Wolves FC - it isn't football anymore !

More VAR controversy.
The Wolves v Man City game,(( I couldn't have cared who won )), allowed technology to intervene and give justice to key moments in the match - THAT is the reason why we have VAR! ...........but you might agree with Wolves fans who chanted " it's not football anymore." ---

Now I hope that technology is used to identify the disgraceful Wolves fans who threw objects at the City players as they celebrated their first goal. These people need to be punished. In fact Wolves FC need to be punished. It seems that the club have little or no regard for the safety of the players - let alone the fans - to allow dreadful behaviour by hooligans - without taking action.

brb, even with his amnesia, will remember the treatment given to Gills fans, at Molinuex by the Wolves hooligans -- I'm fairly sure that the yellow liquid raining down on us wasn't lager ! And the only reaction by the stewards was apathy.

Violence has ( largely), been eradicated from inside football grounds - GOOD ! Nobody wants it - and it was/ is a compelling reason not to attend matches . Something has to be done when violence happens.

You may not agree with VAR - but is it any different to CCTV in our communities ? Do we have a real problem with that ? If you've nothing to hide, then CCTV shouldn't bother you - it is there to help to protect you and gather evidence of injustices - and to punish offenders - this includes the club if it continually ignores its' duty to safeguard everyone inside the ground.

I hope that the Wolves hooligans get their individual red cards, and banned from matches --- their behaviour 'isn't football anymore' - and you didn't need VAR to tell you !

 

VAR is a monstrosity and should be scraped with immediate effect. It's just not football anymore.

A point I would like to raise about racism or other offences at football grounds - if a ground was to be closed as punishment for racism events at your football club, and it was due to be a televised match, would the televised match also be scrapped to or does the money revenue take precedent over crime?

Let me give you an example. The England match that incurred racism, am I right in thinking, part the stadium was out of bounds to home supporters due to racism. Yet, the match was televised!

As for CCTV, it only protects retailers, it does not protect local communities, so although authorities suggest it makes you safer on the streets, I would question that. From what i've observed most pursuit of criminals has come from private CCTV, home and shop owners. Yes, if the crime is committed in a town centre, then that's different, but we know most personal property as well has ourselves is not protected via Local authority CCTV out the bounds of a town centre, well, other than for issuing you with fixed penalty charges.

Also when are refs going to start issuing cards for cheating, some of these players must be made out of jelly the way they fall to the ground and roll about. I reckon any player that occurs a death roll of three to the count, much like a crocodile, should be shown the jaws of a red card.

 

brb ( my friend ) - I have absolutely no problem in disagreeing with you ( and vice versa ). VAR has, surprisingly, caused a lot of argument over 'offside' decisions. As you know, at Priestfield, we have had awful linesmen - who simply can't keep up with play. There have been terrible (non) decisions when opposing forwards have been yards offside. Are you happy to accept goals against us in those situations - when technology can prevent an injustice ?
VAR was introduced to help the referee to make the 'correct' decision - in situations where human reaction wouldn't be good enough.

If VAR shows that a player is a millimetre offside - then he is offside -- no matter by what distance --- just like a woman is pregnant ( even of the first day of conception ).
Happy New Year ....... I expect we'll still be in disagreement on 31.12.20

 

Imagine a sketch from Monty Python, the black night has had his arms and legs cut off, instead of a battle in the forest, this time during a football match. The Black Knight X1 AFC score a perfect goal with a header. VAR intervenes and over rules the ref once again. NO GOAL, handball. The Black Knight argues it can't be handball because he has had his arms chopped off, and his arms are laying severed on the ground. But as the cross came in it ricocheted off the motionless arm on the ground. The Black Night X1 argue but VAR stands firm and says no goal.

Black Knight is then substituted, and the ref wants him to leave the pitch by the nearest point. The Black Knight tells the ref he has no legs, so can't. Ref says can't you just roll off. He asks the ref if he can carry him off. The ref says oh ok, and procedes to carry the Black Knight over to the bench - The Black Knight coughs, and reminds the ref he needs to go off by the nearest point. So the ref obeys the rules and takes him to the edge of the pitch. The BK states you can't put me down here, you now need to walk round the entire pitch to get me to the bench. The ref reluctantly concedes.

The ref after his good deed goes to run back on the pitch, when the bench remind the ref he can't. He says why, well you left the pitch, you can't go back on until play recommences, but the ref says it can't, I'm the ref, I have the whistle. Both teams agree then, that they have no choice but to Abandoned Game as rules are rules.

See I can be silly like VAR to

 

It's Sunday, I get to the till with my shopping basket at 4.01pm. We closed at 4pm sir. Eh? We closed at 4pm. But it's only a minute pass. But you didn't arrive at 4. Security is called. The security guard looks at his monitor and stated, yes, you defo arrived at 4.01pm, you was a minute late by the recording on my monitor, therefore we can't serve you, rules are rules.

 

brb - YOU definitely do not need VAR just to be silly !
By the way -- heads up -- any use of VAR to help with an argument with mrs brb will not work ( as I find to my cost with Mrs always(not)right )

 

So here we had yet again today, another misuse of the VAR system, that probably cost Norwich the game. There was no clear advantage gained on the offside rule. The player actually ran in the opposite direction, ONSIDE, because he knew the ball would eventually be played to him.

The cameras at best must have indicated he was what, all of 2mm offside!

Now I would dispute that was even the case because how were the measurements arrived at. In a straight line I hear you might say, but the angle was not a straight line, nor did it indicate what frames were used, nor did it indicate were the frames gained from more than one camera, how did the operator(s) arrive at their decision(s).

How is this equipment calibrated, remembering this is not computerised in the true sense of the word, to bring it down to miniscules of seconds, we are merely relying on human interpretation of the equipment being used, with possibly no degree in it's technical functioning .

In fact I would even stick my neck on the line and suggest that if a football club took a decision like this to court, under a case of financial loss (due to relegation based on one VAR decision) - The courts may well fall in the clubs favour, because I very much doubt the accuracy of calibration is pinpoint, which means you have to have an inbuilt tolerence, anything from 1mm-2mm to me, means a tolerance is not being applied.

See I can be just as arsey about decisions as man sitting up in a control room, ruining the game. And if the shots were taken and judged from more than one camera, the whole scenario would fall apart in an appeal.

VAR was never intended for the decisions it is now taking, and someone up above needs to rule on this quickly, before the fans either walk away or we see our first court case suing the FA/Premier League for the loss of financial revenue, through the use of VAR.

Afterall I'm constantly reminded football is now a business therefore corporate liability could also be applied.

Finally let's not also forget, the ref has always been scrutinised in his decisions by the watching crowd and TV viewers, however, in the current situation the person making the decisions for VAR are not meeting any scrutnisation other than the final frames THEY choose to submit.

I would go as far as suggesting, sometime in the future it will be proven that the monitored frames were out of sync. It might only be a miniscule of a second, but like a millimetre that is a lot in this game, between giving a goal or taking it away.

 

The Norwich player was clearly ONSIDE. Worst var decision yet.

 

The problem now is if they were to scrap var. When linesman get it wrong which they will it will have to come back as so many cameras will confirm it

 

Well - it looked as if Pukki had been clever enough to come back from an 'offside' position - to then keep onside just before the ball was passed to him.

The (match) camera angle used by Sky would appear to show that Pukki was onside. Maybe what we saw on our tv sets wasn't a 'square-on' angle that the VAR team had !
When the 'damning' VAR shot was shown, it didn't show the Norwich player who passed the ball - at the moment the ball was played (( ALL in the same picture.)) Are we to accept that the redline ( offside ) shot on the screen was measured at the exact time that the ball was passed (( Dare I presume that VAR technology is that accurate ? ))................................. if the technology is that precise then Pukki was offside ------------------but ---- then I don't like the offside rule !!

The merits of keeping the offside rule has been debated before. I think it was invented when team formations allowed for two fulbacks and five forwards. The rule is past it's best sell by date - and needs to be reviewed. I would scrap it. Even with modern technology, it causes controversy - and is open to various interpretations. ........ the most stupid of which is suggesting that a certain player - closer to the ball than the player who runs on to play it, is not interfering with play! --- ALL the bloody players should be interfering with play !!!
If we are to insist on keeping the offside rule, I would like to see a line on the pitch -- say about 30 yards from the goal line. If a player is 'over' the line when the ball is played forward, he is offside.

 

Cheating --- or plain thick s*** referees !
What people have to realise is that VAR had to be introduced - to overcome the blatantly obvious cheating by referees - or those so thick as to not recognise a back pass to the keeper
you wouldn't know what I'm talking about if you weren't at the game today .......................... or if you were the referee !

 

That wasn't a backpass always, he was trying to score an OG and the keeper got in the way.

 

I watched said game today and yet again VAR has ruined the match. Now I've always been a supporter of what VAR should achieve however at this moment in time it's clearly not working. I will reiterate that the Premier League must adhere to a TMO system that is used in rugby. It's simple, it goes to the additional official and it's showed on the big screens so the whole crowd can see why the decision is made. It takes less time and everybody moves on. Until the Premier League adopts a similar objective, VAR won't be the answer.

 

You don't no the rules . If you knee the ball back it is not a pass back. The ref got it right

 

Obviously I stand corrected ! --- and there was me thinking that the knee was part of the leg - on which ones' foot is at the end -- and a genuine part of the body, with which a player can legally score ----- unlike an armpit --- which has 'arm' as it's first syllable.-------- and I'm sure the game is called 'football', not armpitball !

 

........ps - you don't know how to spell.
pps - and I don't know how to edit the correct post !

 

Knee is not the foot in football lol
You can also score with head or chest and that is not a back pass either to be awarded a foul

 

You tell him gio

 

Shoulder aswell