Or video tech. Whatever it's called

I hope this trial run at the confeds has convinced them how much of a load of bollox it is. Or at least this version is.

If this is the future I'm getting off


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apart from line decisions the game doesn't lend itself to Video referees, most of the decisions in a match are subjective.

The game doesn't need it, it benefits games like Cricket and Rugby that have more natural breaks in play.

Last nights call was a joke.

The chile geezer straight up elbowed him. Most obvious red your likely to see. 3 minutes to check the camera n get it wrong n give him a yellow. Bonkers.

As you say. Subjective. Solves nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds a good idea but I don't think I've seen one use of it giving the correct decision. In fact the times it's been talked about most is when the ref hasn't opted to use it. It's hardly avoiding issues, that's creating them.

The football authorities are idiots, why try and reinvent something that is working elsewhere?

Don't let the referee overrule, just tell him whats happened and what to do. The VAR saw the straight red, that's why they contacted the referee, so now he's in a position where if he accepts what they say he looks bad for missing it, so he says, yeah not a red, a yellow will do.

Stupid.

Save your passion for something more worthwhile, like 'getting behind 'Pools, as it will become part and parcel of the game soon, it wont be allowed to fail

I'm going to put all my passion and energy into real bread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm have a chorizo, mushroom and cheddar cheese omelette for lunch.

As long as a human has to make the final decision, mistakes will be made, so why not keep it down to one man ( the ref ) making the mistake , rather than 10 , assistant refs, 4th officials, people behind the goal, VAR men in the stands, its mental.

Why cant people just accept the odd mistake will be made? it makes the game what it is. Breaking up the flow of the game spoils it, regardless of whether they get the decision correct or not.


This trial has been a disaster, highlighting not so much the deficiencies of technology , but of the humans running it. Why not just replace the ref with a computer? I will tell you why, because most of the decisions in football are subjective and open to interpretation and opinion, that is where there will always be difference of opinion in football and controversy, long may it reign.

Disgusting, food standards will be all over you.

So very correct brother.

I get the impression FIFA love it and this will be in place for the World Cup next year in a similar format to this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like the idea of goal line technology, that watch the refs wear gives an objective answer the split second the ball crosses the line. No problem.

That farce last night was utterly tedious, 3 minutes of watching split screen reactions of the players/refs/crowd, and the ref still got it wrong. In fact he made it even worse than if he'd not done anything at all about it. It was either a red, and a free kick, or nout and a throw in.

As above, though, FIFA will absolutely love it and hail it as the greatest thing since sliced (real, freshly produced, artisan baked) bread, unfortunately.

I caught a meat apprentice years ago with his knob in a lamb carcass, he never came back for his week in hand, mush have felt sheepish. True story.

Suppose if you're into either beastiality or necrofilia you may as well combine the two as it's no more fucked up than either in their own.

Opinions in rugby are mixed but nearly everyone agree that it depends on who's reffing.
Someone like Wayne Barnes uses it only when there's a big doubt and privileges keeping the game flowing.
Romain Poite on the other hand might as well watch the frigging game on the screen.