|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe thing that amazes me though, is what the fuck does the VAR see that no one else apparently does. And the referee needs to be strong enough, when the VAR calls them to look at something, to say no. Although I also would prefer to see VAR fuck off forever. I guess VAR is saying to the ref: he might have been clear on goal. The real issue is that he wasn't clear on goal, not by a long shot, so the ref needed just a 2 second glance to work that out - but he looked at it for about 30 seconds! So what the hell is he looking at?! Sorry but how is he not clear on goal? (Is the screenshot under here?) Those grass stripes are about 5m wide each. He's clearly 3m in front of the 2nd last defender when he's tangled up, What's the issue?  Letter of the law it's a red card but given wood was still 30m out it wasn't a clear and obvious error to award the yellow imo. And I say that as a sydney fan
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThe thing that amazes me though, is what the fuck does the VAR see that no one else apparently does. And the referee needs to be strong enough, when the VAR calls them to look at something, to say no. Although I also would prefer to see VAR fuck off forever. I guess VAR is saying to the ref: he might have been clear on goal. The real issue is that he wasn't clear on goal, not by a long shot, so the ref needed just a 2 second glance to work that out - but he looked at it for about 30 seconds! So what the hell is he looking at?! Sorry but how is he not clear on goal? (Is the screenshot under here?) Those grass stripes are about 5m wide each. He's clearly 3m in front of the 2nd last defender when he's tangled up, What's the issue? Letter of the law it's a red card but given wood was still 30m out it wasn't a clear and obvious error to award the yellow imo. And I say that as a sydney fan Yeah I hear you but the key word in DOGSO is 'opportunity'. Was this a Denial Of a Goal Scoring OPPORTUNITY. Yes it was. If the other defender was in line then you'd probably say no. But like the commentators said no one was even blowing up about it and no one wouldn't have cared if a yellow was given. Of course no one would have cared until next week when a player got sent and everyone would be screaming about this one. Hahaha.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMy sense on that one was that he was through on goal as well. Always a tough call when it's still that far from goals so I would have been ok with the yellow But this one is more 50/50 than massive error. I thought the penalty was bullshit though. He was tripped/pushed into the fall that brought the attacker down Only if he didn't step in front of him. A front on view, which they never showed, would have cleared that up but of course we never got to see it.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xMy sense on that one was that he was through on goal as well. Always a tough call when it's still that far from goals so I would have been ok with the yellow But this one is more 50/50 than massive error. I thought the penalty was bullshit though. He was tripped/pushed into the fall that brought the attacker down Only if he didn't step in front of him. A front on view, which they never showed, would have cleared that up but of course we never got to see it. Yeah fair enough I maybe didn;t consider that factor
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMy sense on that one was that he was through on goal as well. Always a tough call when it's still that far from goals so I would have been ok with the yellow But this one is more 50/50 than massive error. I thought the penalty was bullshit though. He was tripped/pushed into the fall that brought the attacker down I feel the same on the Wood one, that far out you couldn't point blank say a goal scoring opportunity gone begging also that Bulls no6 was closing in from the left even IF Wood didn't get impeded to the ground. That collison happenned close to the box hands down a red. The early pen given you could say the Bulls player blocked his run through to the ball but it was soft and smart play by Mak, seen it happen in the big leagues. Some have been called divers right, watch the side view of the replay Mak drops to the ground 3/4's passed Millar on the ground. Got to say excl VAR how many Refs would have pointed to the spot ? I reckon quite a few.
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Mak one wasn't a pen ever, it's amazing that VAR didn't even have a serious look at it but chose to intervene in that very benign Aspro challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xMy sense on that one was that he was through on goal as well. Always a tough call when it's still that far from goals so I would have been ok with the yellow But this one is more 50/50 than massive error. I thought the penalty was bullshit though. He was tripped/pushed into the fall that brought the attacker down Only if he didn't step in front of him. A front on view, which they never showed, would have cleared that up but of course we never got to see it. Yeah fair enough I maybe didn;t consider that factor @ Davide82 This is what I said in the other thread about the VAR. Not sure if you saw it. With regards to the penalty given to Sydney at the 12 minute mark.So I'm looking at the full replay on Paramount + and the ref was bang on, right behind the player and in a great position to call it. That's not to say he got it right, just that he was Johnny on the spot.
Of course they don't show it from head on which would show what actually happened and whether Millar stepped into his line.
So back to my whinging thing. The ref was in a great position, he was close, he saw it all unfold in front of him from 10m away, he didn't hesitate to call it and was confident and strong.
