• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Match Chelsea (league cup semi final)

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Guido said:
Because we are ADDING another 2 mins that's why. Why slow it down further?

Why aren't we looking to speed the game up?
1. Time waisting - enforce a minimum number of seconds for the ball to be played, once it goes dead.
2. Injuries - Have a trainer come onto the pitch whilst game is still in play. Don't stop the game!
3. Time Refs took a stand against being surrounded - Thought it was ironic last night that despite VAR being used Chelsea players STILL surrounded to ref!

The faster the game, the more mistakes, the more mistakes the more goals, the more goals the more exciting. The faster the game the more fatigue felt by the players, the more fatigue, the more mistakes, the more mistakes, the more mistakes the more goals, the more goals the more exciting.

Instead, let's slow it down even more. Replays brought to you by Budweiser $$$$. Slow handclap music brought in for fans to pretend it's Tennis, yeah let's turn this rawcus fan sporting spectacle into tennis, starring up at hawk-eye replays.
:freundgoal:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Your stats are wrong.

So far, of VAR use analysed, nearly 1000 games, across 20 leagues, the average loss to VAR review per game is 55 seconds.

Time lost to Free Kicks (dead time) 8m 51 sec

Throw ins (ball not in play) 7m

Goal Kicks (5m 46)

Corners 3m 57

Subs 3m

Injuries ???


70% of games had no VAR review. Only 5.5 % had more than one review.

Correct decisions without VAR 93%

Correct decisions with VAR is 98.8%


Has VAR worked? Statistics behind worldwide use show positives
 
bus-conductor said:
So 90 seconds of VAR, that overturned what would have been an incorrect offside, ruined the other 90 minutes for you?

I'll swap the spontaneous reaction to an incorrect offside for the cheer that greeted the correct overturn any day. And you still got your booing from the Chelsea lot. Win fucking win.

Let's get this straight, I am a spurs season ticket holder of about 30 odd years. I also go and watch other live football almost weekly. I guarantee you I watch as much or more live football than you do. As Ive said, I've watched quite a few games now live with VAR (about 20 more than you) and it hasn't spoiled a single one. The crowd still made noises. When a goal was confirmed as good by VAR they got to cheer twice. Goals get disallowed anyway and that cheer is for nothing.

I can say last night's outcome was correct because I've seen the offside line graphic and the penalty foul from about 4 different angles. I don't give a fuck if people still want to talk about it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

VAR is shit, I don't give a flying fuck how many matches you watch each week.

I was there at the Rochdale game last season, it was a complete and utter farce.
 
bus-conductor said:
Your stats are wrong.

So far, of VAR use analysed, nearly 1000 games, across 20 leagues, the average loss to VAR review per game is 55 seconds.

Time lost to Free Kicks (dead time) 8m 51 sec

Throw ins (ball not in play) 7m

Goal Kicks (5m 46)

Corners 3m 57

Subs 3m

Injuries ???


70% of games had no VAR review. Only 5.5 % had more than one review.

Correct decisions without VAR 93%

Correct decisions with VAR is 98.8%


Has VAR worked? Statistics behind worldwide use show positives
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I didn't provide any stats.
 
Guido said:
But I'm not moaning about the 450 times (just as I wasn't moaning about those moments if VAR wasn't in use), I'm moaning about the times it is used when it "disagrees/challenges" the ref's original decision. This is where the delay is, this is where it slows the game down. I'm always saying that these times are few and far between because on average the ref gets 98% of his decisions correct. So we are left with a system that clearly isn't dealing with the 2% very well. What's the point. Why can't people be content that 2% of decisions are "incorrect" and using VAR to deal with this 2% doesn't clear up whether the decision made was "correct" as some of those are still contested, like last night?

Al this bullshit to still have uncertainty on what might be 1% improvement on the original ref's decision.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
because all people have done for the last 10 years+ is bemoan that 2% and say we need more technology. Well here its is, people got what they asked for, and yes its flawed but i'd rather persevere and improve on it rather than do away with it completely and go back to everyone moaning that we need more technology again.

the issue last night was its application - and the officials clearly arent all on the same page. I dont know what the instruction in the UK is, but in the WC the instruction was to find "clear and obvious errors". Had the incident last night have happened in the WC then it wouldn't, or at least shouldn't have been reversed because it was so close that it would not be deemed clear and obvious.
 
Cripps14 said:
The way it is supposed to be used in Germany, is to correct a clear mistake. (E.g. Pedro Mendes goal at Old Trafford) To be honest, the offside call yesterday was marginal, therefore I believe it should not have been used.

