What a joke this VAR has already become!

Sure the officials want to make it all about them!

 

Yeah, fancy getting all the decisions right in the end.

Booo. VAR out. ******* BOOOOOOOOOOOO.

 

If only!

 

Total bollacks

 

but it doesn't. Imagine if we used it to check every decision to see if its right.

 

I don't think getting the decision right is the issue. The problem is the waiting 3 and 4 minutes per incident and how they convey the process to the fans in the stadium.

It's worked so well in cricket and tennis, as the "reviews" are instigated by the on field players(mostly), and they are limited to how many appeals can be made. Maybe this should be brought into football?

Also, in cricket and rugby, the refs/umpires give a soft signal which changes the way the "VAR" views the situation. So if they give a soft "out", the video umpire has to find conclusive evidence that the on field umpire is wrong. Again, if football took this stance, it would speed things up slightly...

 

Biggest problem is the lack of communication with the fans after each VAR decision. Spurs fans are sat scratching their heads*.

* no headlice jokes please, this is a serious subject

 

As others have implied, VAR per se is fine. It's just football's inability to figure out a sensible fan friendly way to incorporate it that's ****.

 

I genuinely do not understand football any more

Tottenham scored a goal, I've seen the replay and I see a foul on a Tottenham player but they have advantage and score. VAR ruled it out for a foul but I've seen it 5 or 6 times and I can't see anything close to a foul.

Son paused DURING his run up before continuing his run and kicking the ball. Again I've seen the video and he was clearly too far from the ball to kick it when he stopped therefore it HAD to be during as he took further steps before kicking it. VAR looked at it and ruled it out.
The laws of the game state that
Feinting in the run-up to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football. However, feinting to kick the ball once the player has completed his run-up is considered an infringement of Law 14 and an act of unsporting behaviour for which the player must be cautioned.

Son was clearly IN his run up as he took more steps. His run up can't have been completed if he took further steps. VAR got it wrong again.

Grippier was fouled outside the box. FIFA laws state that a foul is commited where the offence starts. VAR operator doesn't know this so gives a penalty.

Three incorrect VAR decisions in one half. Either that or I can't read and know nothing about football

 

Such as which?

 

At half time they just claimed that it was the on field ref's decision, not VAR. I could have sworn I saw the ref with his finger to his ear after giving teh booking?

 

Actually having seen it again I think it was the referee but surely var should have told him he had made a clear and obvious error. That's the whole idea isn't it?

 

It seems like the general consensus it did breech Law 14, as explained by the FA here: A player who deliberately stops at the end of their run and then feints to gain an advantage is deliberately breaking the Law. This is an act of deliberate unsporting behaviour so, as well as the caution (YC), the player does not deserve to have a second chance to score. This stronger punishment should deter an offence which is sometimes difficult to detect.

It seems the Stopping bit is the key.

 

But that doesn't apply as son wasn't at the end of his run. Where he stopped it was impossible for him to take the penalty as he was far too far from the ball. As he took extra steps before kicking he is deemed to be during his run.

From a referee "Did he stop his run, pause, and then shoot or did he stop his run, pause, run a little more and then shoot? If it is the former, then he is guilty of feigning and needs to be cautioned no matter the outcome of the kick; if it is the latter, then he is not guilty of anything and the result of the PK stands"

 

The the referee in the game plus Chris Foy commentating both suggested it was a clear breech due to illegal feinting. The words i gave were an explanation from the FA not the actual wording of the rule. There are lots of statements giving explanations of course but 'in the opinion of the official' is usually the clincher

 

Fast forward to 2025 Just ask Alan Shearer

 

Which really just shows how bad the laws of football are when you have one professional referee saying the laws mean this and another saying it means something else. I've just seen a video from an American referees site with their official guidance videos for referees to use and it shows a player stopping and then running further and says that is allowed and then shows a player stopping and kicking it and says that isn't. The reasoning being that the keeper shouldn't move till the ball is kicked so what a player does before he gets to the ball shouldn't matter.

 

Opinions

 

Well its all about interpretation i guess. We have seen week in week out decisions given against us that other referees haven't given or even the same ref in the same game. Consensus I've seen on twitter seems to back the decision. Twitter is always right by the way, no grey areas ;-)

 

Makes you wonder if the powers that be really want it the way they appear to be ham fistedly trialling it.

Every stadium in the top flight, and most in the championship has a big screen, so why not just do what rugby league does and at least let the fans see what's happening and make it part of the entertainment?

Scared of highlighting mistakes made by match officials?

What's the difference between football and rugby that makes it work for one but the other avoids it?