Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: bazjak

Messi has only played for one team for most of his career and that team is Barca
A team that has some of the best and gifted players in the world
Take him away from those superstars and put him in a team that is average (like most teams ) and he is an average player
If you want to be the best you have to work at it like Ranaldo
Portugal are not a very good team but he is proving how good he is

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Out of interest, why would the VAR refs not be interested in opining on whether Harry Kane was fouled, but were interested in whether other players were fouled in the box? Who decides what is VAR'd? It can't just be the ref surely because he may miss something - which makes VAR pretty pointless???

I am also at a loss as to how the refs can be told to be lenient and at the same time to cut out the WWE penalty area stuff.

There's lenient for somethings sure - but kicking a player or trying to snap a player's leg in two can't EVER be something the calls for leniency.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Out of interest, why would the VAR refs not be interested in opining on whether Harry Kane was fouled, but were interested in whether other players were fouled in the box? Who decides what is VAR'd? It can't just be the ref surely because he may miss something - which makes VAR pretty pointless???

I am also at a loss as to how the refs can be told to be lenient and at the same time to cut out the WWE penalty area stuff.

There's lenient for somethings sure - but kicking a player or trying to snap a player's leg in two can't EVER be something the calls for leniency.

For VAR, take a look at this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwOL08NfxQ

That is FIFA TV.

As for leniency, that is down to the Refs not VAR. I agree with you that some of those incidents were downright dangerous if not criminal. But still down the Ref.

If the Refs have been told to go easy on the yellow cards (and I have no proof that they have other than what has gone on so far) then that is still down to the Ref. Only Red cards are reviewed by VAR.

FIFA have been clear on what gets reviewed by VAR. Is that enough? No, not in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Steve

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Out of interest, why would the VAR refs not be interested in opining on whether Harry Kane was fouled, but were interested in whether other players were fouled in the box? Who decides what is VAR'd? It can't just be the ref surely because he may miss something - which makes VAR pretty pointless???

I am also at a loss as to how the refs can be told to be lenient and at the same time to cut out the WWE penalty area stuff.

There's lenient for somethings sure - but kicking a player or trying to snap a player's leg in two can't EVER be something the calls for leniency.

For VAR, take a look at this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwOL08NfxQ

That is FIFA TV.

As for leniency, that is down to the Refs not VAR. I agree with you that some of those incidents were downright dangerous if not criminal. But still down the Ref.

If the Refs have been told to go easy on the yellow cards (and I have no proof that they have other than what has gone on so far) then that is still down to the Ref. Only Red cards are reviewed by VAR.

FIFA have been clear on what gets reviewed by VAR. Is that enough? No, not in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Thank-you - yes so that proves that the man-handling of Harry Kane WAS being looked at by the VAR team.

They were also looking at the Otamendi and Rebic incidents.

That's a disgrace.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Out of interest, why would the VAR refs not be interested in opining on whether Harry Kane was fouled, but were interested in whether other players were fouled in the box? Who decides what is VAR'd? It can't just be the ref surely because he may miss something - which makes VAR pretty pointless???

I am also at a loss as to how the refs can be told to be lenient and at the same time to cut out the WWE penalty area stuff.

There's lenient for somethings sure - but kicking a player or trying to snap a player's leg in two can't EVER be something the calls for leniency.

For VAR, take a look at this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwOL08NfxQ

That is FIFA TV.

As for leniency, that is down to the Refs not VAR. I agree with you that some of those incidents were downright dangerous if not criminal. But still down the Ref.

If the Refs have been told to go easy on the yellow cards (and I have no proof that they have other than what has gone on so far) then that is still down to the Ref. Only Red cards are reviewed by VAR.

FIFA have been clear on what gets reviewed by VAR. Is that enough? No, not in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Thank-you - yes so that proves that the man-handling of Harry Kane WAS being looked at by the VAR team.

They were also looking at the Otamendi and Rebic incidents.

That's a disgrace.

Otamendi and Rebic did not get red cards. So, not reviewed by VAR.

FIFA investigated the Harry Kane incidents and confirmed VAR working ok. Bad news for the Ref. Will be interesting to see if he gets anymore games in this world cup.

