VAR

You know I'm right.... 

Is that  the point?

Bruno's red card rescinded. So VAR wrong again...What is the point of it?...get rid and just accept there's going to be the odd error now and again.

Wrong. They said nothing about VAR. They did say they believed the ref's decision on the pitch was wrong. Not even a yellow for it. So the message to him is that he reserves the right to keep hacking at opponents shins as long as he "slips" beforehand. Then if someone dares to send him off, he'll get away with it again.

As shown again in our game v Bournemouth, we need VAR, no question about it. If anyone needs any reminder why, they'll find it from Derby v Norwich in the pub league recently, with a horrendous and appalling injustice on the field allowed to stand. Of course it wasn't accepted, nor should it be. Thank god we don't have to tolerate that level of incompetence in our league anymore.

Wrong. They said nothing about VAR. They did say they believed the ref's decision on the pitch was wrong. Not even a yellow for it. So the message to him is that he reserves the right to keep hacking at opponents shins as long as he "slips" beforehand. Then if someone dares to send him off, he'll get away with it again.

As shown again in our game v Bournemouth, we need VAR, no question about it. If anyone needs any reminder why, they'll find it from Derby v Norwich in the pub league recently, with a horrendous and appalling injustice on the field allowed to stand. Of course it wasn't accepted, nor should it be. Thank god we don't have to tolerate that level of incompetence in our league anymore.

I'm afraid your post lacks clarity and reads like gibberish...try being a bit clearer on the "they's" and "he's" to get you point across.
I think by now we all get your devotion to all things VAR...that's fine it's your view and you can defend it till the cows come home. But what is tiresome is your continuous arrogant tone...you have a condescending and mis-placed sense of authority, constantly saying people are wrong etc. What others write are just opinions, freely given and they don't need to be adjudicated or ruled upon by you.

Wrong. They said nothing about VAR. They did say they believed the ref's decision on the pitch was wrong. Not even a yellow for it. So the message to him is that he reserves the right to keep hacking at opponents shins as long as he "slips" beforehand. Then if someone dares to send him off, he'll get away with it again.

As shown again in our game v Bournemouth, we need VAR, no question about it. If anyone needs any reminder why, they'll find it from Derby v Norwich in the pub league recently, with a horrendous and appalling injustice on the field allowed to stand. Of course it wasn't accepted, nor should it be. Thank god we don't have to tolerate that level of incompetence in our league anymore.

Howard Webb literally said VAR was wrong not to send the ref to the monitor to overturn Fernandes' red.

Howard Webb literally said VAR was wrong not to send the ref to the monitor to overturn Fernandes' red.

He also said the ghost goal at Bournemouth v Newcastle should have stood, even though it went in directly off a player's arm.

If you kick an opponent above their shinpad, nowhere near the ball, as was the case in the game you're on about, I think you can expect to be sent off. And it's certainly not a clear and obvious error imo by the referee to do that. The tackle was so high that even the manc based referee at the game, felt he had no choice.

Christ like flogging a dead horse, these diatribes aren't they?

Christ like flogging a dead horse, these diatribes aren't they?

Only if you read it.

He also said the ghost goal at Bournemouth v Newcastle should have stood, even though it went in directly off a player's arm.

If you kick an opponent above their shinpad, nowhere near the ball, as was the case in the game you're on about, I think you can expect to be sent off. And it's certainly not a clear and obvious error imo by the referee to do that. The tackle was so high that even the manc based referee at the game, felt he had no choice.

You might not be aware that in saying, and these are your words (....and it's certainly not a clear and obvious error IMO....) that your whole defence of the VAR protocol comes crashing down like a pack of cards. The PGMOL deliberately uses the term "Clear and obvious" so as to expressly negate any need for any interpretation...or opinion. The idea being if something is clear and obvious then there's no point reinterpreting it...it is by definition clear. Now you refer to an incident using the clear and obvious phrase, but you add IMO...and once you add IMO you completely undermine your whole VAR argument.
And this is where VAR fails; because there can never be an accepted consensus of what defines clear and obvious...they are words that are always subjective and will mean different things to different people....Always.