So none of that matters right? He could still have been wrong BUT if you don't have VAR you have to accept the ref's call. After all he's the ref.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Keeper66
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThe thing that amazes me though, is what the fuck does the VAR see that no one else apparently does. And the referee needs to be strong enough, when the VAR calls them to look at something, to say no. Although I also would prefer to see VAR fuck off forever. I guess VAR is saying to the ref: he might have been clear on goal. The real issue is that he wasn't clear on goal, not by a long shot, so the ref needed just a 2 second glance to work that out - but he looked at it for about 30 seconds! So what the hell is he looking at?! Sorry but how is he not clear on goal? (Is the screenshot under here?) Those grass stripes are about 5m wide each. He's clearly 3m in front of the 2nd last defender when he's tangled up, What's the issue? Letter of the law it's a red card but given wood was still 30m out it wasn't a clear and obvious error to award the yellow imo. And I say that as a sydney fan Yeah I hear you but the key word in DOGSO is 'opportunity'. Was this a Denial Of a Goal Scoring OPPORTUNITY. Yes it was. If the other defender was in line then you'd probably say no. But like the commentators said no one was even blowing up about it and no one wouldn't have cared if a yellow was given. Of course no one would have cared until next week when a player got sent and everyone would be screaming about this one. Hahaha. I think the key word in DOGSO is the first O word, obvious. And I interpret "obvious" in this context as meaning a very good chance of scoring if not fouled. Personally I was happy with the yellow, because I thought while there was some chance of Wood getting to a 1v1 situation with the keeper, I also thought there was a good likelihood of Uzkok getting back to put pressure on him.
|
|
|
|
|
df1982
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 861,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xThe thing that amazes me though, is what the fuck does the VAR see that no one else apparently does. And the referee needs to be strong enough, when the VAR calls them to look at something, to say no. Although I also would prefer to see VAR fuck off forever. I guess VAR is saying to the ref: he might have been clear on goal. The real issue is that he wasn't clear on goal, not by a long shot, so the ref needed just a 2 second glance to work that out - but he looked at it for about 30 seconds! So what the hell is he looking at?! Sorry but how is he not clear on goal? (Is the screenshot under here?) Those grass stripes are about 5m wide each. He's clearly 3m in front of the 2nd last defender when he's tangled up, What's the issue? Letter of the law it's a red card but given wood was still 30m out it wasn't a clear and obvious error to award the yellow imo. And I say that as a sydney fan Yeah I hear you but the key word in DOGSO is 'opportunity'. Was this a Denial Of a Goal Scoring OPPORTUNITY. Yes it was. If the other defender was in line then you'd probably say no. But like the commentators said no one was even blowing up about it and no one wouldn't have cared if a yellow was given. Of course no one would have cared until next week when a player got sent and everyone would be screaming about this one. Hahaha. I think the key word in DOGSO is the first O word, obvious. And I interpret "obvious" in this context as meaning a very good chance of scoring if not fouled. Personally I was happy with the yellow, because I thought while there was some chance of Wood getting to a 1v1 situation with the keeper, I also thought there was a good likelihood of Uzkok getting back to put pressure on him. Nobody on the Sydney team appealed for a red card, which should probably tell you something. The number of times VAR intervenes when nobody in the stadium, including the aggrieved team's players, coaching staff and fans, has a problem with a decision has got to tell you something about how reliable it is to make decisions in a bunker, miles from the stadium, relying merely on a video feed. Under the fake veneer of objectivity you lose all feel for the game, and endlessly looking at slo-mo replays of actions inevitably makes them look a lot worse than they actually are (this applies for fouls and tackles). The APL should hold a fan referendum on VAR in the off-season. Let anybody who is a member of an A-League club vote, which would encourage membership uptake and prevent online manipulation of the result. We've had five years of the technology, now is the time to take stock and decide whether it is worth it. And if they really think that football is nothing without fans then we should be the ones to make the decision. I know which way I would vote. VAR has been a disaster: it's sucked the enjoyment out of the game and has made no discernible improvement in the officiating of the game, or in reducing the controversy surrounding decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThe thing that amazes me though, is what the fuck does the VAR see that no one else apparently does. And the referee needs to be strong enough, when the VAR calls them to look at something, to say no. Although I also would prefer to see VAR fuck off forever. I guess VAR is saying to the ref: he might have been clear on goal. The real issue is that he wasn't clear on goal, not by a long shot, so the ref needed just a 2 second glance to work that out - but he looked at it for about 30 seconds! So what the hell is he looking at?! Sorry but how is he not clear on goal? (Is the screenshot under here?) Those grass stripes are about 5m wide each. He's clearly 3m in front of the 2nd last defender when he's tangled up, What's the issue? Letter of the law it's a red card but given wood was still 30m out it wasn't a clear and obvious error to award the yellow imo. And I say that as a sydney fan Yeah I hear you but the key