Best wishes,
Steve

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Out of interest, why would the VAR refs not be interested in opining on whether Harry Kane was fouled, but were interested in whether other players were fouled in the box? Who decides what is VAR'd? It can't just be the ref surely because he may miss something - which makes VAR pretty pointless???

I am also at a loss as to how the refs can be told to be lenient and at the same time to cut out the WWE penalty area stuff.

There's lenient for somethings sure - but kicking a player or trying to snap a player's leg in two can't EVER be something the calls for leniency.

For VAR, take a look at this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwOL08NfxQ

That is FIFA TV.

As for leniency, that is down to the Refs not VAR. I agree with you that some of those incidents were downright dangerous if not criminal. But still down the Ref.

If the Refs have been told to go easy on the yellow cards (and I have no proof that they have other than what has gone on so far) then that is still down to the Ref. Only Red cards are reviewed by VAR.

FIFA have been clear on what gets reviewed by VAR. Is that enough? No, not in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Thank-you - yes so that proves that the man-handling of Harry Kane WAS being looked at by the VAR team.

They were also looking at the Otamendi and Rebic incidents.

That's a disgrace.

Otamendi and Rebic did not get red cards. So, not reviewed by VAR.

FIFA investigated the Harry Kane incidents and confirmed VAR working ok. Bad news for the Ref. Will be interesting to see if he gets anymore games in this world cup.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

What so you are saying they only review red cards in case they should not be red - but not potential red card incidents? Not my reading of it.

Violent conduct and dangerous tackles can be penalised using VAR. Second-yellow cards cannot.

If that is the case then what is the point of that? I can't believe that is the correct interpretation.

Sorry in the case of Harry Kane what did FIFA say was okay and how did those incidents differ from Nigeria vs Croatia???

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Out of interest, why would the VAR refs not be interested in opining on whether Harry Kane was fouled, but were interested in whether other players were fouled in the box? Who decides what is VAR'd? It can't just be the ref surely because he may miss something - which makes VAR pretty pointless???

I am also at a loss as to how the refs can be told to be lenient and at the same time to cut out the WWE penalty area stuff.

There's lenient for somethings sure - but kicking a player or trying to snap a player's leg in two can't EVER be something the calls for leniency.

For VAR, take a look at this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwOL08NfxQ

That is FIFA TV.

As for leniency, that is down to the Refs not VAR. I agree with you that some of those incidents were downright dangerous if not criminal. But still down the Ref.

If the Refs have been told to go easy on the yellow cards (and I have no proof that they have other than what has gone on so far) then that is still down to the Ref. Only Red cards are reviewed by VAR.

FIFA have been clear on what gets reviewed by VAR. Is that enough? No, not in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Thank-you - yes so that proves that the man-handling of Harry Kane WAS being looked at by the VAR team.

They were also looking at the Otamendi and Rebic incidents.

That's a disgrace.

Otamendi and Rebic did not get red cards. So, not reviewed by VAR.

FIFA investigated the Harry Kane incidents and confirmed VAR working ok. Bad news for the Ref. Will be interesting to see if he gets anymore games in this world cup.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

What so you are saying they only review red cards in case they should not be red - but not potential red card incidents? Not my reading of it.

Violent conduct and dangerous tackles can be penalised using VAR. Second-yellow cards cannot.

If that is the case then what is the point of that? I can't believe that is the correct interpretation.

Sorry in the case of Harry Kane what did FIFA say was okay and how did those incidents differ from Nigeria vs Croatia???

VAR can only suggest that the ref looks at an incident. VAR cannot overrule the ref. If the ref does not want to look ....

The problems you mention (with which I agree) are more down to the ref than VAR. That is a problem in itself.

Best wishes,
Steve

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Out of interest, why would the VAR refs not be interested in opining on whether Harry Kane was fouled, but were interested in whether other players were fouled in the box? Who decides what is VAR'd? It can't just be the ref surely because he may miss something - which makes VAR pretty pointless???

I am also at a loss as to how the refs can be told to be lenient and at the same time to cut out the WWE penalty area stuff.

There's lenient for somethings sure - but kicking a player or trying to snap a player's leg in two can't EVER be something the calls for leniency.

For VAR, take a look at this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwOL08NfxQ

That is FIFA TV.

As for leniency, that is down to the Refs not VAR. I agree with you that some of those incidents were downright dangerous if not criminal. But still down the Ref.

