VAR

RD2910 said:
That part was the rule, but then you said if it hits a defender it should cancel it out, which would be far stricter than it's ever been.
Click to expand...

Nope, maybe I didn't explain it well enough. If your onside when your team mate plays it forward, then hits a defender when you've moved into an offside position, regardless of whether that was a 'deliberate' play or not, your still onside. If your team mate plays a square ball cross field then it hits a defender and bounces through to the striker in an offside position, then its onside. That's how I've always understood it.

Maybe I'm making the wrong argument 🤔
 

Jacko93 said:
Nope, maybe I didn't explain it well enough. If your onside when your team mate plays it forward, then hits a defender when you've moved into an offside position, regardless of whether that was a 'deliberate' play or not, your still onside. If your team mate plays a square ball cross field then it hits a defender and bounces through to the striker in an offside position, then its onside. That's how I've always understood it.

Maybe I'm making the wrong argument 🤔
Click to expand...
First situation, if you're onside when your teammate plays it you're onside, no matter what touches a defender takes. Second situation, it depends on the circumstances: Arsenal's goal that was disallowed earlier this season was correctly ruled out because Beto had practically no chance to control the touch. I think it would be really harsh on defenders if every one of their touches was treated in the way you say.
 
Why don't they adhere to the "clear and obvious" mantra that is supposed to govern VAR If your taking 5-10 minutes watching a slow motion replay and having all sorts of lines drawn it blatantly isn't clear and obvious. The way it is implemented in this country has ruined goal celebrations. It needs scrapping completely and just stick with eagle eye.
 
Terrarian said:
Why don't they adhere to the "clear and obvious" mantra that is supposed to govern VAR If your taking 5-10 minutes watching a slow motion replay and having all sorts of lines drawn it blatantly isn't clear and obvious. The way it is implemented in this country has ruined goal celebrations. It needs scrapping completely and just stick with eagle eye.
Click to expand...
You're ffs lol
 

maccavennie said:
"Oliver had the best view in the house"

Well he must have shyte in his eyes then as he missed the shirt pull on Beto.
Click to expand...
'for me, it wasn't enough to go down, no penalty.'

Of course, had it been in our penalty box it would have gone like,

'there was contact, a tug on the shirt, he was entitled to go down and in the modern game, thats a penalty'

The game is bent
 
arch stanton said:
'for me, it wasn't enough to go down, no penalty.'

Of course, had it been in our penalty box it would have gone like,

'there was contact, a tug on the shirt, he was entitled to go down and in the modern game, thats a penalty'

The game is bent
Click to expand...

He's an absolute bellend. Hated him as a ref, hate him on ref watch.

Corrupt, baldy little goblin
 

Alanbileysfeathercut said:
Dermot said var wouldn't or won't go against the ref....interesting
Click to expand...
He’s nothing more of note than those idiots that are on Talksport 24 hours a day.

VAR is intended to go against the ref if there is a “clear and obvious error”

Problem is that PGMOL deem any favourable outcome to us as a “clear and obvious error”

VAR isn’t a problem, it’s the clowns that operate it who are the problem
 
arch stanton said:
what's the point then? Baffling, look at cricket when the video umpire corrects an on-field call, they shrug their shoulders and get on with it in a mature, grown up way. Football is being run by clowns.
Click to expand...
Far more respect for the umpires and the fact that getting the correct decision is actually really tough in cricket. The people who are really in charge would never allow it to work like that in football.
 
RD2910 said:
Far more respect for the umpires and the fact that getting the correct decision is actually really tough in cricket. The people who are really in charge would never allow it to work like that in football.
Click to expand...
many football fans know what a foul looks like in real time, but it would be incredibly hard to define what a foul actually is. Slowing footage down and trying to define it will always tie you up in knots and inconsistencies.
 
RD2910 said:
First situation, if you're onside when your teammate plays it you're onside, no matter what touches a defender takes. Second situation, it depends on the circumstances: Arsenal's goal that was disallowed earlier this season was correctly ruled out because Beto had practically no chance to control the touch. I think it would be really harsh on defenders if every one of their touches was treated in the way you say.
Click to expand...
That would lead to situations where there would be no reason to try and block a cross.

Similar situation happened in ice hockey many years ago when they introduced a delay of game 2 minute minor penalty for shooting the puck directly over the glass. It lead to situations where players trying to score a goal were penalised for trying and they had to change the rule so that it applied only in your defensive end.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top