This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 10 Oct 22 5.25pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
Willo, I agree on first point entirely however with VAR now it has caused further fuel for the proverbial fire in my own humble opinion. As previously mentioned VAR is intended to relieve the pressure and subsequent fallout from a incorrect decision which would be influenced or hampered by live circumstances and the evidence so far is suggesting that hasn't happened or isn't happening as intended or desired. It must also be stated that officials, experts/pundits, fans et al as individuals or a collective will always disagree too, no matter the evidence and literature available. Secondly, I am entirely accepting of the fact that my views on explanations and accountability are not well researched, evidenced, considerate of all variables or even entirely thought through! More of a personal desire and less the academic proposal. I have neither the time nor, due to a current bug + chest infection, energy to invest as things stand! It's more a longstanding 'beef' I've quietly held. Before VAR was introduced a gentleman said to me words to the effect "What will we talk about down the Public House when VAR eradicates all controversy ?" I kindly asserted that there would still be controversy due to subjective decisions that will be made as part of the VAR process.VAR was not going to be a panacea. In bygone days there was animus directed towards the referee, now of course the referee AND VAR are subjected to fustigation ! Edited by Willo (10 Oct 2022 5.29pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
samprior Hamburg 10 Oct 22 5.35pm | |
---|---|
The level of inconsistency is staggering...but not surprising when it's the same incompetent refs that the system was brought in to help, are now the ones making the decisions at VAR. How the Rashford goal can be ruled out yet both West Ham goals involving handballs can be given. Utter joke. And I know it's not a handball but how VAR can't see that Dawson (he will never be forgiven) cheated for the penalty is beyond me. Fulham fans must have been fuming.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 10 Oct 22 5.35pm | |
---|---|
Some stats on almost everything referee based, some numbers have been crunched - others plain to see. Quite revealing in some cases; some strange anomalies too. Spurs mainly.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 10 Oct 22 5.50pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by samprior
The level of inconsistency is staggering...but not surprising when it's the same incompetent refs that the system was brought in to help, are now the ones making the decisions at VAR. How the Rashford goal can be ruled out yet both West Ham goals involving handballs can be given. Utter joke. And I know it's not a handball but how VAR can't see that Dawson (he will never be forgiven) cheated for the penalty is beyond me. Fulham fans must have been fuming. I do not believe that referees who have reached the Elite Level in the PL are "Incompetent" given the hoops they need to climb through to reach such a level. Indeed they will err from time to time, a charge that can be labelled at managers and players. Edited by Willo (10 Oct 2022 5.52pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 10 Oct 22 6.14pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by samprior
The level of inconsistency is staggering...but not surprising when it's the same incompetent refs that the system was brought in to help, are now the ones making the decisions at VAR. How the Rashford goal can be ruled out yet both West Ham goals involving handballs can be given. Utter joke. And I know it's not a handball but how VAR can't see that Dawson (he will never be forgiven) cheated for the penalty is beyond me. Fulham fans must have been fuming. In terms of the first incident, it was not conclusive that the ball touched the hand, the VAR studied the coverage for over 2 minutes and could not conclude with any certainty that contact was made,accordingly he could not inform the referee that an offence had been committed. Apropos the Antonio incident, he clearly handled the ball but a goal did not result directly from the contact as Fulham players got involved with the goalkeeper saving the shot and there was a defender who also played the ball so it was viewed as a 'Reset' and a second phase. Edited by Willo (10 Oct 2022 6.18pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
samprior Hamburg 10 Oct 22 8.33pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Willo
In terms of the first incident, it was not conclusive that the ball touched the hand, the VAR studied the coverage for over 2 minutes and could not conclude with any certainty that contact was made,accordingly he could not inform the referee that an offence had been committed. Apropos the Antonio incident, he clearly handled the ball but a goal did not result directly from the contact as Fulham players got involved with the goalkeeper saving the shot and there was a defender who also played the ball so it was viewed as a 'Reset' and a second phase. Edited by Willo (10 Oct 2022 6.18pm) I think Scamaca's reaction before and after VAR told us everything we need to know. The replay clearly shows the momentum and spin of the ball change after contact with the hand. If Antonio's was allowed then Rashford's should also be allowed as it didn't directly lead to a goal, Rashford still had to round Pickford, where he got a touch, but Rashford then slots it home.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 10 Oct 22 9.40pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Willo
