Post history

History for Kyle1502

R26 vs Sydney FC | Sat 8th April | 7:35pm | ROF

Back to topic

Current version

Posted April 09, 2017 22:52 · last edited April 09, 2017 22:54

ConanTroutman wrote:

Kyle1502 wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

Blew.2 wrote:

Now we know how much Gillet loves the Phoenix. But for VAR to work they have to consider the first offence. Hand of Sydney player is attached to Rossi's jersey and is climbing on him  VAR free kick to Phoenix, NO it's Gillet - did not see that in slow motion. Hence Evans is walking back to Nix goal as soon as whistle is blown for offside.  (Follow on in slowmo and you see Rossi pulled backward and arm comes up)

According to Patrick the VAR can only rule on the handball though, they aren't allowed to rule on the foul from the attacking player. Which is fudgeing retarded

maybe it's better that way. Give VAR the power to rule on any little infringement they'll spend 2mins looking at the entire play for any potential foul, and then the ref will run to his little screen to check that as well, which could end up taking 3-4mins for a decision to be made. I know it seems harsh in this scenario, but if there's no strict guidelines on what the VAR can rule on, then that's when things get out of hand 

I don't think it's that hard to formulate a scope which only covers goalscoring and penalty calls but looks at all aspects of the play around it. Because or else there's no point in having it, if the purpose is to make sure the correct call is made. Here we have a situation where the ref actually made the correct call albeit for the wrong reason, and then had to go back and make the wrong call because the video ref couldn't rule on the attacking foul. That's farcical and indefensible. There's no way a system which allows that to occur is in anyway better than one that looks at all aspects of the passage of play.

I agree with your first statement, and in my opinion that's something that can only happen after using VAR in games. Those things will never be picked up in an offline trial. I don't agree with your last statement though (the one in bold). That's when you'll get the VAR spending a long time looking at everything in the passage of play to find a minor infringement, and not abiding by the whole "correcting a clear error" message that they've been given. 

Edit: I'm not necessarily talking about the Rossi incident, just in general terms

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited April 09, 2017 22:54
ConanTroutman wrote:
Kyle1502 wrote:
ConanTroutman wrote:
Blew.2 wrote:

Now we know how much Gillet loves the Phoenix. But for VAR to work they have to consider the first offence. Hand of Sydney player is attached to Rossi's jersey and is climbing on him  VAR free kick to Phoenix, NO it's Gillet - did not see that in slow motion. Hence Evans is walking back to Nix goal as soon as whistle is blown for offside.  (Follow on in slowmo and you see Rossi pulled backward and arm comes up)

According to Patrick the VAR can only rule on the handball though, they aren't allowed to rule on the foul from the attacking player. Which is fudgeing retarded
maybe it's better that way. Give VAR the power to rule on any little infringement they'll spend 2mins looking at the entire play for any potential foul, and then the ref will run to his little screen to check that as well, which could end up taking 3-4mins for a decision to be made. I know it seems harsh in this scenario, but if there's no strict guidelines on what the VAR can rule on, then that's when things get out of hand 
I don't think it's that hard to formulate a scope which only covers goalscoring and penalty calls but looks at all aspects of the play around it. Because or else there's no point in having it, if the purpose is to make sure the correct call is made. Here we have a situation where the ref actually made the correct call albeit for the wrong reason, and then had to go back and make the wrong call because the video ref couldn't rule on the attacking foul. That's farcical and indefensible. There's no way a system which allows that to occur is in anyway better than one that looks at all aspects of the passage of play.
I agree with your first statement, and in my opinion that's something that can only happen after using VAR in games. Those things will never be picked up in an offline trial. I don't agree with your last statement though (the one in bold). That's when you'll get the VAR spending a long time looking at everything in the passage of play to find a minor infringement, and not abiding by the whole "correcting a clear error" message that they've been given.