First of all, the arguments against VAR don't have to be logical. That's always been your codicil here. How we make the arguments has to be logical, I agree. But this is to me primarily about aesthetics and to you its secondarily about aesthetics and primarily about getting calls to be fairer. What you are missing is that part of the aesthetic (the excitement) is the occasional (and crucially here - random) unfairness. As US Scouse put it - people watched it for 100 years for that, not in constant fear of that! That's a fact. Anyway - nonetheless, to play it your way and make it about logic = The quite simple logic against VAR is that if enough people do not care enough to want the way they watch the game being transformed by this ocularly-cancerous VAR waiting period after every contentious effin' goal, then there in no requirement for VAR, other than your particular wish for (the) personal satisfaction of knowing that things are now fairer. But that's just the same as my personal satisfaction of not having to watch the VAR circus at every 2nd exciting moment in a big game. (Juve vs Ajax last night ... brillint football mixed with uggghhh...) Neither has any greater right. Your attempts to say that there is a logic about it somewhere outside of these two positions is incorrect. You are drawing a type of moral conclusion about it and life and fairness, but you are forgetting that this is a game, and does not need to mimic the most correct version of the ethical way of life. It's a game. The rules can allow for errors. No one will die or go hungry..... 120 years of pure enjoyment will pass unruffled into history...... And there's this. It's really not an improvement if a significant number of people are appalled by the new spectacle they are watching. It's a bit like Brexit, if you want an analogy, at any point in time when those of us with enough sense to know that we'd be sickened by this carry on, decide that we are sickened and numerically superior, VAR should be discarded. If you can't trust 4 guys to officiate a ********ing game of football, I don't know what to say .... Life's NOT perfect. Nor meant to be.
I'm (not at all) looking forward to the FA saying that every single goal needs to be VAR'd. Gonna happen, I can effing guarantee it.
here's something interesting..... iof you apply VAR to said Dionne Dublin, he becomes Dion Dublin, who's father, I was once informed, was a member of Showaddywaddy .... I kid you not.........!!
If you expect to be taken seriously your argument against or for a thing had better be logical, no matter what specific thing you're talking about. But if you are purposefully trying to be illogical, then congratulations... you've succeeded with flying colors. I don't really give a shit, that's not a good argument to keep bad calls in the game when they can fix it with small stoppages here or there. Juve-Ajax for instance, a great match, which did not drag on into the wee hours of the morning due to VAR. There were a few checks, brief stoppages which had almost zero impact on the overall length of the match, and it was a contest filled with incredible back and forth play. I don't care how much it personally offends YOU, or any one party. No one does! Except you! That's why logical arguments matter so much, to get away from personal preference regarding what you call "aesthetics". I mean you may personally prefer that the pass back to the keeper rule remains in the game. So what? Yes, apart from the fact that VAR gets more calls right there is no need for VAR. Well said. As to the rest, first of all you're wrong again because a lot of people not liking something is not at all a LOGICAL reason to get rid of it, and second of all boo hoo -- the game constantly evolves and will always constantly evolve, so my advice after all this time remains: get over it. Plenty of enjoyment still to be had... in fact it's quite easy to argue there's MORE enjoyment when you know that there is a chance that a poor call which could cost your club (or any club) will be fixed by a brief 2nd look. So again, poor argument to no one's surprise. This is not a good argument against anything. It is most certainly not like Brexit. Feel free to repeat this a million more times, it remains completely irrelevant. VAR is in, it will be in on the highest level for probably the rest of our lives, just get used to the idea. Sorry! Your side and argument lost. It's over. It actually completely ignores my view on the matter, because otherwise I couldn't possibly be saying the game has and will constantly evolve, right? How could I say that if I felt any one law were "passed down on stone tablets"? But thanks for trying.