If the Refs have been told to go easy on the yellow cards (and I have no proof that they have other than what has gone on so far) then that is still down to the Ref. Only Red cards are reviewed by VAR.

FIFA have been clear on what gets reviewed by VAR. Is that enough? No, not in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Thank-you - yes so that proves that the man-handling of Harry Kane WAS being looked at by the VAR team.

They were also looking at the Otamendi and Rebic incidents.

That's a disgrace.

Otamendi and Rebic did not get red cards. So, not reviewed by VAR.

FIFA investigated the Harry Kane incidents and confirmed VAR working ok. Bad news for the Ref. Will be interesting to see if he gets anymore games in this world cup.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

What so you are saying they only review red cards in case they should not be red - but not potential red card incidents? Not my reading of it.

Violent conduct and dangerous tackles can be penalised using VAR. Second-yellow cards cannot.

If that is the case then what is the point of that? I can't believe that is the correct interpretation.

Sorry in the case of Harry Kane what did FIFA say was okay and how did those incidents differ from Nigeria vs Croatia???

VAR can only suggest that the ref looks at an incident. VAR cannot overrule the ref. If the ref does not want to look ....

The problems you mention (with which I agree) are more down to the ref than VAR. That is a problem in itself.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

If you want to know all you need to know about the total horsepoo that is VAR then have a look at Serbia vs Switzerland. Total and utter nonsense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Out of interest, why would the VAR refs not be interested in opining on whether Harry Kane was fouled, but were interested in whether other players were fouled in the box? Who decides what is VAR'd? It can't just be the ref surely because he may miss something - which makes VAR pretty pointless???

I am also at a loss as to how the refs can be told to be lenient and at the same time to cut out the WWE penalty area stuff.

There's lenient for somethings sure - but kicking a player or trying to snap a player's leg in two can't EVER be something the calls for leniency.

For VAR, take a look at this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwOL08NfxQ

That is FIFA TV.

As for leniency, that is down to the Refs not VAR. I agree with you that some of those incidents were downright dangerous if not criminal. But still down the Ref.

If the Refs have been told to go easy on the yellow cards (and I have no proof that they have other than what has gone on so far) then that is still down to the Ref. Only Red cards are reviewed by VAR.

FIFA have been clear on what gets reviewed by VAR. Is that enough? No, not in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Thank-you - yes so that proves that the man-handling of Harry Kane WAS being looked at by the VAR team.

They were also looking at the Otamendi and Rebic incidents.

That's a disgrace.

Otamendi and Rebic did not get red cards. So, not reviewed by VAR.

FIFA investigated the Harry Kane incidents and confirmed VAR working ok. Bad news for the Ref. Will be interesting to see if he gets anymore games in this world cup.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

What so you are saying they only review red cards in case they should not be red - but not potential red card incidents? Not my reading of it.

Violent conduct and dangerous tackles can be penalised using VAR. Second-yellow cards cannot.

If that is the case then what is the point of that? I can't believe that is the correct interpretation.

Sorry in the case of Harry Kane what did FIFA say was okay and how did those incidents differ from Nigeria vs Croatia???

VAR can only suggest that the ref looks at an incident. VAR cannot overrule the ref. If the ref does not want to look ....

The problems you mention (with which I agree) are more down to the ref than VAR. That is a problem in itself.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

If you want to know all you need to know about the total horsepoo that is VAR then have a look at Serbia vs Switzerland. Total and utter nonsense.

Yep I am watching it at the moment. And yes Serbia should have had a penalty.

Best wishes,
Steve

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Out of interest, why would the VAR refs not be interested in opining on whether Harry Kane was fouled, but were interested in whether other players were fouled in the box? Who decides what is VAR'd? It can't just be the ref surely because he may miss something - which makes VAR pretty pointless???

I am also at a loss as to how the refs can be told to be lenient and at the same time to cut out the WWE penalty area stuff.

There's lenient for somethings sure - but kicking a player or trying to snap a player's leg in two can't EVER be something the calls for leniency.

For VAR, take a look at this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwOL08NfxQ

That is FIFA TV.

As for leniency, that is down to the Refs not VAR. I agree with you that some of those incidents were downright dangerous if not criminal. But still down the Ref.

