- 30 September 2019
Same. Hate diving. But it will never go away, because the attitude will always be "innocent until proven guilty" and you can be 99% sure someone has dived but very rarely 100% (i.e. when there is absolutely no contact whatsoever)... Which I thoroughly disagree with / detest.My main issue with football is people diving, really annoys me "simulation".
And there is now technology to stop it dead, but it still continues.
Even Gary Lineker, the most liberal person in the world is guilty of that.and on top of that, foreign divers are labelled as cheats, whereas English divers "have every right to go down". It's all bollocks.
I agree. Diving is absolutely wrong. But players have started doing it more and more because they have simply discovered that they can end up being denied legitimate penalties if the ref doesn't think the contact was 'enough'.As a Spurs fan, i think that it was a penalty. Aurier Made another foolish mistake. And Liverpool were so good they deserved this win.
About the diving, i can understand players diving. There used to be a time when every contact in the box was a penalty. Players seldom dived then. And then referees started creating chaos by stating that there wasn’t enough contact to give a penalty (and that same contact would have been given as a four anywhere else on the pitch). Since then forwards are ‘diving’. In quite a fel cases this is merely what i would call ‘making sure that the penalty is given’. They exagerate because they are afraid that the ref will think there wasn’t ‘enough contact’ to give a penalty. If refs will give penalties for every four in the box ( even minor ones), the diving will stop.
Probably not.Could the Premier League Referees possibly handle VAR any worse than they have done so far? This week we had Guendouzi pulling Soyuncu around by shoulder, clear as day on the replay, looked at by VAR and ignored!
It might, IF referees grow some balls (or will be forced) to go and have a look at the telly themselves.So diving is here to stay. VAR won't help with that
Yeah, I honestly think they took Bernado Silva's handball into account even though the official line was that they didn't. Wouldn't be surprised if the laws get reworded to deal with situations like this.@PeterC10 That is what I was confused about. With the stupid attacking team handball rule then the moment it hit Bernardo Silva's hand a goal would have been disallowed had they scored, so presumably that 'foul' has to come first regardless of whether it was deemed Alexander-Arnold's handball was deliberate. Or is it not handball unless a goal is scored in which case it's an even more ridiculous rule than it already is.
There was a hair on his arm that was offside.Anyone see the Man City goal ruled offside today? Never offside.
Alson has giving the attacker the benefit of the advantage if close for excitement now been totally dropped due to VAR?
You know that won't work with fans and biased reporters. Can you imagine El Classico for example and Barca or Madrid getting a 1:0 win with a goal that was borderline offside, and after thorough examination and lines drawing it actually comes that scorer was indeed offside. It would be an outrage all over the place with "how did VAR miss that" on every news site, forum board etc.Do we need to start drawing lines to check? Yes, ok, leave it then, he's onside.
There was a hair on his arm that was offside.
They do need to come up with something better in the offside law. What, I don't know, but this drawing lines is getting stupid. Yes, it's technically right but like you say the benefit of the advantage is gone
Absolutely all of this. The issue with VAR isn't the concept at all, it's the execution. Any purely factual decision (like offside) should be made by VAR. The best implementation of this will be when it could do this in seconds (like a video game does instantly). Once it's quick enough, factual decisions should apply everywhere (it of course really started with goal line tech) including who a ball hit last before going out of play.His hand looks way closer to the line than any part of Sterling. That is correct, but his hand does not count because you can't play the ball with your hand. So, this is a correct decision.
I really don't like the reaction of most pundits to decisions like this. VAR should be there to take absolutely correct decisions (or as close as possible to that). Off-side is offside even if it is just a hair. Is that absurd? Ok, for the sake of arguments then. When does it begin ot to be absurd? Two hairs, three hairs, a shoulder, one leg, two legs, two legs and an arse, the whole body? The whole body seems a correct solution, but then the discussion can restart again, was it his whole body? No, he was one hair onside. Of course that is absurd, but when does it start not to be absurd? Two hairs, three hairs, etcetera...there will always be discussion?
Always discussion? Is that an argument to stop with VAR? No.
Anybody watched Galatasaray-Club Brugge yesterday? Galatasaray players where playing the ref for the whole match. In injury time Brugge equalised and two Brugge players were sent off with a second yellow because of their celebration of the goal (i tend to agree with both yellow cards). Imagine this being Galatasaray playing Real Madrid, Barcelona or PSG. Would they have got 2 second yellow cards? No.
VAR has to stay to make it an even game, because now in every match i see the big teams are advantaged by refs when there is doubt. Without VAR Spurs and Ajax would not have played last year semi-final.
It now seems that VAR has corrected itself and that decisions in favour of the bigger teams are not overruled anymore...remember VAR and the Cristiane red card at the last WC. The ref went to the screen and gave a yellow card...a big mistake, but he was afraid to sent Ronaldo off.
We need more courageous men on the pitch and in the VAR building. But VA>R itself has to stay for me.
As if VAR wasn't bad enough on its own, the FA cup only has it for certain matches. How anyone thought this made the slightest bit of sense is beyond me.
As someone whose team has just got a replay against a Premier League side, entirely based on a wrongly disallowed goal being reinstated, and a clear penalty being given - all thanks to VAR... Well, I've already said I think VAR is essential, and there sure as hell is no changing my mind now...Absolutely ridiculous isn't it? How can you have some games with it and some without?
As someone whose team has just got a replay against a Premier League side, entirely based on a wrongly disallowed goal being reinstated, and a clear penalty being given - all thanks to VAR... Well, I've already said I think VAR is essential, and there sure as hell is no changing my mind now...
So what you're literally saying is, two wrongs make a right?The thing is, had your game not had VAR you would now be knocked out which would surely be unfair when you clearly shouldn't have been because of wrong initial decisions. That's why it's unfair.
If for some reason there was a technical limitation that meant that was the case (which is obviously not true but say it was), it would still mean half the decisions were guaranteed to be accurate, which is still a better guarantee than not having it! And remember that VAR can hurt you as well as help you.Suppose the Premier League decide only home teams can use VAR, would that be fair?
In essence yes I agree, but if not all are benefiting from it then it is not a level playing field, it makes incorrect decisions that can't be changed even worse.More correct decisions is better than less. IMO.
Plus the ridiculous attacking team handball rule that often is not seen without VAR.Agree that VAR should be used for all matches in a round or not at all. The offside rule in England is essentially different with or without VAR, throws the balance somewhat. Would make more sense for it just to be used in the semi finals and final.