Much like in cricket where they have the option of umpires call, for those decisions where you could see it either way. The upper body argument sammyspurs sammyspurs has mentioned. To me if a call can't be made having looked at one replay from say 2 different angles, then you've got to say: We'll stick with what the ref saw. That way the ref still has the "power" but also the responsibility to make the correct call, however clear mistakes can be eradicated.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Or just accept that 2% of decision is wrong. And moan about the injustice of them the following day.
 
CroSpurs said:
He was onside.
VAR is getting decisions right in very high percentage. Much higher than human eye of ref during the game. And if sometimes ref gets it wrong, it's not VAR fault, it's fault of that idiotic ref. But decisions are most of the time SPOT ON and thats the most important thing.
It's just getting started, first season ffs, have some patience. It will improve surely.

And if someone tell me controversy makes football great, just fuck off. It doesn't. It makes football terrible. Losing in CL knock-out stage, big PL game, or even random fucking game because of wrong decision by the ref is terrible feeling. We all know that, why do we pretend like is normal and great for football?

Would you rather that game ended 0:0, but sure, thoose 90 sec wouldn't be there, fucking 90 sec ruined the game and Harry goal for everyone. Oh please give me a break.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ref's get 98% of their decisions correct, why is that so unacceptable?
 
I was tired last night, and working all day today but I just wanted to say that the atmosphere last night was the best it’s been in my short bout of attendance to matches at Wembley (Although this was my 5th match of the season)
 
GDN said:
because all people have done for the last 10 years+ is bemoan that 2% and say we need more technology. Well here its is, people got what they asked for, and yes its flawed but i'd rather persevere and improve on it rather than do away with it completely and go back to everyone moaning that we need more technology again.

the issue last night was its application - and the officials clearly arent all on the same page. I dont know what the instruction in the UK is, but in the WC the instruction was to find "clear and obvious errors". Had the incident last night have happened in the WC then it wouldn't, or at least shouldn't have been reversed because it was so close that it would not be deemed clear and obvious.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I agree with that but the issue is the media. The media's inability to analyse a game, the media only have an interest or capability of discussing the was it wasn't it moments. Even if there isn't a y/n moment it will try to create one. The post-match analysis is only this, nothing else.

The other thing is the constant barracking of refs by managers and players and pundits (fair game for fans we are the 12th man and it's our job to scream shout and put pressure on refs) but players and managers and pundits should be banned from making any comment and should be penalised if doing so.

To be crystal clear I have zero problems of technology to be deployed. I love goal line tech. it's a black and white situation, it can be measured to within millimetres and it's almost instant. I encourage similar pieces of tech where something can be measured. I assume that tech can be deployed if not now but soon for offside as this too is a measurement (apart from active/inactive which is interpretation).

But where it's a law interpretation it simply shouldn't be used.

There is an argument that the refs weren't sure about something and would like to relook at it to help determine the right call, but the danger here is that like Rugby it becomes a crutch and gets overused and over-reliant. I would much rather the deployment of more officials, say another two to run the lines and others behind the goal, have them all mic'd up to the ref.
 
Guido said:
Can you prove that or are you just guessing? I think I know the answer to that question.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Think hes right though. Theres no play acting , diving , theres no ball to hand, if there was enough contact for a penalty etc which are definitely more difficult decisions to make..while have to run back and forth at the same time and the view being obstructed at times.

Tennis refs have to just keep eyes on the ball, either its in or out. (Theres footfaults but those almost never happen).
 
Murphy said:
I was tired last night, and working all day today but I just wanted to say that the atmosphere last night was the best it’s been in my short bout of attendance to matches at Wembley (Although this was my 5th match of the season)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

God that’s depressing.

Was saying to my nephew last night how remember playing Sevilla at home and just singing Martin Jols blue n white army for about 15mins after half time.
Ground was rocking. Hope that sort of thing happens back at the Lane.

Last night did not feel like a semi final at all - around the ground or in the ground.

To me anyway.........
 
adasai said:
Think hes right though. Theres no play acting , diving , theres no ball to hand, if there was enough contact for a penalty etc which are definitely more difficult decisions to make..while have to run back and forth at the same time and the view being obstructed at times.

Tennis refs have to just keep eyes on the ball, either its in or out. (Theres footfaults but those almost never happen).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I completely agree about more black and white decisions, in fact, does Tennis has any laws that need to be interpreted? However, a football doesn't travel at 140mph and is what x20 bigger than a tennis ball. There is also hawkeye that can be called on which measures whether it's in or not and an electronic bleep for net calls. Much more black and white.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top