word in DOGSO is 'opportunity'. Was this a Denial Of a Goal Scoring OPPORTUNITY. Yes it was. If the other defender was in line then you'd probably say no. But like the commentators said no one was even blowing up about it and no one wouldn't have cared if a yellow was given. Of course no one would have cared until next week when a player got sent and everyone would be screaming about this one. Hahaha. I think the key word in DOGSO is the first O word, obvious. And I interpret "obvious" in this context as meaning a very good chance of scoring if not fouled. Personally I was happy with the yellow, because I thought while there was some chance of Wood getting to a 1v1 situation with the keeper, I also thought there was a good likelihood of Uzkok getting back to put pressure on him. Nobody on the Sydney team appealed for a red card, which should probably tell you something. The number of times VAR intervenes when nobody in the stadium, including the aggrieved team's players, coaching staff and fans, has a problem with a decision has got to tell you something about how reliable it is to make decisions in a bunker, miles from the stadium, relying merely on a video feed. Under the fake veneer of objectivity you lose all feel for the game, and endlessly looking at slo-mo replays of actions inevitably makes them look a lot worse than they actually are (this applies for fouls and tackles). I agree. Exact same thing happened with Ibusuki's rescinded red card (both vs SFC btw aha). Nobody surrounded the ref, nobody tried to front up Ibusuki I think maybe only one player even raised their hand for any sort of free kick let alone a straight red.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThe thing that amazes me though, is what the fuck does the VAR see that no one else apparently does. And the referee needs to be strong enough, when the VAR calls them to look at something, to say no. Although I also would prefer to see VAR fuck off forever. I guess VAR is saying to the ref: he might have been clear on goal. The real issue is that he wasn't clear on goal, not by a long shot, so the ref needed just a 2 second glance to work that out - but he looked at it for about 30 seconds! So what the hell is he looking at?! Sorry but how is he not clear on goal? (Is the screenshot under here?) Those grass stripes are about 5m wide each. He's clearly 3m in front of the 2nd last defender when he's tangled up, What's the issue? Letter of the law it's a red card but given wood was still 30m out it wasn't a clear and obvious error to award the yellow imo. And I say that as a sydney fan Yeah I hear you but the key word in DOGSO is 'opportunity'. Was this a Denial Of a Goal Scoring OPPORTUNITY. Yes it was. If the other defender was in line then you'd probably say no. But like the commentators said no one was even blowing up about it and no one wouldn't have cared if a yellow was given. Of course no one would have cared until next week when a player got sent and everyone would be screaming about this one. Hahaha. I think the key word in DOGSO is the first O word, obvious. And I interpret "obvious" in this context as meaning a very good chance of scoring if not fouled. Personally I was happy with the yellow, because I thought while there was some chance of Wood getting to a 1v1 situation with the keeper, I also thought there was a good likelihood of Uzkok getting back to put pressure on him. Nobody on the Sydney team appealed for a red card, which should probably tell you something. The MLS release the VAR calls from their bunker setup on a weekly basis. It's interesting to listen to what they have to say and how they arrive at their decisions. But, like you, it's nuts how they get involved when nobody has even appealed for anything. There's no way they should be imposing themselves on the game unless someone is asking or it's blatant back play stuff. One example I couldn't help commenting on was in the hullabaloo of an incoming cross an attacker ran into the back of a defender, who was not purposely trying to block his run but did, anyway the attacker went down, ball went somewhere else nowhere near him and then was cleared. Not one single player, including the bloke that went arse up even appealed. 20 seconds later VAR gets involved and calls the ref over and he awards a pen. That is dead set fucked. MLS reviews here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR17ljwB7HQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSK4WoUtdpE
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The thing that amazes me though, is what the fuck does the VAR see that no one else apparently does. And the referee needs to be strong enough, when the VAR calls them to look at something, to say no. Although I also would prefer to see VAR fuck off forever. I guess VAR is saying to the ref: he might have been clear on goal. The real issue is that he wasn't clear on goal, not by a long shot, so the ref needed just a 2 second glance to work that out - but he looked at it for about 30 seconds! So what the hell is he looking at?! Sorry but how is he not clear on goal? (Is the screenshot under here?) Those grass stripes are about 5m wide each. He's clearly 3m in front of the 2nd last defender when he's tangled up, What's the issue? Letter of the law it's a red card but given wood was still 30m out it wasn't a clear and obvious error to award the yellow imo. And I say that as a sydney fan Yeah I hear you but the key word in DOGSO is 'opportunity'. Was this a Denial Of a Goal Scoring OPPORTUNITY. This is probably the foundation of where the final decision was made. Extremely fucking thin though and I'm a Sydney fan.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul01
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMak one wasn't a pen ever, it's amazing that VAR didn't even have a serious look at it but chose to intervene in that very benign Aspro challenge. And Brosque agreed on The Global Game, Mak milked the penalty and there was clearly a foul by Mak on Millar.
|
|
|
|