Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The truth at last - You all love Liverpool FC

Maybe the referee thought, well VVD made two crunching tackles in the first 10 minutes and got away with it, so he had it coming to him.

That said, I've not seen the tackle Pickford made on VVD yet. Maybe after I've watched it on MOTD tonight I'll be amongst those queuing up to fire bomb Pickford's house...
D681AA23-4B94-48B0-94C5-0B6DB1A92134.jpeg
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
I’ve just watched MOD. Now for the life of me I can not see how Liverpool’s third goal was ruled out for offside. They put a still on the screen and I’m sure at worse the Liverpool player is level, and that is ON side.
I tell you VAR is ruining our game if you lose the league by 1 point there will be a lot of angry fans looking back at this awful decision.*












*I obviously won’t be one of them;)
 
Jeezus that is fecking common assault, now where is that recipe for molotov cocktail?

Seriously though, that is shocking. If the FA can't act retrospectively and give that @#$t a minimum 3 match ban then the game is lost. And don't get me fecking started on that ludicrous VAR offside decision for thec3rd goal. Video referees, clowns the lot of them.
 

CRmeansCeilingReached

ADC
Moderator
I’ve just watched MOD. Now for the life of me I can not see how Liverpool’s third goal was ruled out for offside. They put a still on the screen and I’m sure at worse the Liverpool player is level, and that is ON side.
I tell you VAR is ruining our game if you lose the league by 1 point there will be a lot of angry fans looking back at this awful decision.*

It was indeed a baffling decision, but the one which really hurts our chances is the assault on VVD. Still no idea why offside means that was not reviewed by VAR. If the ball was out of play and somebody kicked someone else, they would be sent off. So what if the whistle has gone? Pickford did a flying knee-height scissors kick on VVD, which could legitimately have ended his career.

Hoping he is only out for 2-3 weeks, but I've heard various estimates from 4 weeks to several months. He left hospital on crutches yesterday. How can you injure one of the opposing team's players in such a blatant fashion and it go completely unpunished?

Baffling.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
It was indeed a baffling decision, but the one which really hurts our chances is the assault on VVD. Still no idea why offside means that was not reviewed by VAR. If the ball was out of play and somebody kicked someone else, they would be sent off. So what if the whistle has gone? Pickford did a flying knee-height scissors kick on VVD, which could legitimately have ended his career.

Hoping he is only out for 2-3 weeks, but I've heard various estimates from 4 weeks to several months. He left hospital on crutches yesterday. How can you injure one of the opposing team's players in such a blatant fashion and it go completely unpunished?

Baffling.
Indeed, is it because Pickford is the England goalkeeper?
I have noticed going back years that certain players who were well established England international’s got away with murder whilst playing for their clubs.
I can not think of any other reason.
If the ref didn’t see this can the matter be looked at and punishment retrospectively given? The ref obviously didn’t see it and I’m sure that’s the law of the game.
 
I believe VAR can be an asset to the game, but not as it’s currently used. On pitch refs arent making the decisions, its supposed to be an assistant, not the game definer, i‘d feel better about it if the ref bothered his arse to go and review it on the screen.
 
I believe VAR can be an asset to the game, but not as it’s currently used. On pitch refs arent making the decisions, its supposed to be an assistant, not the game definer, i‘d feel better about it if the ref bothered his arse to go and review it on the screen.
I'd feel better if the referee could bother his arse to tell the VAR people to fcuking do one.
 
The problem with VAR compared to TMO in rugby is that the TMO looks at everything and is instructed, as part of the refereeing protocols, to tell the referee if there has been an infringement, regardless if something else has happened. For example in yesterday's European cup final the referee awarded a penalty but the TMO came in and told him there had been an earlier infringement, 30 seconds look at what happened and the referee went back to the first infringement. If the GK incident had happened in a rugby match it would have been given to the rugby referee to have a look at by the TMO.

It appears to me that the VAR referee is there only look at certain situations and not the whole game. I know that the rugby authorities have offered the football authorities assistance, whether it was taken up is a different matter.
 
The VAR issue is easily solved.

From the moment the incident is blown or the goal is awarded a clock starts.

If the VAR official can't find a reason to overrule the on field decision within 30 seconds then the on pitch decision stands. If, with all the technology at the VAR officials disposal, a reversal can't be justified then the mistake, if indeed there was one, wasn't fúcking clear and obvious was it!

As far as the Mane decision is concerned the only grudge I have with it is I don't think they had the frame rate to make a decision that infinitesimal, even the decision was far from clear and obvious.

Hey ho, we move on.
 
VAR on an offside decision needs to look to cricket with the lbw call. In cricket the umpire (it would be the linesman in football) makes his call at the time of the incident. If on review in cricket the ball is seen to hit or miss the stumps but only by a marginal amount and without technology the umpires decision would be reasonable, then the umpires call stands. This stops technology ruling the sport over tiny technicalities, and will only overturn a decision if there is an obvious error.
 
Now the dust has settled I have to admit the blue side of the city is looking the real deal now and a shift in power could come sooner than we thought.
they Scored two goals today...they've got a brilliant manager, and could deffo win the league this season
Well done Rangers
 
VAR on an offside decision needs to look to cricket with the lbw call. In cricket the umpire (it would be the linesman in football) makes his call at the time of the incident. If on review in cricket the ball is seen to hit or miss the stumps but only by a marginal amount and without technology the umpires decision would be reasonable, then the umpires call stands. This stops technology ruling the sport over tiny technicalities, and will only overturn a decision if there is an obvious error.
I'm fairly certain that was the original idea for VAR. But for some reason, the men in black have lost their bottle and now hide behind VAR - and it is ruining the game.

Most managers, players and fans would rather have the odd decision go against them, than the nonsense situation we now find ourselves in, where 1cm of elbow is judged to be offside, and a perfectly legitimate goal is disallowed.
 
I totally agree on VAR. It was meant to be for gross and obvious errors. It was not meant to be a system for finding reasons not to award a goal.

The use of “umpires call” where it is a marginal offside is a good shout. Also, the VAR guy should say to the ref, you should look at that last whatever it was, and the ref should then go and look at the pitch side monitor to make sure he is happy with his decision. The ref should retain the authority and should be the one to make the decision.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top