V.A.R

[Square Ball]

VAR again causes controversy, I thought it was brought in for clear and obvious decisions.  The Matta not goal was by a knee, the decision in the furs game tonigh was also well dodgy. Will it causd more problems than it will solve.

[Boycey]

It's been a farce so far... they may go back to the drawing board with it.

[AZOffaly]

I'm in favour of accuracy of decisions, but soccer has made a balls of it. The games are nigh on unwatchable, and it's pretty clear nobody in the stadium knows why or what they are looking at. I think they need to reassess what it's used for, and if there's any way of showing the crowd what is being looked at. That works pretty well in Rugby.

[T Fearon]

Had Spurs backed to score in first 15 minutes😠😠

[Square Ball]

Had Spurs backed to score in first 15 minutes😠😠

They do say every cloud has a silver lining.

[Boycey]

I'm in favour of accuracy of decisions, but soccer has made a balls of it. The games are nigh on unwatchable, and it's pretty clear nobody in the stadium knows why or what they are looking at. I think they need to reassess what it's used for, and if there's any way of showing the crowd what is being looked at. That works pretty well in Rugby.

I'm all for getting decisions right but currently it's taking the spontaneity/emotion out of football and that's never good..

[laoislad]

Had Spurs backed to score in first 15 minutes😠😠

They do say every cloud has a silver lining.

[screenexile]

I'm in favour of accuracy of decisions, but soccer has made a balls of it. The games are nigh on unwatchable, and it's pretty clear nobody in the stadium knows why or what they are looking at. I think they need to reassess what it's used for, and if there's any way of showing the crowd what is being looked at. That works pretty well in Rugby.

I'm all for getting decisions right but currently it's taking the spontaneity/emotion out of football and that's never good..

f**k that if they still get the decisions wrong then what's the point??

[David McKeown]

Never been a fan of proposed VAR. I think it creates a higherarchy of rules. A decision about a throw in or a corner that leads to a killer pass that leads to a penalty has just as much impact on a game as the penalty decision but isn't reviewable (it's only our perception of the impact that's different). If it's not to be implemented for all decisions which it clearly can't be it shouldn't be implemented for any in my opinion. 

[Esmarelda]

Never been a fan of proposed VAR. I think it creates a higherarchy of rules. A decision about a throw in or a corner that leads to a killer pass that leads to a penalty has just as much impact on a game as the penalty decision but isn't reviewable (it's only our perception of the impact that's different). If it's not to be implemented for all decisions which it clearly can't be it shouldn't be implemented for any in my opinion. 

Surely some is better than none?

I didn't see the Mata incident. What happened? Teething and communication problems are hardly a reason to do away with it. If it sorts out some key decisions then I'm all for it.

[magpie seanie]

It's introduction has been so astonishingly bad that I can only come to one conclusion - the powers that be do not want it and have set it up to fail.

[TabClear]

Never been a fan of proposed VAR. I think it creates a higherarchy of rules. A decision about a throw in or a corner that leads to a killer pass that leads to a penalty has just as much impact on a game as the penalty decision but isn't reviewable (it's only our perception of the impact that's different). If it's not to be implemented for all decisions which it clearly can't be it shouldn't be implemented for any in my opinion.

Do the refs have an instruction to allow play to develop pending a review? Take for example the Mo Salah penalty that was awarded against WBA. If the ball had not went out of play immediately (I think for a gola kick) and WBA had broke to score at the other end which in theory that could be five-six minutes later? If the VAR officials did not pick up on the initial tug immediately because they were watching the  developing attack, but then noted it in the aftermath of the WBA goal, would the tug on Salah have been reviewed, the WBA goal chalked off and Liverpool awarded a penalty? Also, what happens with that five minutes of play??

Is there any sort of "reset" like NFL where if the attacking team get another play off, any previous play cannot be reviewed? All seems to point towards Soccer not being suited to VAr as there are limited defined stoppages. The games that it works best in are the ones like cricket/tennis/NFL where there are multiple, regular stoppages.

[Main Street]

I get the impression they are terrified of making mistakes and have slithered under some tediously anal procedure.

I'm totally for the technology being used in football and anyway this is only a meaningless cup competition its being introduced in.
Managers whining about it can be given the dog's biscuit.

If in time it's used to persecute players who dive and simulate then it will start paying for itself in the eyes of the supporters.
Disallowing a goal for spotting a shirt tug 10 seconds before doesn't light my fire.

[Taylor]

It's introduction has been so astonishingly bad that I can only come to one conclusion - the powers that be do not want it and have set it up to fail.

Agree - it is almost inconceivable how they can screw up so many things in such a short period of time.

Should be simple enough - for a goal/scoring opportunity/red card - review should be used and if any foul play was involved in the build up then make the decision.

Seems they dont know what they should/shouldnt review - they make decisions on pictures that no one else has a view of - draw wobbly lines to prove something etc etc.

Incompetent or smart

[David McKeown]

Never been a fan of proposed VAR. I think it creates a higherarchy of rules. A decision about a throw in or a corner that leads to a killer pass that leads to a penalty has just as much impact on a game as the penalty decision but isn't reviewable (it's only our perception of the impact that's different). If it's not to be implemented for all decisions which it clearly can't be it shouldn't be implemented for any in my opinion. 

Surely some is better than none?

I didn't see the Mata incident. What happened? Teething and communication problems are hardly a reason to do away with it. If it sorts out some key decisions then I'm all for it.

I disagree because it makes the injustice of the ones it doesn't sort out even greatenso there is no net gainr. For me there's no justification for allowing review of some decisions but not allowing review of others. Particularly when it comes to decisions that are purely matter of fact and not matters of interpretation.