World Cup 2018

[Old Man Andrews]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned at all last night, but for me there was a good shout for a VAR review following a foul of Loftus-Cheek when attacking a corner.

The defender was pulling his shirt, and enough to rip it, whilst Loftus-Cheek was heading at goal and it was enough to interfere with his attempt so, for me, although it would be a little soft it could really have been given.

If it was soft then surely it is not an obvious error by the ref to miss it? Has to be a clear and obvious error in order for it to get flagged up doesn't it?

[bcubed]

Where are all the hooligans? Wasn't it all supposed to have kicked off by now?

Not heard so much as a plastic chair being thrown across a piazza, but maybe I've just missed it.

Russian hooligans asked to stay at home by Putin
English hooligans giving it a miss after Marseille

[Hoop Blah]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned at all last night, but for me there was a good shout for a VAR review following a foul of Loftus-Cheek when attacking a corner.

The defender was pulling his shirt, and enough to rip it, whilst Loftus-Cheek was heading at goal and it was enough to interfere with his attempt so, for me, although it would be a little soft it could really have been given.

If it was soft then surely it is not an obvious error by the ref to miss it? Has to be a clear and obvious error in order for it to get flagged up doesn't it?

That hasn't stopped the majority of reviews happening already.

[Old Man Andrews]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned at all last night, but for me there was a good shout for a VAR review following a foul of Loftus-Cheek when attacking a corner.

The defender was pulling his shirt, and enough to rip it, whilst Loftus-Cheek was heading at goal and it was enough to interfere with his attempt so, for me, although it would be a little soft it could really have been given.

If it was soft then surely it is not an obvious error by the ref to miss it? Has to be a clear and obvious error in order for it to get flagged up doesn't it?

That hasn't stopped the majority of reviews happening already.

Yeah not denying that, the use of it has been completely ambiguous which hasn't helped. Didn't see anything in the game which made me jump up and ask for a review, in fact completely missed it until you mentioned it. I think thats part of the issue, people see different things.

In the knockout phase I would be in favour of having the same VAR panal for each game so there is a level of consistency.

[genome]

No football today. WTF am I supposed to do? Work?

[stealthpapes]

WFH?

[Theroyalbox]

This day without world cup is just stupid, what do we talk about.

Aliens?

[Philly Flyer]

This day without world cup is just stupid, what do we talk about.

Aliens?

How about this.

When I saw the draw last night for the last 16 I was struck by the absence of any teams from Africa and the vast majority being from S America & Europe. So I looked back at the 16 teams that qualified for the 1966 tournament. Leaving aside the changes that have guaranteed
places from Asia, N/C America and Asia in recent tournaments, I was a bit taken aback that while 10 teams in 1966 were from Europe, 4 from S America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile & Uruguay) plus one from C America (Mexico) and one from Asia (N Korea) the 2018 list was remarkably similar: comprising 10 teams from Europe, 4 from S America (swap Colombia for Chile), one from C America (Mexico again) and one from Asia (swap Japan for N Korea)

When it get's to the "business end" of the World Cup, not much has changed in 52 years....

[Snowflake Royal]

It's the 'clear and obvious' bit that is causing some issues, isn't it?
In cricket, anything reviewed that is marginal goes with the umpire's original call. And that should have been the case with this one - yes he got the ball, yes it was from the side (ish), but if you slow it right down he contacts the leg before he does the ball. Even if you disagree on that last point, this was not a 'clear and obvious error' (i.e. there was definitely no foul), and the penalty should have stood.

Didn't the ref look at it again and change his own decision, from what people are saying?

If that's the case, then clearly the ref agreed he got it wrong, so it's not like it was unfairly overturning something ambiguous, it'd mean what he thought he saw wasn't actually what happened.

In which case it's nothing like cricket.

The point being that the VAR officials should only be referring it to the referee if they think there has been a clear and obvious error.

Do we know if there's any communication involved?

Yo refy, what was the basis of your decision on that penalty shout?

No contact

Ah, you might want to take another look. There was contact, but it's still a close one.

That's still a clear and obvious error in the ref's decision making process, but not necessarily the decision itself.

