Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 55 comments are related to the topic:
Refs called over by VAR
Refs called over by VAR
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 55
|
By:
Anyone arguing VAR never gets it wrong, well, really....??
 |
|
By:
Nobody is arguing Var never gets it wrong.
That's a strawman that has already been dealt with. Ref tells Var what he has seen Var tells ref, err, that's not what happened, or shows him what he has missed, So ref will change decision 99% of time |
|
By:
But that's pathetic then - as I said, what VAR tells the ref is often just a take from a ref on what happened.
They should not be changing view 99% of the time based on that, apart from the obvious blatant cases, which most are not (hence the stupid cases as above). |
|
By:
I'd love to hear other's views of what VAR 'tells or shows' the ref - if they agree with you.
|
|
By:
As you already agreed with, VAR has given wrong decisions or views.
Hence by definition what VAR 'tells' the ref can be wrong - so it is the ref's judgement that is the bottom line. |
|
By:
They are discussing what ref saw, and what he missed
and how it has impacted upon the decision that has been made. There is a load of scope for other stuff, but that's not what he's called to monitor for. |
|
By:
Well I'm starting to agree with your most recent description, which is less definite about the ref's initial decisions and views being 'wrong'.
|
|
By:
It doesn't matter what other people's opinions are
other than if they like Var or not. What I am telling you is not my opinion it's what the refs are actually doing, which is what I've read week on week. It's quite alright to not like it, but you can check what I've said with Google or ai bots. |
|
By:
My initial point was whether the refs should be changing their mind as often, solely due to VAR.
I still stand by my view that they shouldn't, as VAR is not some infallible process in decisions, as you admitted above. |
|
By:
Of course they should because they are being shown evidence that
contradicts their initial decision Not sure how many more times you need to hear it. |
|
By:
It takes a bit of bottle for a ref to go against VAR and stick to his initial decision. I’m sure many have felt like they’ve had to change their decision, possibly when they didn’t want to. The last thing they want is to be lambasted by MOTD pundits that evening. Far easier just to listen to the voices in your ear and go with what they say.
|
|
By:
You are of course right y-h-t-l but the point is that VAR do not get things right consistently enough. So it is thus inefficient which begs the question as to whether it is worth having. The Chelsea defender went off but the Brentford one didn’t. Glaring example.
|
|
By:
I think the lucrative match fees play a large part in their acceptance of things too kenbo.
|
|
By:
Var gets stuff wrong, absolutely
But these monitor calls to refs are over decisions Var can show to the ref that what ref said is not correct. But Referee sees stuff that is subjective such as force of tackle and they tend to go with refs call. So a worse challenge can be yellow and a lesser one red, and var doesnt get involved... Then you get Gordon on Virgil which is a dreadful challenge that ref saw as yellow, but is clear red and var steps in. But you will still get inconsistent decisions with var as the threshold for an intervention is set fairly high |
|
By:
Of course they should because they are being shown evidence that
contradicts their initial decision Not sure how many more times you need to hear it. It's not that complicated, I'm obviously disagreeing with the value of that 'evidence or chit chat rubbish they have' vs the ref's own view they made on the pitch. |
|
By:
Ref says he saw it
Var shows him he's wrong [] Ref changes decision. [] Ref insists he saw it despite evidence to contrary. |