Spurs Vs Liverpool - Saturday 30th 17:30

  • 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!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Should we offer to replay the match?

  • Total voters
    217
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Yid91 said:
Surely instead of finishing check complete the VAR should say you can award a goal, free kick etc. Leave nothing to chance. Obviously delighted they fucked it up :hugoshock:
Click to expand...
That’s too simple. I mean it can’t be too much trouble to just say “check complete - onside”. Why can’t the 4th official intervene and tell them straightaway before the offside kick is taken? They can all that spurs gonna take a free kick for the “award” of offside rather than taking a KO. Oliver must have saw the linesman’s flag?
 
Gmspurs said:
Just watched the PGMOL release and listened to the audio.

And I have to say it's bullshit - not anything that went on, but the fact that they're judging all this when the ball is still touching Salah's foot.

The ball is still there! The frame after, where the ball actually leaves his foot, Diaz looks offside or at the very least, far less clear cut.

For some teams they always seem to show a picture of the frame where the ball has left the boot, but when it's Liverpool and Man U it's always the frame before..... which could be as much as 4 feet on the field.
Click to expand...
This is a massive reason why VAR is a joke for offside decisions. Even if they applied a consistent protocol the fact is, we aren’t getting accuracy in when the pass is made its just by sight with whatever camera angle we have and roughly saying its this frame or that frame. Only technology will fix that and give accurate results. It should all automated (and could be). Even the decision probably could be offered up for review.
 
TheRealTI said:
I'm not sure that's a good idea though. What is the threshold? They can stop play for a decision 5 seconds after it happens? 15 seconds? 1 minute? 5 minutes?

I wonder if they will just introduce changes more around like, specific wording that needs to be used. Like, if it's an offsides decision, they have to say "Goal" or "No goal."
Click to expand...
But they let play go on when there is a possible penalty check don’t they? What is the difference?
 
TheRealTI said:
I'm not sure that's a good idea though. What is the threshold? They can stop play for a decision 5 seconds after it happens? 15 seconds? 1 minute? 5 minutes?

I wonder if they will just introduce changes more around like, specific wording that needs to be used. Like, if it's an offsides decision, they have to say "Goal" or "No goal."
Click to expand...
I mean there shouldn’t be the need of official wording or protocol! As long as they can all speak English surely any person with half brain can easily say “check complete onside” or words to that effect. No ambiguity involved pretty much bog standard plain speak. It can’t be that difficult? It’s just simple plain English.
 
Maureen said:
I mean there shouldn’t be the need of official wording or protocol! As long as they can all speak English surely any person with half brain can easily say “check complete onside” or words to that effect. No ambiguity involved pretty much bog standard plain speak. It can’t be that difficult? It’s just simple plain English.
Click to expand...

And that’s probably what they all thought too.

Until it went to shit.
 
SpiderSpurs said:
We still can't use it correctly.


I keep hearing that the technology is great, well... get some people who are able to use it and communicate with each other properly.
Click to expand...
The clubs voted against it. They rather have contentious descions they can complain about do the next time they get a favourable one for them. Watch dippers they’ll get given everything in their favour now.
 
Maureen said:
Yes but they can say check complete onside or check complete goal.
Click to expand...
Yeh they probably will now. They probably assumed a ref could watch a game with out fucking it up much.

They bring that in and the think he says check complete offside (instead of onside) would be no more rediculous
 
Airfixx said:
"Decision upheld" / "Decision reversed"

Simples.
Click to expand...
Well that would have worked out just fine on Saturday ? The infield said offside, if var didn’t realise and said upheld then would still have been wrong. The response should clearly state whether it’s off or on regardless of the original infield decision.
 
Maureen said:
But they let play go on when there is a possible penalty check don’t they? What is the difference?
Click to expand...
Intentional break up of play. If it's not a penalty, they don't want to stop play to look. If play is stopped, it is supposed to remain stopped until VAR gives the all clear... which they did, but they were dumb fucks.
 
Maureen said:
I mean there shouldn’t be the need of official wording or protocol! As long as they can all speak English surely any person with half brain can easily say “check complete onside” or words to that effect. No ambiguity involved pretty much bog standard plain speak. It can’t be that difficult? It’s just simple plain English.
Click to expand...
Radio comms would suggest ‘golf’ and ‘November’ for goal and no goal respectively. Clearly clarity of comms is an issue, but no mistaking the radio alphabet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom