Women's World Cup

[StroudGrecian]

Use goalline technology by all means but sod all this VAR nonsense.

Even if we do end up with the correct decision to the letter of the law it's taking a hell of a lot of enjoyment away from the game for me.

Although on this occasion the decisions benefited England, that game was totally ruined by VAR.

It's bloody ridiculous. If it ever gets to our level and we are all cheering a winning goal in a Wembley play off final only for it to be snatched away because of an offside toe.

Top strikers who play on the shoulder of the last man are going to be hesitant now aren't they when previously they might get away with a marginal offside


Let the game and all its human mistakes (players and refs) flow.

This.

I thought that when VAR was first introduced it was going to be used intelligently, and only brought into play where clear breaches of the rules had been missed by the ref - i.e. for the most part rolling with the ref's decisions unless there was a blatant offside/handball/red card offence etc. that had been missed.

The situation now, where the flow of the game is completely disrupted and ref's decisions are overturned due to a toe being offside, is simply intolerable. FIFA have to rethink this.

 

[Jason H]

This.

I thought that when VAR was first introduced it was going to be used intelligently, and only brought into play where clear breaches of the rules had been missed by the ref - i.e. for the most part rolling with the ref's decisions unless there was a blatant offside/handball/red card offence etc. that had been missed.

The situation now, where the flow of the game is completely disrupted and ref's decisions are overturned due to a toe being offside, is simply intolerable. FIFA have to rethink this.

Sadly I knew this would end up being the case, having seen it with DRS in Cricket (although it's more tolerable in Cricket which is a stop-start sport). DRS was supposed to be for blatant howlers, instead it's used for wafer-thin decisions.

Another major criticism I have of VAR is that it utilises slow motion replays - these especially with regard to foul offences will often magnify the offence to make it look worse than it actually was.

 

[LOG]

Another major criticism I have of VAR is that it utilises slow motion replays - these especially with regard to foul offences will often magnify the offence to make it look worse than it actually was.

In the World Cup games i've seen, there have been two penalties given and a sending off where this has happened and where a defender clearing the ball has caught an attacking player on their follow through (keep it clean). I'm not sure how they were ever meant to stop the movement of their leg immediately after touching the ball.

 

[Alistair20000]

Once you let technology in it is hard to stop it being used comprehensively.

As has happened in Cricket as Jason points out.

 

[Hants_red]

You need HD cameras so the evidence is better. 50hz isn't good enough.

 

[Sexton Blake]

The irony is that people were worried that VAR would kill the post-match pub chat about controversial decisions, but VAR itself is creating quite a stir.
Sexton, I thought England moved the ball around well from defense to midfield and further forward but too many times midfielders and our attacker received the ball with their back to the defender. Cameroon were pretty good at intercepting and hounding. We didn't really create many chances and I would worry that a better team than Cameroon could shut us out.
I thought our keeper was a bit shaky and indecisive at times and also Cameroon found a lot of spaces in our penalty area but couldn't take advantage.
I was fairly entertained by the match - the quality is not on a par with men's football of course, but the open spaces around the field allowed quite a lot of attacking play and in general there was no time-wasting or play-acting. Yes, Cameroon felt hard done by and reacted badly : I thought the ref did the right thing by allowing the protests to die out naturally rather than take the easy way out by dishing out cards and possibly making the situation even worse. The unnatural break allowed the players to have a drink on a very hot day and there was no harm done by having
some time added. However, the nasty tackle on Houghton did deserve a red card : the line persons were poor throughout the game and made the ref's job more difficult.. I've seen worse refs at SJP and have been impressed with the refs, although their job in general has been made easier by the sportsmanship and lack of histrionics from the players.
VAR? For factual evidence it's good and fair for ball crossing lines, new handball rules, and I think offsides : nothing more infuriating than to see a good goal cancelled out by an incorrect offside decision. Having said that, even with VAR Cameroon's legit goal was disallowed.

Indo agreed quality not yet on a par with mens football. Having said that I have quite enjoyed watching a football match without players rolling around in agony or diving after little or no contact or indulging in so called game management or what we used to call “time wasting”.

Also the teams seem to play with a more natural freedom and not being bogged down by unfathomable tactics.

 

[ORy]

All other decisions and behaviour aside, in my opinion the disallowed Cameroon goal was a perfect example of how VAR may be misused. The photographic 'evidence' given would not categorically state if the offside was right or not. The passing players contact with the ball lasts a splitsecond, and during that time other players move. As a viewer, I would not trust the published photo to be from the exact moment the pass was finished. So, I'm on line with many on here, VAR is still open for human errors and why then use it in extremely tight decisions?

 

[ORy]

USA vs Spain, one all at the break. Fairly even so far, and USA maybe not so clear cut favourites for the cup after all.

 

[Stelios]

Sadly I knew this would end up being the case, having seen it with DRS in Cricket (although it's more tolerable in Cricket which is a stop-start sport). DRS was supposed to be for blatant howlers, instead it's used for wafer-thin decisions.

Another major criticism I have of VAR is that it utilises slow motion replays - these especially with regard to foul offences will often magnify the offence to make it look worse than it actually was.

Agreed. I heard lots of pundits saying it works fine in cricket so football needs it too but no mention of the 'mission creep' of DRS. As you say, it was meant for the 'howler'. The run out, the clear inside edge onto pad for an LBW appeal or the blatant snick missed by the umpire. Not wafer-thin decisions.

Football is a contact sport. Of course a defender is going to touch an attacker when clearing a ball. Does that make it a foul or a pen?

I do think football needs to somehow have a system that can correct clear and obvious decisions missed by a ref but without checking every tiny alleged infraction in the last few minutes leading up to a 'goal'.

Very impressed by England so far. They seem to have no problem creating chances and scoring goals. Hard to see them failing to score in any game and are in with a real shout of winning the whole thing. Don't see why they should fear anyone. France are nervous. USA solid but not spectacular.

The tactics seem pretty non-existent for the most part so can't see them getting 'done' by a team.

 

[ORy]

The Dutch in all kinds of trouble vs Japan, but winning through a correct penalty and 2-1 towards the end. Seven European countries in the quarter finals + USA. VAR aside, I think it's been thoroughly enjoyable so far. On to a tough quarter final vs your women on Thursday then!