Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Any word on who the trialists were? Costello must feel really wanted.
That referee really loved a card.Anyone just seen the England euros
how was that a penalty
justice done
Penalty all day long ….Anyone just seen the England euros
how was that a penalty
justice done
You think? No chancePenalty all day long ….
That is the purpose of VAR though. It was a foul and Colwill knew it which is why he didn’t complain.I thought it was harsh
You had to slo mo it down to a slug's pace before you could identify any infringement.
Just watch it in normal time and there's nothing doing at all.
If that’s a foul nowadays then heaven forbidT
That is the purpose of VAR though. It was a foul and Colwill knew it which is why he didn’t complain.
Anything looks worse in slo MoT
That is the purpose of VAR though. It was a foul and Colwill knew it which is why he didn’t complain.
He’s known as ConIf this lad makes it that's going on the back of my shirt
That's not the purpose of VAR. It was supposed to identify clear and obvious errors.T
That is the purpose of VAR though. It was a foul and Colwill knew it which is why he didn’t complain.
That should save me a few quidHe’s known as Con
No Cashman at the Leamington game?
Isn't that the name of the laundrette owner in Eastenders?!Constantine Popadopalis, good luck with that Clive Eakin.
Think so and way back in the beginnings of Coronation Street Arthur Lowe played Leonard Swindley who ran the shop Gamour garments and was always referring to Mr Papagopalis who owned the shop but was never seen in the show.Isn't that the name of the laundrette owner in Eastenders?!
I agree with your view on the purpose of VAR but that isn’t how it’s been implemented ….. it’s been implemented to make the correct factual decision. We see it every week. In that basis it was a penalty.That's not the purpose of VAR. It was supposed to identify clear and obvious errors.
That clearly was not
I reckon if you watched a whole match in extreme slo mo you would probably identify at least 6-8 penalties per game and there were be hundreds of fouls.
This wasn't what VAR was supposed to be for.
There was absolutely no way on earth that was an obvious penalty.
I know. That IS how they are implementing it. It's just so daft though.I agree with your view on the purpose of VAR but that isn’t how it’s been implemented ….. it’s been implemented to make the correct factual decision. We see it every week. In that basis it was a penalty.
I think what you're saying is your have to be against it, there's no way it's turning back.I know. That IS how they are implementing it. It's just so daft though.
With so many 50/50 challenges and the opposing players right next to each other when they go for the ball, there wil always be at least the one player who can't help have physical contact and therefore will pretty much always take a bit of the player when they take the ball. It's just natural and unavoidable.
I think if you freeze framed or slo mo'd every single challenge in a game you would find so many where with the smallest fraction of a second, one player gets a bit of the player before they get the ball.
The fact that took so long last night, shows the VAR system is being utilised completely incorrectly.
Like I say, if you put the entire game on slo mo, you would end up with a hundred fouls and absolutely loads of penalties.
They need to change the implementation of it. I am all for VAR, but not if they are going to continue to use it the way they are at present
I'm hoping they see sense Wingy.I think what you're saying is your have to be against it, there's no way it's turning back.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?