Fans Against VAR - Join us

[Carsy]

Well no, once it gets to say, in my example 15cm, then you can see it's clearly offside so there'd be no argument that it was too tight to call.

So exactly the same as it is now? Except there is no margin. Why is 15cm fair? Why not 10? Why not 7.5? You can’t just pluck a random number and say ‘that’ll do pig’

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

Also if you are going to call me an idiot, I would at least learn how to spell.

Oh wow, rapier like comeback, but check my posts, einstein, and you may find i am the forum's worst typist.
I made an exception for you in this one.

 

[fansagainstvar]

Oh wow, rapier like comeback, but check my posts, einstein, and you may find i am the forum's worst typist.
I made an exception for you in this one.

I find it genuinely strange how your post attacks me for seemingly no reason.

What have I said specifically that you have issue with? I am happy to discuss VAR with you, you just seem to want to call me an idiot for no reason.

I don't want to spend my evening checking your posts if this is the standard of dirge you type.

 

[Kenny]

Want to flirt do it via PM Pav.

VAR dude. Just pop him on ignore and move on from this or we get stuck in a circle.

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

I find it genuinely strange how your post attacks me for seemingly no reason.

What have I said specifically that you have issue with? I am happy to discuss VAR with you, you just seem to want to call me an idiot for no reason.

I don't want to spend my evening checking your posts if this is the standard of dirge you type.

Ok ,stop confusing me with someone who gives a shit, and we have detante.

 

[The Bear]

So exactly the same as it is now? Except there is no margin. Why is 15cm fair? Why not 10? Why not 7.5? You can’t just pluck a random number and say ‘that’ll do pig’

People really seem to struggle understanding this. The distance needs to be judged by trials. The idea is that once you get a certain sized margin then the offside decision becomes clear to the naked eye.

If you upped the margin to a metre then it is really obvious that it's offside at that distance. The concept is to get a distance that is acceptable where everyone can see that it's definitely offside, but the onside decisions you can say "fair enough, he's maybe half a boot off but it's level enough for it to be onside" without relying on tiny distances ruling goals out. As I said that perfect distance is something which would take trial and error to get right.

Right now everyone complains that the decisions are too tight and are barely noticeable to the naked eye. That is what a margin should rectify. The human eye verdict should be clearer cut.

 

[Carsy]

People really seem to struggle understanding this. The distance needs to be judged by trials. The idea is that once you get a certain sized margin then the offside decision becomes clear to the naked eye.

If you upped the margin to a metre then it is really obvious that it's offside at that distance. The concept is to get a distance that is acceptable where everyone can see that it's definitely offside, but the onside decisions you can say "fair enough, he's maybe half a boot off but it's level enough for it to be onside" without relying on tiny distances ruling goals out. As I said that perfect distance is something which would take trial and error to get right.

Right now everyone complains that the decisions are too tight and are barely noticeable to the naked eye. That is what a margin should rectify. The human eye verdict should be clearer cut.

Just think that complicates it more IMV. Personally no issue with the offside. But each to their own

 

[fansagainstvar]

People really seem to struggle understanding this. The distance needs to be judged by trials. The idea is that once you get a certain sized margin then the offside decision becomes clear to the naked eye.

If you upped the margin to a metre then it is really obvious that it's offside at that distance. The concept is to get a distance that is acceptable where everyone can see that it's definitely offside, but the onside decisions you can say "fair enough, he's maybe half a boot off but it's level enough for it to be onside" without relying on tiny distances ruling goals out. As I said that perfect distance is something which would take trial and error to get right.

Right now everyone complains that the decisions are too tight and are barely noticeable to the naked eye. That is what a margin should rectify. The human eye verdict should be clearer cut.

I totally agree with this. If VAR has to stay the acceptable decision would need to be decided, and then automated.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

People really seem to struggle understanding this. The distance needs to be judged by trials. The idea is that once you get a certain sized margin then the offside decision becomes clear to the naked eye.

