Aragorn
Well-Known Member
Good enough for me!!
Sounness was bealing in the studio post match.
"SHOW US THE CLOSE UP FIFA!!"
Brilliant
Except in this case it is black and white.I genuinely find it staggering that FIFA have managed to make VAR more confusing, ill defined and random than simply having a ref on the pitch.
The decision might be, but the fact it took 12 hours to establish the facts when it could have been dealt with in about 60 seconds with a better communication process is the problem. You dont think that's an issue in a crucial World Cup incident - the pinnacle of the sport?Except in this case it is black and white.
Thanks for reminding me. Going to be ragin all day nowNow making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now.
This was my first thought too!That sadly probably means that kemar roofes cross was in play.
Mate really don't get what was wrong with that decision. Would you rather it was flagged for offside by a linesman guessing rather than the factual decision VAR gave us?I genuinely find it staggering that FIFA have managed to make VAR more confusing, ill defined and random than simply having a ref on the pitch.
Do you not understand that its not just about the decision being correct?Mate really don't get what was wrong with that decision. Would you rather it was flagged for offside by a linesman guessing rather than the factual decision VAR gave us?
The implementation of VAR is poor. It isn't VAR that's the problem, it's the idiots using it.The decision might be, but the fact it took 12 hours to establish the facts when it could have been dealt with in about 60 seconds with a better communication process is the problem. You dont think that's an issue in a crucial World Cup incident - the pinnacle of the sport?
That's not what people want when they watch football and it is not what VAR promised. I mean if they are so f88king useless to organise this themselves, can they not just pinch ideas from Rugby Union?
because it fits their narrative that this world cup and FIFA are corruptThe full ball has to go out of play, I really don't know why people are finding this so hard to understand.
That sadly probably means that kemar roofes cross was in play.
If you watch Davis shot , the angle from Davis viewpoint as he strikes it, it’s going in. It takes not one but two very slight deflections off Frankfurt defenders, one last touch is enough to deflect it over the bar. If it doesn’t take the touches off either defender, that ball is going in. 100%. Davis struck it perfectly.Why? Davis fucked it and the keeper saved anyway.
If you watch Davis shot , the angle from Davis viewpoint as he strikes it, it’s going in. It takes not one but two very slight deflections off Frankfurt defenders, one last touch is enough to deflect it over the bar. If it doesn’t take the touches off either defender, that ball is going in. 100%. Davis struck it perfectly.
The fact the referee/linesman didn’t give a corner but gave a goal kick , adds fuel to the idea that they assumed the ball was out when Roofe got to it. Only other explanation is they missed two pretty obvious deflections on Davis shot and thought it went clean over.
It just wasn’t meant to be. Frankfurt got the millimetres at that moment and in the shootout which decided it.
Aw fs don't...This is now making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now...
The woman on BBC news this morning was going on about the offside rule being difficult to understand and now we have this.because it fits their narrative that this world cup and FIFA are corrupt
It didn't take 12 hours though. The goal was given during the game.The decision might be, but the fact it took 12 hours to establish the facts when it could have been dealt with in about 60 seconds with a better communication process is the problem. You dont think that's an issue in a crucial World Cup incident - the pinnacle of the sport?
That's not what people want when they watch football and it is not what VAR promised. I mean if they are so f88king useless to organise this themselves, can they not just pinch ideas from Rugby Union?
Without wishing to repeat myself, do you not think a clearer and quicker method of understanding how they reach these decisions would be beneficial to the game?It didn't take 12 hours though. The goal was given during the game.
This is now making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now...
I've had a feeling all along it would have stood. SickeningThis is now making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now...
This is now making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now...
That's the whole point.Why? Kent fucked it and the keeper saved anyway.
They would come up with some shite like his hand was in play and he was touching the ball which makes him effectively part of the ball so the ball was in play lol.Meanwhile in the Germany game... ref decided this was still in play lol
It is very clear. Can’t really see what is hard to understand here or what FIFA could have done differently.Without wishing to repeat myself, do you not think a clearer and quicker method of understanding how they reach these decisions would be beneficial to the game?
Not to mention the other incidents which appear to be as arbitrary and non-scientific as the old ref on the pitch format. (Argentina's penalty against Poland for example)
Reassuringly, in this instance it would only be confusing for a stupid person.I genuinely find it staggering that FIFA have managed to make VAR more confusing, ill defined and random than simply having a ref on the pitch.
Aye, thanks for that.This is now making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now...
It wouldn't have been ruled out. The referee and linesman had let play continue. VAR was only getting involved in clear and obvious errors in the Europa last season. There weren't any pictures that showed the ball clearly out so couldn't have seen it been ruled out by VAR officials.This is now making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now...
That's the whole point.
He missed a complete sitter but everyone consoles themselves with the belief it wouldn't have stood anyway.
Now it looks like there is a fair chance the ball never went out and it would have stood. Therefore that sitter would have won us the cup
If you genuinely think the future of football is best served by VAR in its current guise, then fair enough.It is very clear. Can’t really see what is hard to understand here or what FIFA could have done differently.
Just media people making a noise.
It didnt. They established the facts pretty quickly and gave the goal. They even gave the overhanging explanation on commentary.The decision might be, but the fact it took 12 hours to establish the facts when it could have been dealt with in about 60 seconds with a better communication process is the problem. You dont think that's an issue in a crucial World Cup incident - the pinnacle of the sport?
That's not what people want when they watch football and it is not what VAR promised. I mean if they are so f88king useless to organise this themselves, can they not just pinch ideas from Rugby Union?
The full ball has to go out of play, I really don't know why people are finding this so hard to understand.
The wider point still stands. FIFA have made a c88nt of using VAR in play. No surprises there.It didnt. They established the facts pretty quickly and gave the goal. They even gave the overhanging explanation on commentary.
That's the whole point.
He missed a complete sitter but everyone consoles themselves with the belief it wouldn't have stood anyway.
Now it looks like there is a fair chance the ball never went out and it would have stood. Therefore that sitter would have won us the cup
See also dullards moaning about the ball being 'outside' the quadrant before a corner is taken when it never actually is.You know why?
It's because it's probably the most mis called thing in football, for throw ins etc. It's called wrong so often that people think a correct call is wrong.
Literally not allowed to lay a glove on MessiThe one that gets me was that penalty Argentina got when they might have been in a bit of trouble - that to me is pure fixed.
Not following you here unless I'm missing something.Do you not understand that its not just about the decision being correct?
There is a lack of communication between VAR decisions and the public, it seems deliberateas well. Which is a problem when youve got a tournament being watched by hundreds of millions of people round the world.The wider point still stands. FIFA have made a c88nt of using VAR in play. No surprises there.