I think we have to accept that VAR isn't going to be perfect, though it'll improve. And one person's clear and obvious is different to another's.

The test is essentially, is VAR resulting in reversed decisions that are clearly incorrect, or reviews that should lead to a reversal but don't.

Failing to review some clearly incorrect decisions is obviously a flaw, but as long as the first two are met it's still a significant improvement.

There's been loads of correct decisions that would have been incorrect without VAR and very few if any incorrect decisions that would have been correct without it. Plus none of the delays have been very long and there have been no issues with playing carrying on for a while before going back.

[Old Man Andrews]

Didn't the ref look at it again and change his own decision, from what people are saying?

If that's the case, then clearly the ref agreed he got it wrong, so it's not like it was unfairly overturning something ambiguous, it'd mean what he thought he saw wasn't actually what happened.

In which case it's nothing like cricket.

The point being that the VAR officials should only be referring it to the referee if they think there has been a clear and obvious error.

Do we know if there's any communication involved?

Yo refy, what was the basis of your decision on that penalty shout?

No contact

Ah, you might want to take another look. There was contact, but it's still a close one.

That's still a clear and obvious error in the ref's decision making process, but not necessarily the decision itself.

I think we have to accept that VAR isn't going to be perfect, though it'll improve. And one person's clear and obvious is different to another's.

The test is essentially, is VAR resulting in reversed decisions that are clearly incorrect, or reviews that should lead to a reversal but don't.

Failing to review some clearly incorrect decisions is obviously a flaw, but as long as the first two are met it's still a significant improvement.

There's been loads of correct decisions that would have been incorrect without VAR and very few if any incorrect decisions that would have been correct without it. Plus none of the delays have been very long and there have been no issues with playing carrying on for a while before going back.

Thanks for this.

It was a really good read.

I agree with most of what you have said actually.

Hope you have a great weekend.

Thanks.

[Hoop Blah]

There's been loads of correct decisions that would have been incorrect without VAR and very few if any incorrect decisions that would have been correct without it. Plus none of the delays have been very long and there have been no issues with playing carrying on for a while before going back.

I'm in general agreement that it's resulting in correct decisions (as it should do of course) but I'm not sure how many of those wouldn't have been reached in the first place had the ref not known VAR was going to help him out if he did or didn't give the decision.

[genome]

Yo refy?

[Theroyalbox]

This day without world cup is just stupid, what do we talk about.

Aliens?

How about this.

When I saw the draw last night for the last 16 I was struck by the absence of any teams from Africa and the vast majority being from S America & Europe. So I looked back at the 16 teams that qualified for the 1966 tournament. Leaving aside the changes that have guaranteed
places from Asia, N/C America and Asia in recent tournaments, I was a bit taken aback that while 10 teams in 1966 were from Europe, 4 from S America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile & Uruguay) plus one from C America (Mexico) and one from Asia (N Korea) the 2018 list was remarkably similar: comprising 10 teams from Europe, 4 from S America (swap Colombia for Chile), one from C America (Mexico again) and one from Asia (swap Japan for N Korea)

When it get's to the "business end" of the World Cup, not much has changed in 52 years....

Clearly the work of aliens.

[Sutekh]

No football today. WTF am I supposed to do? Work?

Without looking it up, let’s all try and remember the England SQUAD for the World Cup in 1990 together with the club team each player was playing for at the time.

I’ll start with

Paul Gascoigne (Tottenham Hotspur)

[genome]

Nah I'm good m8

[stealthpapes]

No football today. WTF am I supposed to do? Work?

Without looking it up, let’s all try and remember the England SQUAD for the World Cup in 1990 together with the club team each player was playing for at the time.

I’ll start with

Paul Gascoigne (Tottenham Hotspur)

you made me remember Steve Hodge, you bastard.

[Old Man Andrews]

Reckon Argentina and Uruguay will come out on top in their games today.

How about y'all?

[John Madejski's Wallet]

Yeah reckon the same, though would prefer France and Uruguay

[Pepe the Horseman]

I'm saying Argies on pens, and Ronaldo to beat Uruguay.

[John Madejski's Wallet]

The speed of Mbappe on that break