Tottenham vs Liverpool FC - EPL - Sept 30 [R]

VAR electing to ignore their limitations and going back to change one single decision -- even for the purposes of getting it correct -- when they don't have that allowance by the rules, that to me is worse for "sporting integrity". Not only because evidence for a blatant & explicit rule violation is probably more actionable than a plausible mistake, but also because at that point every club who has ever been affected by a VAR "mistake" or received a PGMOL apology can ask the question "why were the rules ignored only in THIS instance?"

But I'm not a lawyer.

100% agreed... smoking gun pointing to conspiracy is basically the only thing that really changes this, and "helps" Liverpool.

 

You wouldn’t have had Ferdinand, obviously, no more than you would have had Luis Garcia. But what about say, Matt Le Tissier? Or Tony Cascarino? Chris Sutton? Gareth Barry? Scott Parker?

Not saying it’s infallible, but it might work. As I say, there’s the kernel of a good idea there.

 

Apparently there already is an automated offside system available so the would be the first thing I'd add and replace those VAR numbskulls.

 

Jones went in to a tackle with his lead leg stretched out at a significant angle from a 90 degree perpendicular to the ground, it was over a stride away from his original center of gravity, and his trailing leg is not controlling his bodyweight... it is in fact dragging on the ground behind/under him. So that means that the force of his body is following right behind that lead leg. Because that's how inertia works.

So that is what it means to "lunge", as far as I can tell, assuming we aren't talking about two-footed tackles or a jazzercise class... Jones forcefully comes forward, stretching out a lead leg, and very little of that force is mitigated by the trailing leg. How is that not a "lunge"?

Whatever your answers above are, people don't get reds for lunging. But it being a "lunge" seems a contributing factor when it comes to assessing the force applied in the tackle. And that force went into the opponent's standing leg.

If the same thing happened to Jones, we'd be having a different conversation. But we're not, because as I mentioned earlier... what actually happened matters, and what almost (but didn't) happen doesn't matter.

 

Yeah. Prem clubs rejected bringing in this system for the 23/24 season in early June. Oops.

I think they can vote to bring it in in January? Or maybe can call a quicker meeting to bring it in sooner. Assuming clubs approve.

 

That’d work also, maybe even in tandem.

Take your point about the jockocracy, but I still think there’s a decent kernel in Savage’s idea. Some would be very good at it, others hopeless. Much like players transitioning to management. Not too many Kennys, more than a few Stevies.

You’re right that you don’t need to have played the game, but having played the game does help. The biggest problem with the players that I can see is bias. Bias with former clubs and former enemies and positional bias. Goalkeepers union and all that.

The idea was just something that caught my attention. Sounds better than the status quo to me.

 

bit of a tangent, but isn't LeTiss a conspiracy nutcase?

 

Hobo, sorry, but two people were going for the ball. Lunging if you like. It’s not like the guy in white was just standing innocently while Jones lunged at him. They were both going for the ball. Jones’ foot got to the ball first, that’s what he was aiming for. the ball rolled his foot went over and caught his oppos shin. Unintentional!
I know in your mind that intent is irrelevant. But that’s you. The injured guy stuck his leg out to try for the ball, he had the same intent as Jones, getting the ball.

Then I ask why did the VA Ref leave the worst possible image on the screen for the ref. Instead of the start of the action in real time and then broke it down in slow mo for clarity later? Yeah, we’ll never know that. But the VA Ref did a lot wrong all game. As did the ref.

Again, two players went for the ball. Both wanted it and if you like both lunged for it.
One came off worst but football is a contact sport. I know.

I spent time in hospital getting my cheek bone reorganized and reset. The contact was deemed unintentional because I got the ball he kicked my face. In todays game they would have given to oppo a PK for me stopping his foot.

edit: THIS!!!
Menace2Sobriety said: ↑
Is your/(the) remit to get the decision correct or to ensure proper processes are followed?

There is only one answer to this for the sake of the game, not the laws.

 

I'm pretty sure if we all started saying VAR was great hobo would do a 180 and start arguing it was crap through and through.

 

Why do you think this thread has 637 posts? It's turned into a VAR-a-thon.

 

I think it's because he sees himself as "the voice of reason", while the rest of us let our emotions override our logic.

It's the hill he has picked. I think he likes the arguing. I think it makes him feel good that, in his mind, he's able to see past the emotional side of being a fan.

But I'm sure he'll disagree with this and I'll get a lengthy response how I'm wrong.

 

I actually agree.

My poorly stated point was that PGMOL or the I(not so)FAB should amend the rules and processes in place where getting to the correct decision is paramount - when there is miscommunication between VAR and the on field referee, which is very different from when both VAR and referee are making the wrong decision...ie Wolves vs Utd

 

I agree! Sometimes it matters when the guy is standing on the other guy's shin... that's really all I'm saying here. And I still think this is at best a 50/50 red. It's a much better yellow, and if we had orange cards I think this would be a good example for what those should look like.

It's not me, my good man... I'm talking about the rules. Intent does not factor in to serious foul play at all.
Am I wrong? Please point out where it's mentioned if you don't mind...
I'm happy to be wrong if I learn something out of it! May not seem like it sometimes, but I promise.

I 100% agree -- this is not good VARing.

Well... tell Sam, I guess. Because he said I was full of shit for saying Jones "lunged".
That said I'm really happy you agree with me, though. At least about lunging.

 

This is 100% accurate.

 

Unsolicited comment regarding @EruditeHobo... I think Hobo talks alot of sense and without being tribal. Sometimes I question his true allegiances (I kid - maybe? ) but I've always found his perspective reasonable and well articulated.

Europe can't come soon enough. We all need to move on as nothing much will change in this case and we're all just in an echo chamber.

 

Well, we've got a fUkking steep hill to climb, given the ridiculous spending we are seeing from competing clubs and the ongoing league and official bias against everything Liverpool. Just have to suck it up and walk on.

 

F-ck Hobo, your first fkn sentence is inflammatory and Pisses me off before I get into the rest of your fkn opinionated shit.

So the Spurs player was just standing there minding his own business, not even thinking the ball was near when Jones for no reason leaped, no, “Lunged” at him over the ball with malice. Do you know how fkn stupidly brainwashed you sound.

You are so fkng brain washed with VAR, you’ve lost track of what the game is about. You are not concerned with what is the right decision just what the fkn protocol of VAR might be . That is basically some opinionated arshole sitting in front of a TV making subjective decisions that suit him. You would love to do that. It would be like you going to church. It’s a religion for you.

There are several George Orwell quotes that could be attributed to you. Especially when to try to use my words to imply that you were correct. I said both players lunged at the ball and you try to say I agreed about ‘only’ Jones lunged for the ball.
Sam was right you are full of shit!

I can easily see why you love trump.

 

You are correct, that is how he sees himself. Like a VAR version of a born again right wing evangelical christian.

He will surely agree with you, not understanding.