Don't tell me that the VAR Thread is still going?

To someone like Caesar, the smallest wrong might likely be "clearly" wrong.
To someone like Fredo Corleone, there might be some vacillation in his opinion....

as Burning 247 said .... ugh .....
man, oh man .....

 

This is obvious. Yes, of course, I agree - but the question still is - is/was the rule-book written to accommodate that? Or is it just being done because it evolved that way because that is the best way to do things? I'm not arguing that what refs do is not the best possible approach. It most likely is.
I'm trying to assess whether they are arbitrarily doing this in spite of the rules. It seems an interesting question to me - and I honestly don;t know why its being asked should engender such automatic hostility to it as a question......
(Except that it leads directly to the question: - does a rule have to be followed?)

 

Have you two ever met face to face?

 

Possibly at the Kezar Pub?

 

- -

 

it shows.

 

I was under the impression that zaq was using Messi's "creative free kick ball placement when he scored against us as an example of how VAR could / should be used, which you refuted/argued with/whatever.

I could be wrong, mind you, I barely skim 99% of the exchanges you 2 have.

 

I strongly doubt that most of the posters on here have read the rules (and yet they all comment.... why am I different?)
Most Americans see fit and have a right to comment on the country's laws, without actually reading them all - or even the constitution..... So, there's that ....

Hmmm.....You may not have dug that question out of there initially, but that really is what I was asking. I'm still asking because I can't find the damn specific rule that disputed the one I copied.... So (I don't know) I might well be right and you might be wrong in saying that gradation (which I agree that the refs do use) is supposed to be in use here. It may be good that it is in use, but that says nothing about whether, by the letter of the law, (which I can't take the time to find and you wont bother to produce) it is supposed to be!
The difficulty starts in conception:
The rules are as you say, different by direct comparison, but they are similar (if) they happen to set absolute limits on measurement of items.
An offside and a handball - viewed limit = any.
A disagreement with the referee's decision - spoken limit = any. (If that is the rule as it is written, which is how the one I posted was written - it doesn;t include gradation or common sense, and we'd be having those 8-10 yellow cards every week/every game that you asked

For about three weeks until everyone figured out it might be best to actually shut up.....

In any case - look - does it matter. I was just intrigued by it - not setting out on a crusade of change....

Bring on Arsenal.. maybe Pierre Emerick buymangythingy will have an offside nostril hair or omething for us to talk about next weekend....

 

Yawwn......!!!!

When is our next match, so we can talk fresh VAR screw ups.

 

you've been trying to parse zaq's gibberish too long. what I posted is exactly on point ....
"For factual decisions (e.g. location of an offence,[eg where the foul took place that led to Messi's FK goal !) ........the VAR must inform the referee if there is clear replay evidence."

there was 100% clear video evidence that Messi walked the ball about 10 yards closer to our goal. according to this, the VAR should have called it back.

 

We broke up because he wanted to Video the Wedding.....

 

Look - whether it should have been or not at the time, it could be used without any element of disruption to the VAR as it already exists.
Th eonly sane argument I can think of against this would be the slippery slope fear .... which is fair enough as a defence of the goodwill of VAR ... but this particular case is a case of what it really could do well.....

 

zaquq doesn'tt speath gubberish.... youuse yanker.....

 

I hope you covered the mirrors in the bedroom...... Eeeuck!

 

IFAB clearly stated that this bulletin was a clarification of the intent of the rule, i.e. not any kind of expansion of the rule.
(and a really great example of why I hold a deep-seated hatred of VAR - it's being introduced on this ridiculous adhoc trial-and-error basis into games at the highest level.)

you are assuming facts not in evidence - or put another way, you're inferring what you want to infer from the wording. I've no idea why, other than you just want to be bloody argumentative.
I'm taking their wording at face value. if it was only referring to in/out of the box, why would it simply just say that? (answer: it would) and "walking back the entire currently advertised purpose of VAR" is what this is doing !

you're saying that on VAR - THE absolute most contentious rule change in the history of the game - they'd issue a clarification with throw-away wording? come on now, get real man. the Messi goal is EXACTLY the kind of clear and obvious error (it lead to a goal in a CL semifinal ffs!!) that VAR is supposed to address.

 

So do any of you think Manure got screwed yesterday? Do any of you give a sh*t?

 

Do I give in to schadenfreude? In the case of manure, hell yes.