I'm not certain that Sam was implying a slippery slope ( a man can scramble all the way downa mountian and still fall over at the bottom and bang his head dead, you know.... Here's a question, then - If VAR is ever expanded at all, is that then to you to be the introduction into reality as an actual thing, of a formal slippery slope reality? Is that why you were in such a locked mindset in this thread about my simple suggestion that they use VAR to look at whether the ball is placed inside the corner quarter-circle? Knowing, as we both did, that this rule could be implemented without changing anything, except (after one or two instances of its usage) the behaviour of the idiots placing the ball outside the circle, one they know that any goal would be automaticlly disallowed....?
Tomorrow the FA could push for VAR to suddenly apply to EVERY ELEMENT OF THE GAME, and yet a slippery slope still can't be part of a logical argument against the CURRENT implementation of VAR. You have to make those arguments independently because they aren't necessarily linked -- that's the fallacy. Your fundamental misunderstanding of what VAR is trying to do colors every single thing you post in here. You keep getting lost at this point as far as I can tell, but the bottom line is if someone wanted VAR to apply to corner kick ball-placement, they'd have to make that argument. And by it's very nature it would look very, very different from the argument of VAR applying on things like red cards, offsides which lead to goals, and penalty decisions. That's why all your dumb hypothetical arguments aren't relevant. If the FA tried to implement VAR so that it judged where balls were placed on corner kicks, and the game was stopping every corner kick for VAR to get a close up... I would be against it! It's not even worth it for the possibility of cheating, it's not worth the time devoted to writing up the rule! Because it's completely unnecessary, the refs do a fine job, generally, of making sure the ball is correctly placed already and even if they didn't the placement of the ball on corners just doesn't really impact matches, whether it was on one spot or 2-3 inches off the spot... it's just not a big deal, and that's simply not true of the other stuff VAR does address. So now we can stop bringing up that idiotic hypothetical, I hope.
Hobo will tell you that he dosn't really give a sh!t, as though this opinion sits atop a pedestal where the conflicting one doesn't .... to wit ---- Whether you give a shit or not is neither here nor there. There's your old buddy, the logical fallacy rearing its head. My argument isn't about the length of the match. It's about the destruction of the psychology of the spectacle. It was there in plain view last night. Ruining the moment. Sure, I get it by now - you can't see this. You are too vested in your own psychology of getting it right. But if you think, no-one but me is thinking this way, you are wrong. If you think lots of people don't like sitting looking at this type of inserted adjudication spectacle at that key emotional moment you are also quite wrong. Well, it's not like Brexit in the sense that it had to be voted on, or that it's gonna change people's lives irrevocably, or in any number of other ways. Which seems to you to be an answer to why I said "it's a bit like Brexit" where again by drawing a larger conclusion you are conveniently-deliberately missing the smaller one- which is that I am correct in that if it gets to the point where it annoys as many people in the way that it annoys me and Scouse and Sam, etc enough to make them demand its abrogation, then it will be abrogated. You are simply being silly if you think there's an argument to be made against that.
I've made that argument. It would change nothing and fix the issue. (I don't have any authority to implement it, but the argument was made. It could be used to fix this minor issue without any fuss. Ironically you are the one making the fuss against it being also used to do this, in addition to whatever else it is now doing.) Good Lord - do you have to argue about everything. This could easily be done, with no side issues. End of.
If the FA can hire engineers who can actually make machines who can record things happening, theni'm guessing, just guessing here, mind you, that pointing a camera continuously at a specific spot from up above shouldn't be too difficult. No stopping involved. A camera and a continuous feed. 4 cameras. 4 feeds. A quick look from one of the guys in the box while the celebrations are going on and then a word to the ref if the ball was clear of the line. There's no argument to this .....
Yes there is... the argument is there's zero need for it. Just because you CAN do something isn't an argument that you SHOULD. So you haven't provided ANY argument.
Oh hey look! VAR just gave LFC a goal that the linesman flagged offside -- incredibly close call but the correct one, well caught by VAR.