If you upped the margin to a metre then it is really obvious that it's offside at that distance. The concept is to get a distance that is acceptable where everyone can see that it's definitely offside, but the onside decisions you can say "fair enough, he's maybe half a boot off but it's level enough for it to be onside" without relying on tiny distances ruling goals out. As I said that perfect distance is something which would take trial and error to get right.

Right now everyone complains that the decisions are too tight and are barely noticeable to the naked eye. That is what a margin should rectify. The human eye verdict should be clearer cut.

It’s a fucking shit idea. You are just moving the fucking lines a bit. Offside is offside. Automate it.

 

[jd1981]

Dermot the defender basically said the first penalty was a hell of an admission by Salisbury to say he’d have overturned the first penalty and that it wasn’t clear and obvious, then says the second was a penalty and the right decision. Then no mention of clear and obvious how convenient.

 

[Tony Towner]

I don't care what Webb, Gallagher, Walton etc say. Fans and anyone that's played football at the most junior of levels know what is and isn't a penalty in the vast majority of situations. They can create their excuses, fake interpretations and disingenuous explanations, but ultimately people know it's bullshit and ruining the game.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Dermot Gallagher is just full of shit.

 

[jd1981]

Problem is we don’t talk much about football anymore just VAR, never want us relegated and never will but the one bright note would be not debating VAR.

 

[Wolftone]

Take away clear and obvious, mike the ref up so we can hear him as they do in rugby. Get rid of the touchline monitor.
"Wolves 22 has tripped Fulham 10, it's obviously inside the box, is there any reason I cant award the penalty?"
"Checking replays now Mike, The Wolves 22 has got a touch on the ball before the contact with Fulham's 10, its only a nick but enough to overule the penalty Mike, so we are going with no penalty".
Cant see who could be annoyed with that scenario, not Fulham, Wolves, pundits, anyone.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

That’s not what the PGMOL want though.

While those cunts hold sway nothing will improve.

 

[Wolftone]

That’s not what the PGMOL want though.

While those cunts hold sway nothing will improve.

I totally agree.

 

[Kenny]

That’s not what the PGMOL want though.

While those cunts hold sway nothing will improve.

FIFA don't want audio either because they think it will be confusing for the fans.

They do have a point when you hear the audio for our games or the Liverpool/Spurs one. You have 3 or 4 people talking at the same time. Easily solved - Ref and the main VAR speak. VAR tech supplies the images as requested. No one else speaks and that avoids any confusion.

 

[sycophantia]

Take away clear and obvious, mike the ref up so we can hear him as they do in rugby. Get rid of the touchline monitor.
"Wolves 22 has tripped Fulham 10, it's obviously inside the box, is there any reason I cant award the penalty?"
"Checking replays now Mike, The Wolves 22 has got a touch on the ball before the contact with Fulham's 10, its only a nick but enough to overule the penalty Mike, so we are going with no penalty".
Cant see who could be annoyed with that scenario, not Fulham, Wolves, pundits, anyone.

I'll vote for you to be in charge of VAR.

 

[leedswolf]

FIFA don't want audio either because they think it will be confusing for the fans.

They do have a point when you hear the audio for our games or the Liverpool/Spurs one. You have 3 or 4 people talking at the same time. Easily solved - Ref and the main VAR speak. VAR tech supplies the images as requested. No one else speaks and that avoids any confusion.

Indeed. In other sports the conversation is directly between the onfield ref and the video ref.

 

[Johnny75]

FIFA don't want audio either because they think it will be confusing for the fans.

They do have a point when you hear the audio for our games or the Liverpool/Spurs one. You have 3 or 4 people talking at the same time. Easily solved - Ref and the main VAR speak. VAR tech supplies the images as requested. No one else speaks and that avoids any confusion.

FIFA and IFAB are part of the problem. Officials and Bureaucrats who forget their place in the world.