If the Refs have been told to go easy on the yellow cards (and I have no proof that they have other than what has gone on so far) then that is still down to the Ref. Only Red cards are reviewed by VAR.

FIFA have been clear on what gets reviewed by VAR. Is that enough? No, not in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Thank-you - yes so that proves that the man-handling of Harry Kane WAS being looked at by the VAR team.

They were also looking at the Otamendi and Rebic incidents.

That's a disgrace.

Otamendi and Rebic did not get red cards. So, not reviewed by VAR.

FIFA investigated the Harry Kane incidents and confirmed VAR working ok. Bad news for the Ref. Will be interesting to see if he gets anymore games in this world cup.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

What so you are saying they only review red cards in case they should not be red - but not potential red card incidents? Not my reading of it.

Violent conduct and dangerous tackles can be penalised using VAR. Second-yellow cards cannot.

If that is the case then what is the point of that? I can't believe that is the correct interpretation.

Sorry in the case of Harry Kane what did FIFA say was okay and how did those incidents differ from Nigeria vs Croatia???

VAR can only suggest that the ref looks at an incident. VAR cannot overrule the ref. If the ref does not want to look ....

The problems you mention (with which I agree) are more down to the ref than VAR. That is a problem in itself.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

If you want to know all you need to know about the total horsepoo that is VAR then have a look at Serbia vs Switzerland. Total and utter nonsense.

Yep I am watching it at the moment. And yes Serbia should have had a penalty.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Never mind a penalty - the two Swiss players that wrestled the Serbian to the ground have just won joint gold for the Greco-Roman 85 Kg weight class for their immaculate takedown.... but neither the referee, the linesman nor the 44 people in the VAR booth saw anything amiss.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Argentina vs Nigeria
Brazil vs Serbia

I look forward to those

But most of all I am relying on Sweden. My big name casualty to go out at the group stage is neither the Argies or Brazil, its Germany. Come on Sweden, you know you want to

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Out of interest, why would the VAR refs not be interested in opining on whether Harry Kane was fouled, but were interested in whether other players were fouled in the box? Who decides what is VAR'd? It can't just be the ref surely because he may miss something - which makes VAR pretty pointless???

I am also at a loss as to how the refs can be told to be lenient and at the same time to cut out the WWE penalty area stuff.

There's lenient for somethings sure - but kicking a player or trying to snap a player's leg in two can't EVER be something the calls for leniency.

For VAR, take a look at this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwOL08NfxQ

That is FIFA TV.

As for leniency, that is down to the Refs not VAR. I agree with you that some of those incidents were downright dangerous if not criminal. But still down the Ref.

If the Refs have been told to go easy on the yellow cards (and I have no proof that they have other than what has gone on so far) then that is still down to the Ref. Only Red cards are reviewed by VAR.

FIFA have been clear on what gets reviewed by VAR. Is that enough? No, not in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Thank-you - yes so that proves that the man-handling of Harry Kane WAS being looked at by the VAR team.

They were also looking at the Otamendi and Rebic incidents.

That's a disgrace.

Otamendi and Rebic did not get red cards. So, not reviewed by VAR.

FIFA investigated the Harry Kane incidents and confirmed VAR working ok. Bad news for the Ref. Will be interesting to see if he gets anymore games in this world cup.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

What so you are saying they only review red cards in case they should not be red - but not potential red card incidents? Not my reading of it.

Violent conduct and dangerous tackles can be penalised using VAR. Second-yellow cards cannot.

If that is the case then what is the point of that? I can't believe that is the correct interpretation.

Sorry in the case of Harry Kane what did FIFA say was okay and how did those incidents differ from Nigeria vs Croatia???

VAR can only suggest that the ref looks at an incident. VAR cannot overrule the ref. If the ref does not want to look ....

The problems you mention (with which I agree) are more down to the ref than VAR. That is a problem in itself.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

If you want to know all you need to know about the total horsepoo that is VAR then have a look at Serbia vs Switzerland. Total and utter nonsense.

Yep I am watching it at the moment. And yes Serbia should have had a penalty.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Never mind a penalty - the two Swiss players that wrestled the Serbian to the ground have just won joint gold for the Greco-Roman 85 Kg weight class for their immaculate takedown.... but neither the referee, the linesman nor the 44 people in the VAR booth saw anything amiss.....

