Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

FIFA WC 26 - Other Nations LIVE Match Thread ⚽

LFC said:
I understand the reactive behaviour is an issue today - I don't mind the booing etc but the blatant ref/lino abuse is OTT but yer that expecting a massive cultural change that I feel difficult to happen.
Mind you VAR hasn't changed that behaviour much in any case.
I'm in the what goes around comes around - not every time but karma does/has happened.

The officials still cop it on the field - the VAR fellas are lucky locked up in the nose bleed stands in safety, plus I suspect seco's are nearby as well.
Click to expand...

Do you really think ref's make the final decisions these days? lol.
 
Beretta said:
Do you really think ref's make the final decisions these days? lol.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking going back to the pre VAR days league wise yes, at modern days world cups I don't know what to believe any more.
I'd like to believe for the best but yer today is such a shonky world money talks.
 
The issue with placing so much reliance on technology is that you can get both false positives and false negatives. You also have to factor in the ingrained bias and how certain teams always seem to get a disproportionate amount of favourable calls. That's why you end up with situations where VAR takes 5 minutes on some granular issue while Messi goes studs up on someone's calf and VAR does not dare to intervene.
 
Dinamo said:
The issue with placing so much reliance on technology is that you can get both false positives and false negatives. You also have to factor in the ingrained bias and how certain teams always seem to get a disproportionate amount of favourable calls. That's why you end up with situations where VAR takes 5 minutes on some granular issue while Messi goes studs up on someone's calf and VAR does not dare to intervene.
Click to expand...
It certainly doesn't pass the pub test eh?
 
stokz said:
If we are looking at the slightest touch, that touched a hair based on some sensor. Which no one has been able to show on a camera.

Come on man. That's not clear and obvious.

The goal in the 113/114 min - you do realise Portugal scored in 94, by the time it restarts it easily 3-4 mins and all the checks that are done.
Click to expand...
Not sure what game you play but 3-4 mins added on for a goal, so if you score 5 goals in 2nd half, you play 15-20 mins more, na dont think so.
Its 90 seconds tops.
 
theFOOTBALLlover said:
Apparently the rule is the touch needs to be intentional.
Click to expand...
Punchanello said:
Wouldn't Veiga's touch have needed to be intentional for it to be called onside? I think....I don't know. These new technologies are forcing questions about the rule I haven't thought about in years
Click to expand...
Correct - it’s what I flagged before
 
booney52 said:
Switzerland accounted for Algeria 2-0 and did it mainly in first gear.Xhaka is such a top all round footballer with that touch of mongrel which makes him such a difficult opponent.Manzambi one of the best young players in the tournament.
Click to expand...
Switzerland got the job done 2-0 over Algeria in their World Cup round of 32 game and will play the winner of Colombia's match against Ghana in the round of 16.
 
Just watched the highlights of croatia v portugal

Looked a heck of a game

The penalty reminded me of the 50 rugby tackles viduka faced in the 2006 game

The off side goal also reminded me of kewells off side goal, tho this one needed snicko

Game just needed a keeper howler and a goal ruled out because the referee calls full time
 
grazorblade said:
Just watched the highlights of croatia v portugal

Looked a heck of a game

The penalty reminded me of the 50 rugby tackles viduka faced in the 2006 game

The off side goal also reminded me of kewells off side goal, tho this one needed snicko

Game just needed a keeper howler and a goal ruled out because the referee calls full time
Click to expand...
Was thinking of exactly those examples watching this haha
 
Did the player come out and say it did touch him? Wasn’t sure if read that on a legit site or not
 
ClockworkOrange said:
Don’t remove it, just use it to detect OBVIOUS errors.
Click to expand...
Obvious is subjective and any officiating error constitutes a breach of the laws of the game. The laws need simplifying and broadcasters should be capped on everything that is shown. This isn't about concealing things but rather not putting every aspect under a microscope.
 
JS96 said:
Obvious is subjective and any officiating error constitutes a breach of the laws of the game. The laws need simplifying and broadcasters should be capped on everything that is shown. This isn't about concealing things but rather not putting every aspect under a microscope.
Click to expand...
In another post I say watch it at normal speed- if you can’t make up your mind in a couple of replays then it’s not obvious … obviously.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
In another post I say watch it at normal speed- if you can’t make up your mind in a couple of replays then it’s not obvious … obviously.
Click to expand...
I watch football with my own eyes, and I reserve the right not to believe that sensor. In fact, I don't accept that it is more important than the eyes of all of us who are watching. To me, it is completely irrelevant and just another tool of deception.

If FIFA considers some sensor more important than the eyes of millions of viewers, then let AI ref and decide matches.

What happened was neither fair nor correct, and it does not do justice to the spirit of this sport.

A game like that should have been decided in Extra time.
 
JS96 said:
That would be handball then. Didn't the sensor show there was contact with the ball? I didn't realise they had such a thing.
Click to expand...
You tell me, you said it was a clear offside, now you dont know what it touched?

Now its not so 'clear & obvious' is it?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top