he really had no choice but to give a pen. It would have been very difficult, under public scrutiny, to use the sort of informal discretion that people are talking about here (ie had the attacker lost control of the ball, was the contact accidental)

 

Similarly, the VAR official may have simply thought, in practice, that looks dodgy, the ref ought to have another look, rather than deciding that the mistake is 'clear and obvious', which is of course a subjective judgement anyway.

 

If you want decisions to be tempered by what you might call common sense, taking into account the 'grey areas', then I think it helps if the judgement rests with one person. All of which, for me, makes it annoying that they've decided to use VAR at the World Cup before it's been properly tested out and refined by experience.

 

That's what I originally thought it was - ref in another room watches the video, tells the ref his decision. And only for certain situations such as penalties, crossing the line etc.

 

There's a way that VAR can work but it needs a lot of adjustments.

 

Me too. Thought it was going to be quick and simple: clear and obvious error, video ref has a word in his ear. Replays can't eliminate those grey areas and the tech was surely only ever supposed to get rid of the howlers and blatant injustices.

 

Once a ref stops the game for 2 mins to leave the field and watch telly, he's under pressure to give the decision. Especially if he's done it several times already in the match and given no decision each time. After wasting everyone's time on 'false alarms', it ramps up the pressure to give a decision.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

 

Yeah, but that means VAR will be giving 6 pens a game for shirt grabbing in the box then?

Fair point really, probably not, but it just seems to be a football wide acceptance that shirt pulling is allowed, video reffing or not

 

Is part of football not based on luck and subjectivity? Different people have different opinions on what is a bad tackle or foul. The fact people can argue both for and against Italy getting a pen shows it simply isn't as easy as "VAR says it's a pen".

 

Would Italy have felt hard done by for not getting a pen? Probably not.

I don't understand those opinions though. Its clearly a penalty going by the rules of the game. VAR has generally been shambolic when trialled in the FA cup so far but I don't understand the outrage when it actually does its job the way it should

 

Well, it’s not.

 

Even more laughable that a few posts up you explain how shirt pulling is seen as acceptable in football - what?! By your rules of “contact causing someone to fall over is a foul” we should have about 30 penalties a game.

[triggs]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

 

Yeah, but that means VAR will be giving 6 pens a game for shirt grabbing in the box then?

Fair point really, probably not, but it just seems to be a football wide acceptance that shirt pulling is allowed, video reffing or not

 

Is part of football not based on luck and subjectivity? Different people have different opinions on what is a bad tackle or foul. The fact people can argue both for and against Italy getting a pen shows it simply isn't as easy as "VAR says it's a pen".

 

Would Italy have felt hard done by for not getting a pen? Probably not.

I don't understand those opinions though. Its clearly a penalty going by the rules of the game. VAR has generally been shambolic when trialled in the FA cup so far but I don't understand the outrage when it actually does its job the way it should

 

Well, it’s not.

 

Even more laughable that a few posts up you explain how shirt pulling is seen as acceptable in football - what?! By your rules of “contact causing someone to fall over is a foul” we should have about 30 penalties a game.

If a ref sees the foul for a penalty, he gives a penalty. If a ref sees shirt pulling, he probably doesn't give a penalty. I don't agree with it, but that's just the way it is.

 

I never said the bit in bold. I said if your legs or foot connect with another players legs or foot while not touching the ball and that contact is enough to impede the player or stop him from continuing his run, then its a foul, and it clearly is

[Twinport53]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

 

Yeah, but that means VAR will be giving 6 pens a game for shirt grabbing in the box then?

Fair point really, probably not, but it just seems to be a football wide acceptance that shirt pulling is allowed, video reffing or not

 

Is part of football not based on luck and subjectivity? Different people have different opinions on what is a bad tackle or foul. The fact people can argue both for and against Italy getting a pen shows it simply isn't as easy as "VAR says it's a pen".

 

Would Italy have felt hard done by for not getting a pen? Probably not.

 

Yup. VAR will never bring 100% accuracy because there is no such thing, it’s too subjective. How many times do different pundits, fans, players and managers see the same decision in a different way? The Italy one a prime example.

 

Any player going down in the box with any sort of contact will probably always be a penalty in the eyes of VAR, even though it probably shouldn’t.