In terms of the first incident, it was not conclusive that the ball touched the hand, the VAR studied the coverage for over 2 minutes and could not conclude with any certainty that contact was made,accordingly he could not inform the referee that an offence had been committed. Apropos the Antonio incident, he clearly handled the ball but a goal did not result directly from the contact as Fulham players got involved with the goalkeeper saving the shot and there was a defender who also played the ball so it was viewed as a 'Reset' and a second phase. Edited by Willo (10 Oct 2022 6.18pm) I do find this rule quite staggeringly ridiculous. The next 'phase', whatever that means, cannot happen without the one preceding it... where there was a foul... which needs to be given when there's time allocated to review. Just doesn't make any logical sense to me. In light of this however, I would like to see Guaita run down the pitch to the last man, ball in hands, throw it as hard as possible at an opposition player, perhaps even the goalie, then have 3 or 4 of our players following him, collect the ball as it bounces of said defender, and score. I'm sure if we did this last minute we could sacrifice a red card and have one player manhandle the referee so he cannot see or blow his whistle. It would then be a 'second' phase upon review of play as the ball was last played by a defender who failed to control it. RHUBARB!
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
YT Oxford 10 Oct 22 10.22pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Willo
In terms of the first incident, it was not conclusive that the ball touched the hand, the VAR studied the coverage for over 2 minutes and could not conclude with any certainty that contact was made,accordingly he could not inform the referee that an offence had been committed. Apropos the Antonio incident, he clearly handled the ball but a goal did not result directly from the contact as Fulham players got involved with the goalkeeper saving the shot and there was a defender who also played the ball so it was viewed as a 'Reset' and a second phase. Edited by Willo (10 Oct 2022 6.18pm) This alone demonstrates that football has completely lost the plot, when it makes stupid rules about which refereeing mistakes the cameras are allowed to correct and which they aren't. It's absolutely ludicrous and you couldn't make it up if you tried.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 10 Oct 22 10.30pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by YT
This alone demonstrates that football has completely lost the plot, when it makes stupid rules about which refereeing mistakes the cameras are allowed to correct and which they aren't. It's absolutely ludicrous and you couldn't make it up if you tried. I personally think we should have a VAR screen a bit like 'Catchphrase' where you pick 5 players, like a penalty shootout, to answer General Knowledge questions. Each correct answer provides the chance to press a button to stop on a square to reveal the picture to the referee.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 10 Oct 22 11.09pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by samprior
I think Scamaca's reaction before and after VAR told us everything we need to know. The replay clearly shows the momentum and spin of the ball change after contact with the hand. If Antonio's was allowed then Rashford's should also be allowed as it didn't directly lead to a goal, Rashford still had to round Pickford, where he got a touch, but Rashford then slots it home. With respect, the replay was not conclusive as to whether the ball made contact with the hand. In relation to Antonio and Rashford, there were different factors involved and I have already articulated the rationale behind the decisions.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 11 Oct 22 1.02am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Willo
In relation to Antonio and Rashford, there were different factors involved and I have already articulated the rationale behind the decisions. I'm afraid you're wrong on that one Willo if I recall MoTD correctly! The ball was seen spinning down after changing direction ever so slightly from the contact where it had no spin at all beforehand. It's either witchcraft or contact. For what it's worth, I didn't consider Scamacca to have 'controlled' the ball using his hand and think the touch was of little consequence.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
samprior Hamburg 11 Oct 22 6.27am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Willo
With respect, the replay was not conclusive as to whether the ball made contact with the hand. In relation to Antonio and Rashford, there were different factors involved and I have already articulated the rationale behind the decisions. As have I. If you believe all decisions were correct then so be it.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.