Baseball has changed a LOT, regardless/in spite of the tradition surrounding the rules and experience of the game... so his argument wasn't really a very good one. Yes, I know. What is here and/or there is the argument for VAR, which has nothing to do with how much of a shit I personally give. Nothing at all. Whether or not I see this isn't the point... the point is this is just your opinion, and your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to a logical argument. You STILL don't have one! You only have "well I don't like it!" Well... I don't care! And neither do a huge amount of people that want the game called correctly! So come up with a better argument, because just taking a poll of this specific board, there's about 3 people that agree it "ruins moments", and everyone else seems pretty fine with it because it's getting more important calls right. So you do the math. I've acknowledged that, and I could say the exact same thing about how I "feel" -- it's STILL not a good reason to keep out VAR. I'm sorry you don't understand this. That's neither here nor there... I mean, again, I could say the same exact thing about my side of things, how we "feel" about bad calls that decide matches, but that's not really relevant either. If 90% of fans hated it, yeah it probably would be gone. But that's another dumb hypothetical which is completely unrealistic. Because the reality is, all signs point to you being pretty strongly in the minority. A recent poll of prem fans revealed that 70% of them welcome VAR, and think it will have a good impact on the game in general. So, you can dream of starting some campaign to get rid of VAR, or think that because you and a few other dudes on a message board hate stoppages of any kind that is good enough to get rid of VAR, or you can hope the arbiters of the game will just suddenly decide to re-institute poor calls that swing matches because a minority group of vocal whiners don't like the very slight stoppages... hell, beat your head against a wall for the rest of your life, for all I care! OR you can join the 21st century, and just get used to the idea with the rest of us, and try to focus on the positives the tool offers. Either way, I don't really care... because, again, your one (minority) group's opinion isn't a good enough reason to change ANYTHING, and on top of that VAR as a tool stands on its own merits at this point, and those merits are fairly self-evident. You know, to those that actually read the rules and understand what VAR is trying to do, at least.
I began this by giving you a reason why. Now, you can, if you like, take the position that footballers are responsible for nothing more than the football on the field (if it comes to it I probably hold views closer to that than even you do), but the Football Association and the Premiership DO NOT hold that view. They hold that footballers are supposedly role-models. Therefore their position must surely be that they are in favour of having their role models not indulge in openly breaking rules that are (presumably) there for a reason. That is not the signal that you (well neither you nor I really care about what signals footballers send kids) that the football authorities want to send to kids. I've pointed this out before - this only happens on two corners of the pitch, not four. Care to guess which two? The ones without the linesman. The ones without the linesman. The ones without the linesman. I wonder why that might be the case ......? hmmmmm Therefore = deliberate cheating. Deliberate cheating is either (a) the action of a good role model -or- (b) not the action of a good role model. *note- whether you or I care about whether they are good role models or not is irrelevant to the fact that the FA cares. (a) = (so leave it be) (b) = (reason to change it, if feasible). =a good reason for the Football Association to institute this change where it can reasonably be instituted.
you prob shouldn't have poste dthat .... VAR and the great touchline run........ what a horror show............... jeez................
omg, what are you talking about? This has nothing to do with whether or not the FA would VAR every corner. You gave your reason to police all corner-kick ball placement, and that reason, as far as I can tell, amounts to "they have the capability of doing it". Do I have that right? That's what you said, generally -- "because it's all based on tech and they can just look at everything quickly they should do it". Right? That's not a good reason to do ANYTHING, necessarily. I reject it, because these kinds of plays, this kind of "cheating", doesn't have a significant effect on the actual outcomes of matches. So it's not on the level of current VAR implementations. So it's yet another bad point of comparison for this discussion. So now what?
VAR on Llorente 'handball" on Spurs go-ahead goal... arm tucked into his side, shouldn't be reversed for me. And it stands. Watching this on DVR'd delay, good call for me though.
Offside rule: "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by: interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate" So, looks like a great piece of refereeing to me & great use of tech/VAR. Unless I'm missing something about the offside rule... which frankly, is possible.
There’s a clip circulating purporting to show a different angle to Llorente’s goal. Hilarious, because it’s actually making a case, if any, for a penalty as the defender’s hand also, ‘ahem, touches the ball.