 

The referee is influenced as soon as the VAR referee says ‘you should look at that’, it puts doubt into his mind straight away being told by another referee that they think it’s foul.

 

It’s all just a load of crap and totally unnecessary. Any sort of ‘pause’ in our game is a load of shite and can fuck off. Imagine the Forest game last season? Aye, we may have actually drew/won that game but it would have been totally unwatchable due to VAR.

 

 

The ref should still be able to look at VAR and say "IMO that is not a foul". As it stands refs feel they have to agreed with the video, no matter how soft the touch / contact. That is wrong and it'll ruin everything to the point it's a non-contact sport.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

 

Yeah, but that means VAR will be giving 6 pens a game for shirt grabbing in the box then?

Fair point really, probably not, but it just seems to be a football wide acceptance that shirt pulling is allowed, video reffing or not

 

Is part of football not based on luck and subjectivity? Different people have different opinions on what is a bad tackle or foul. The fact people can argue both for and against Italy getting a pen shows it simply isn't as easy as "VAR says it's a pen".

 

Would Italy have felt hard done by for not getting a pen? Probably not.

I don't understand those opinions though. Its clearly a penalty going by the rules of the game. VAR has generally been shambolic when trialled in the FA cup so far but I don't understand the outrage when it actually does its job the way it should

 

Well, it’s not.

 

Even more laughable that a few posts up you explain how shirt pulling is seen as acceptable in football - what?! By your rules of “contact causing someone to fall over is a foul” we should have about 30 penalties a game.

If a ref sees the foul for a penalty, he gives a penalty. If a ref sees shirt pulling, he probably doesn't give a penalty. I don't agree with it, but that's just the way it is.

 

I never said the bit in bold. I said if your legs or foot connect with another players legs or foot while not touching the ball and that contact is enough to impede the player or stop him from continuing his run, then its a foul, and it clearly is

 

But the contact in the Italy game didn’t impede the player in any way? What did it impede him from doing? He’d lost the ball and was already going to ground. He wasn’t running, he was falling.

 

“basically anything that involves your legs impeding the other player's legs without getting the ball is a foul and rightly so”

 

How many ‘tangles of legs’ do we see in football where both players just clip each other unintentionally? Who gets a foul then? How many times does a goalkeeper catch a player after a shot has been taken? Nothing is given, why? Because contact is inevitable and it’s ridiculous to penalise ever single touch.

[ohmelads]

He's surrounded by 3 players, nowhere to go, knows he's inside the box and goes for the dive. His foot's stood on which gives justification for a pen, but the problem is he's already going to ground which is the main counterargument.

 

It's not a pen I could ever see the Toon getting.

[Twinport53]

He's surrounded by 3 players, nowhere to go, knows he's inside the box and goes for the dive. His foot's stood on which gives justification for a pen, but the problem is he's already going to ground which is the main counterargument.

 

It's not a pen I could ever see the Toon getting.

 

Exactly, and even with VARs input, the ref should still be able to say with confidence "No, not for me. Play on."

[triggs]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

 

Yeah, but that means VAR will be giving 6 pens a game for shirt grabbing in the box then?

Fair point really, probably not, but it just seems to be a football wide acceptance that shirt pulling is allowed, video reffing or not

 

Is part of football not based on luck and subjectivity? Different people have different opinions on what is a bad tackle or foul. The fact people can argue both for and against Italy getting a pen shows it simply isn't as easy as "VAR says it's a pen".

 

Would Italy have felt hard done by for not getting a pen? Probably not.

I don't understand those opinions though. Its clearly a penalty going by the rules of the game. VAR has generally been shambolic when trialled in the FA cup so far but I don't understand the outrage when it actually does its job the way it should

 

Well, it’s not.

 

Even more laughable that a few posts up you explain how shirt pulling is seen as acceptable in football - what?! By your rules of “contact causing someone to fall over is a foul” we should have about 30 penalties a game.

If a ref sees the foul for a penalty, he gives a penalty. If a ref sees shirt pulling, he probably doesn't give a penalty. I don't agree with it, but that's just the way it is.

 

I never said the bit in bold. I said if your legs or foot connect with another players legs or foot while not touching the ball and that contact is enough to impede the player or stop him from continuing his run, then its a foul, and it clearly is

 

But the contact in the Italy game didn’t impede the player in any way? What did it impede him from doing? He’d lost the ball and was already going to ground. He wasn’t running, he was falling.