Which only goes to prove that this is now allowed on the football field. It has official FIFA license....

Best wishes,
Steve

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes I am seeing the negative side. To be clear if VAR works as it should then it is a good thing.

Did anyone watch the Argentina vs Croatia game? There were potentially bone breaking challenges going on and Otamendi kicked a Croatian in the back whilst the latter was on the floor. In a non-VAR world the talking point would be the referee who makes the wrong decisions. In a VAR world the talking point is the VAR refs that missed them. The difference? The VAR refs are supposed to have the benefit of numerous replays from different angles to see what the ref may have missed.

So then what the hell was last night all about? What was Harry Kane getting wrestled to the ground Greco-Roman stylee all about?

Remember referees have been told at this World Cup to try and cut-out the wrestling in the box. So if that is a specific edict from on high then why were the VAR refs to inept?

There could have been multiple red cards in the Argentina v Croatia game. Otamendi deserved a straight red. There are no premier league refs out in Russia and we are seeing the results of that. The problem I see is that the Ref and the VAR team have to be singing from the same song sheet. It also seems that FIFA has told refs to be lenient.

The Ref & VAR combination is still a work in progress as far as I am concerned. And as far as I know, VAR were not even involved with the Harry Kane incidents and were probably not involved with the Otamendi incident. Such things are, apparently, not in their remit.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Out of interest, why would the VAR refs not be interested in opining on whether Harry Kane was fouled, but were interested in whether other players were fouled in the box? Who decides what is VAR'd? It can't just be the ref surely because he may miss something - which makes VAR pretty pointless???

I am also at a loss as to how the refs can be told to be lenient and at the same time to cut out the WWE penalty area stuff.

There's lenient for somethings sure - but kicking a player or trying to snap a player's leg in two can't EVER be something the calls for leniency.

For VAR, take a look at this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwOL08NfxQ

That is FIFA TV.

As for leniency, that is down to the Refs not VAR. I agree with you that some of those incidents were downright dangerous if not criminal. But still down the Ref.

If the Refs have been told to go easy on the yellow cards (and I have no proof that they have other than what has gone on so far) then that is still down to the Ref. Only Red cards are reviewed by VAR.

FIFA have been clear on what gets reviewed by VAR. Is that enough? No, not in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Thank-you - yes so that proves that the man-handling of Harry Kane WAS being looked at by the VAR team.

They were also looking at the Otamendi and Rebic incidents.

That's a disgrace.

Otamendi and Rebic did not get red cards. So, not reviewed by VAR.

FIFA investigated the Harry Kane incidents and confirmed VAR working ok. Bad news for the Ref. Will be interesting to see if he gets anymore games in this world cup.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

What so you are saying they only review red cards in case they should not be red - but not potential red card incidents? Not my reading of it.

Violent conduct and dangerous tackles can be penalised using VAR. Second-yellow cards cannot.

If that is the case then what is the point of that? I can't believe that is the correct interpretation.

Sorry in the case of Harry Kane what did FIFA say was okay and how did those incidents differ from Nigeria vs Croatia???

VAR can only suggest that the ref looks at an incident. VAR cannot overrule the ref. If the ref does not want to look ....

The problems you mention (with which I agree) are more down to the ref than VAR. That is a problem in itself.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

If you want to know all you need to know about the total horsepoo that is VAR then have a look at Serbia vs Switzerland. Total and utter nonsense.

Yep I am watching it at the moment. And yes Serbia should have had a penalty.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Never mind a penalty - the two Swiss players that wrestled the Serbian to the ground have just won joint gold for the Greco-Roman 85 Kg weight class for their immaculate takedown.... but neither the referee, the linesman nor the 44 people in the VAR booth saw anything amiss.....

Which only goes to prove that this is now allowed on the football field. It has official FIFA license....

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

Unless you are Nigerian and you do it to a Croatian. Then, apparently, such a move is not allowed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

If Sweden wins, then they write world cup history. Never before has the last World Cup winner get eliminated before the knockout part of the tournament.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

If Sweden wins, then they write world cup history. Never before has the last World Cup winner get eliminated before the knockout part of the tournament.

warspite1

What about France 2002??? or Italy 2010???