• 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!

Rules VAR

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Has VAR Ruined Football?

  • Total voters
    139
CJJ said:
Forest are the same club that hired a referee as their own DOGE department not too long ago.

I don't think it helps for clubs to start a culture war against PGMOL
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think taking it laying down is helping us, either.
Fuck it.
Start a war. Change the narrative.
If we highlight a series of constant but minor decisions against us, it will draw attention to the next game, and the game after that. Refs will start to think a bit harder about blowing the whistle every 60 seconds to award soft free kicks against us.
VAR has not solved the issue of bias/bent refs, not even close.
 
Just get rid, it's not fit for purpose, especially how it's operated. It beggars belief that they STILL get it wrong after watching an incident for five minutes. I'd only keep the line technology and the semi automated offside.
 
Mrs Perryman said:
Just get rid, it's not fit for purpose, especially how it's operated. It beggars belief that they STILL get it wrong after watching an incident for five minutes. I'd only keep the line technology and the semi automated offside.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Matt1882 said:
It's the idiots using it, not the tech itself.
They lack basic common sense and logic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Maybe we should employ common sense experts to sit in the VAR room with them.
All we'd need to do is shout at them "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?"

Simple 2 step job.
Fucking check that you moron - for when they merrily ignore what looks like a foul the ref missed
Fucking stop checking it you moron - for when they've spent more than 10 seconds trying to prove a close one was offside

I'd do it as a 2nd job for £20k a year based on 2 games a week.
 
Matt1882 said:
Maybe we should employ common sense experts to sit in the VAR room with them.
All we'd need to do is shout at them "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?"

Simple 2 step job.
Fucking check that you moron - for when they merrily ignore what looks like a foul the ref missed
Fucking stop checking it you moron - for when they've spent more than 10 seconds trying to prove a close one was offside

I'd do it as a 2nd job for £20k a year based on 2 games a week.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd do it for free (for Spurs games of course!) ;)
 
Matt1882 said:
So what you're saying, is you think everything on the pitch should be regarded as offside, like the old days?
You want more stoppages for offside?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No mate.

I have no clue how you read that into what I said about Danny Blanchflower.

My understanding of what Blanchflower favoured, in respect of the offside rule, was that the pitch was made into quarters.

No offside in the middle half of the pitch; only in the final quarter.

Blanchflower's logic was that this would create more space for the skilled footballers to play in rather than compacting the play, ten yards either side of the half way line, with plodders playing an offside trap.
 
Kosher Kid said:
No mate.

I have no clue how you read that into what I said about Danny Blanchflower.

My understanding of what Blanchflower favoured, in respect of the offside rule, was that the pitch was made into quarters.

No offside in the middle half of the pitch; only in the final quarter.

Blanchflower's logic was that this would create more space for the skilled footballers to play in rather than compacting the play, ten yards either side of the half way line, with plodders playing an offside trap.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


The officious little wankers would still be drooling over drawing lines.

Was his bootlace inside the offside quarter line or outside ?
 
Kosher Kid said:
No mate.

I have no clue how you read that into what I said about Danny Blanchflower.

My understanding of what Blanchflower favoured, in respect of the offside rule, was that the pitch was made into quarters.

No offside in the middle half of the pitch; only in the final quarter.

Blanchflower's logic was that this would create more space for the skilled footballers to play in rather than compacting the play, ten yards either side of the half way line, with plodders playing an offside trap.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As far as I can find, he was in the camp of "if you're not interfering with play, you shouldn't be on the pitch"
It's a quote I'd always attributed to Clough, but it seems Blanchflower also said it.
I can't find any other offside quotes from Blanchflower.
 
Matt1882 said:
As far as I can find, he was in the camp of "if you're not interfering with play, you shouldn't be on the pitch"
It's a quote I'd always attributed to Clough, but it seems Blanchflower also said it.
I can't find any other offside quotes from Blanchflower.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I read about Blanchflower's views on offside many years ago.

It was in a book I think.

I'll see what I can do.
 
Mrs Perryman said:
Just get rid, it's not fit for purpose, especially how it's operated. It beggars belief that they STILL get it wrong after watching an incident for five minutes. I'd only keep the line technology and the semi automated offside.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Difference is, when WE score, they take 5 minutes to find a way any way to disallow it... when Arse score, they spend the same time deciding HOW to find a way to award the goal!

Matt1882 said:
It's the idiots using it, not the tech itself.
They lack basic common sense and logic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...and use bias!
 
www.bbc.com

Key Match Incidents Panel: Everton wrongly denied penalty in Arsenal defeat

Everton should have been awarded a penalty in their 1-0 defeat by Woolwich, the Premier League's Key Match Incidents Panel has said.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

The Xavi red card and Ekitiké goal were unanimously agreed as the correct decisions when reviewed.

The conclusion will be that John Brooks had a good game and got all the big calls right.

Clearly tough to be a PL ref and got abuse no matter how you perform.
 
Sky "ref watch" on last nights game re Gray not getting a penalty

Should Spurs have had a penalty for challenge on Gray?​

INCIDENT: Spurs appealed for a penalty when Kevin Schade and Nathan Collins brought down Archie Gray in the box but nothing was given.

DERMOT SAYS: I do not think it is a foul because Schade bumps into him, there is a little bit of a nudge, but if you watch Gray, he actually throws himself forward and uses Collins's calf to go over - I thought no foul.

JAY BOTHROYD SAYS: I agree - there is going to be contact in the area when you are trying to weave through bodies and it would have been a really soft decision to give a penalty for that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So neither of these 2 (and probably the 3 berks in the VAR room watching) spotted the defender put his leg in front of Grays legs and trip him, then?
They're looking at the shoulder contact?

THIS is why we need to sack all the idiots and have people with as much as half a brain to do the VAR job.


I've even (crudely) highlighted his leg here. No doubt VAR would have had more angles to see the obvious.


There is an argument that we benefitted from the Romero one. But IMO, the issue was that it wasn't a red card offence due to it being a fall.
We were once denied a blatant penalty when a Newcastle player "fell over" in front of Kane in the box. The Romero one was no different.
I remember at the time thinking "there's no point making tackles if that's not a penalty. Just fall over in front of players.
 
Hmmm: 'I was sure it was offside' - why did Wirtz equaliser stand?

I wasn't aware of this 'tolerance' rule (and I don't seem to recall any other examples), but apparently it's been a thing for while, which seems to add an extra level of complexity to the 'clear and obvious' rule.

In the first two seasons of VAR there were some very confusing offside decisions. The lines drawn to the defender and the attacker would be on top of each other.

There were many complaints that this was against the spirit of the offside law.

So from the start of the 2021-22 season all leagues added a tolerance level, or benefit of the doubt, of about 5cm to the old offside technology. It meant that if the two lines touched, the player would be given onside regardless of the on-field decision.

This was because of inaccuracies in the technology, like the correct moment the ball has been passed.

In effect a player could now be marginally offside on the technology, but onside when the tolerance level was applied.

At the time, referees' body Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) estimated it could lead to an additional 20 goals a season.

The advent of semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) changed all that. Other leagues, including the top flights in Germany, Spain and Italy, have gone back to offside by the millimetre.

But when the Premier League introduced SAOT it wanted to continue with the tolerance level, to give some leeway to the attacker. That is because there are still questions about treating this new technology as flawless.

It is also why you will get situations like Wirtz, who appears to be just offside, but SAOT will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top