 

“basically anything that involves your legs impeding the other player's legs without getting the ball is a foul and rightly so”

 

How many ‘tangles of legs’ do we see in football where both players just clip each other unintentionally? Who gets a foul then? How many times does a goalkeeper catch a player after a shot has been taken? Nothing is given, why? Because contact is inevitable and it’s ridiculous to penalise ever single touch.

He had just been pushed/shouldered fairly by Tarkowski so was off balance, there's no way of knowing if he would have fell, then Tarkowski steps on his foot stopping him from running forward, which is a foul.

 

It doesn't matter if you unintentionally bring down the player by a tangle of legs, its a foul. The one with the ball who is impeded gets the free kick. If a player is running up the wing, and a guy behind clips him accidentally, causing him to fall over, its a foul.

 

This doesn't seem to be getting through to you as you keep making this point with the goalkeepers, so I'll say it again. Contact between upper body's of players is inevitable and fine as long as it isn't a clear push in the back or something. I'm talking about the contact between legs

[triggs]

He literally isn't already going to ground already He's off balance as he's just been shouldered/pushed fairly by Tarkowski, but he doesn't do any sort of diving motion until he gets stood on

[Figures 1-0 Football]

The ref still gets to make most of the calls and if he gets a major decision right the game should in theory just continue. It should be seen as a plus for VAR that it was able to give a penalty which was a penalty even if the players hadn't spotted it, not seen as a negative

 

Yeah, but that means VAR will be giving 6 pens a game for shirt grabbing in the box then?

Fair point really, probably not, but it just seems to be a football wide acceptance that shirt pulling is allowed, video reffing or not

 

Is part of football not based on luck and subjectivity? Different people have different opinions on what is a bad tackle or foul. The fact people can argue both for and against Italy getting a pen shows it simply isn't as easy as "VAR says it's a pen".

 

Would Italy have felt hard done by for not getting a pen? Probably not.

I don't understand those opinions though. Its clearly a penalty going by the rules of the game. VAR has generally been shambolic when trialled in the FA cup so far but I don't understand the outrage when it actually does its job the way it should

 

Well, it’s not.

 

Even more laughable that a few posts up you explain how shirt pulling is seen as acceptable in football - what?! By your rules of “contact causing someone to fall over is a foul” we should have about 30 penalties a game.

If a ref sees the foul for a penalty, he gives a penalty. If a ref sees shirt pulling, he probably doesn't give a penalty. I don't agree with it, but that's just the way it is.

 

I never said the bit in bold. I said if your legs or foot connect with another players legs or foot while not touching the ball and that contact is enough to impede the player or stop him from continuing his run, then its a foul, and it clearly is

 

But the contact in the Italy game didn’t impede the player in any way? What did it impede him from doing? He’d lost the ball and was already going to ground. He wasn’t running, he was falling.

 

“basically anything that involves your legs impeding the other player's legs without getting the ball is a foul and rightly so”

 

How many ‘tangles of legs’ do we see in football where both players just clip each other unintentionally? Who gets a foul then? How many times does a goalkeeper catch a player after a shot has been taken? Nothing is given, why? Because contact is inevitable and it’s ridiculous to penalise ever single touch.

He had just been pushed/shouldered fairly by Tarkowski so was off balance, there's no way of knowing if he would have fell, then Tarkowski steps on his foot stopping him from running forward, which is a foul.

 

It doesn't matter if you unintentionally bring down the player by a tangle of legs, its a foul. The one with the ball who is impeded gets the free kick. If a player is running up the wing, and a guy behind clips him accidentally, causing him to fall over, its a foul.

 

This doesn't seem to be getting through to you as you keep making this point with the goalkeepers, so I'll say it again. Contact between upper body's of players is inevitable and fine as long as it isn't a clear push in the back or something. I'm talking about the contact between legs

 

I was talking about legs too - a player tries to chip the keeper, misses, the momentum of the player and keeper running towards each other causes the player to go over. It happens in virtually every one on one situation. It’s not a foul because the ball (and any chance) has gone long before any accidental contact is made - exactly likethe Italy situation.

 

You said “the one with the ball gets the freekick” well, the Italy player had lost the ball. It was an accidental coming together and absolutely nothing more than that.