Only if you read it.

That's why it pays to skim read

You might not be aware that in saying, and these are your words (....and it's certainly not a clear and obvious error IMO....) that your whole defence of the VAR protocol comes crashing down like a pack of cards. The PGMOL deliberately uses the term "Clear and obvious" so as to expressly negate any need for any interpretation...or opinion. The idea being if something is clear and obvious then there's no point reinterpreting it...it is by definition clear. Now you refer to an incident using the clear and obvious phrase, but you add IMO...and once you add IMO you completely undermine your whole VAR argument.
And this is where VAR fails; because there can never be an accepted consensus of what defines clear and obvious...they are words that are always subjective and will mean different things to different people....Always.

EPL Facts:

VAR = 96% correct decisions
No VAR = 82% correct decisions.

VAR does not fail.

The PGMOL did not invent the clear and obvious phrase, they used FIFA terminology. They did invent the "ref's call" phrase, which is why that foul that was serious enough to get a straight red card, wasn't and shouldn't have been overturned imo.

EPL Facts:

VAR = 96% correct decisions
No VAR = 82% correct decisions.

VAR does not fail.

The PGMOL did not invent the clear and obvious phrase, they used FIFA terminology. They did invent the "ref's call" phrase, which is why that foul that was serious enough to get a straight red card, wasn't and shouldn't have been overturned imo.

Are you dense? I don't give a flying F who came up with a phrase, It's what the phrase means, both words, Clear and obvious are unambiguous. (which isn't the same thing as being open to interpretation)
You say VAR=96% correct decisions, then go on to say VAR does not fail. Can you not see the contradiction?...by your own definition it fails 4%..so you can't say it does not fail.

Try again.

EPL Facts:

VAR = 96% correct decisions
No VAR = 82% correct decisions.

VAR does not fail.

The PGMOL did not invent the clear and obvious phrase, they used FIFA terminology. They did invent the "ref's call" phrase, which is why that foul that was serious enough to get a straight red card, wasn't and shouldn't have been overturned imo.

Did Howard and Michael tell you that

VAR = 96% correct decisions
No VAR = 82% correct decisions.

VAR does not fail.

That's all I need to see to show me you talk out of your arse.

EPL Facts:

VAR = 96% correct decisions
No VAR = 82% correct decisions.

VAR does not fail.

The PGMOL did not invent the clear and obvious phrase, they used FIFA terminology. They did invent the "ref's call" phrase, which is why that foul that was serious enough to get a straight red card, wasn't and shouldn't have been overturned imo.

Surely for that to be factually correct it would need to be 100%


If it never fails can you confirm why Diaz’s goal against Spurs was disallowed

Surely for that to be factually correct it would need to be 100%


If it never fails can you confirm why Diaz’s goal against Spurs was disallowed

Plus there are loads of examples of ‘contentious’ decisions made by VAR which could be interpreted as correct or incorrect.

Plus there are loads of examples of ‘contentious’ decisions made by VAR which could be interpreted as correct or incorrect.

Not loads...ALL. All decisions are subject to interpretation.

Not loads...ALL. All decisions are subject to interpretation.

You’re right, even the tight offsides.

Bent bas**rds Silva backed into the keeper knocking him then moved he was in an offside position but may not have been in the keepers sight but he had backed into the keeper, the ref was sent to the monitor and the player backing into the keeper was not shown bent bas**rds the F***ing lot

Bent bas**rds Silva backed into the keeper knocking him then moved he was in an offside position but may not have been in the keepers sight but he had backed into the keeper, the ref was sent to the monitor and the player backing into the keeper was not shown bent bas**rds the F***ing lot

The ref will get more lucrative emirate contracts to ref games over there!

It was a goal - VAR worked well then

It always works well for City!  Everything in their pockets!