Var

[Romanis]

Spot on MA...the Forest contributors on both ‘our’ sites have just become major irritants since the season finished.
Tbf Rom was okay during most of last season...i.e. after late September when Forest’s season finished ...but things have certainly changed.
Mind you, a glance at their FM site tells you all you need to know...facile comments to utterly tasteless bullying seems to have become the order of the day. Glad we still have some more intelligent debates on here and V*tal and hope we don’t get dragged down to their level.

I think you need to loosen up a bit.
A forum is just that. An exchange of views.
There's no brownie points for getting the right answer.

You also seemed to have changed during the close season. Anything that doesn't conform to your pov is taken in the most adverse terms.

Relax. Make your point, I'm sure many will agree most of the time. But in any case there will always be others who might disagree. And let them disagree without being disagreeable.

Having opposing views is not a sin, even having wrong views. My client frequently makes a blunder but will adamantly stick by it despite proven otherwise. That in itself is not wrong. And he's very much entitled to be wrong. Only when and if he starts insulting others will there be a need for Andy to step in.

I dunno, you seem to want everything to be serious. I on the other hand just want to have a bit of fun. There's so many topics where are have serious discussions, this is 1 of those (on my views on referees) and I think I and others have the right to be less serious in other selected topics.
I'm sure most people can discern.

[ramAnag]

I think you need to loosen up a bit.
A forum is just that. An exchange of views.
There's no brownie points for getting the right answer.

You also seemed to have changed during the close season. Anything that doesn't conform to your pov is taken in the most adverse terms.

Relax. Make your point, I'm sure many will agree most of the time. But in any case there will always be others who might disagree. And let them disagree without being disagreeable.

Having opposing views is not a sin, even having wrong views. My client frequently makes a blunder but will adamantly stick by it despite proven otherwise. That in itself is not wrong. And he's very much entitled to be wrong. Only when and if he starts insulting others will there be a need for Andy to step in.

I dunno, you seem to want everything to be serious. I on the other hand just want to have a bit of fun. There's so many topics where are have serious discussions, this is 1 of those (on my views on referees) and I think I and others have the right to be less serious in other selected topics.
I'm sure most people can discern.

You do talk some rubbish Rom and for the second time I’m perfectly chilled thank you. As of today I’m eight hours behind you all, hence the ridiculous posting time, but given your recent comments there is something wonderfully ironic about you of all people suggesting that ‘anything that doesn’t conform to your pov is taken in the most adverse terms’.

[MadAmster]

1. Now now before you go and jump the gun, I was not aware of that particular issue on Fifa reviewing things.

2.And why all these defensiveness?

3. Isn't the forum a place to exchange views?

4. I stand by what I said based on face value what you wrote.
Refs monitoring refs.

5. As a ref yourself I believed you surely would know this has always been the case.Refs assessors and comittees are always filled by referees (retired etc). This is the only way it can be. And that's my point. Only referees can look into referees performance. We cannot have outsiders doing it.
Taking at face value what you wrote naturally I was puzzled why you or all people were implying with that phrase as if it's something untoward.
What twist and turn is there?

6. You wrote something ambiguous and naturally I questioned the veracity.
And what has all this got to do with DCFC etc?


7. If you always want to be right, then be clear in what you wrote?

1. The post from me which you partially quoted started with "FIFA have just announced". For some reason you appear to have dismissed that sentence. Is that because it detracts from your point of view based on causing mischief? Did you not believe what I had written? Instead of questioning it, why didn'y you fact check it first then you would have realised that FIFA had indeed just said.... and not had the need to question my statement.

2. Not for the first time you take a few words out of context and try to make some kind of point that makes you look right. Asking how you come by such a poor misrepresentation of what I wrote is being defensive? Now I know you are extracting the urine, proving what you wrote in your "justification" for your recently adopted "advocacy" role.

3. Yes it is, however, views should have some basis in fact not be mischief making points based on out of context misquotes.

4. I actually wrote "refs monitoring refs monitoring refs" which is exactly what FIFA had said they were going to do. Again you miss out on the context of my post.

5. Wriggling out of the discussiom with a red herring. The basic topic here is VAR, although it seems to have taken a few turns, as do face to face conversations, so nothing wrong in that. The ref and only the ref makes the final decision and gives a penalty or a red card or whatever. The VAR panel may ask the ref to review his decision. They set up the video for him to watch. It is then up to him whether he changes his mind or not. Who are these outsiders looking into refs? Maybe you also decided to ignore the "wink and a smile" emoji I put in that post denoting tongue in cheek................

6. I wrote absolutely nothing ambiguous. Especially if you take EVERYTHING and not just half a dozen out of context words into consideration.

7. Absolutely nothing to do with DCFC. However, the title of the thread is "Var" and that is what is being discussed in this thread. Yet another red herring designed to do no more than cause mischief. As I asked in another thread....................... please stop it. It is annoying and getting way beyond tiresome and I am not the only one who feels that.

[Romanis]

No MA, it's you who's wriggling. Why use the 'phrase refs monitoring refs monitoring ref's?

That's the mischief. That's a mischievous term to suggest something untoward. Whether you admit it or not is up to you. Why I questioned you and said 'you should know better' is simple. You're a ref yourself, you know very well how difficult and thankless it is.
You should have phrased it better.

And pretty disingenuous of you to suddenly become very conscious of the topic title of VAR and make all sorts of accusations.
I believe the word referee is in VAR. And why should I not talk about referees in general? You yourself went to suggest the rule about players re-enter the field of play.
I think if you want to have a serious discussion, the first thing is to accept other points of views, not be defensive, make accusations without clarifying and bring in unrelated matters. (what has Forest and other posts I've made elsewhere got to do with it?)

But if you want continue to deny , rally your troops and wriggle out of it by attacking me in unrelated matters, and insist only you are right, then good on you.

[MadAmster]

Pot, kettle, black. None so blind as he who will not see.

[Geoff Parkstone]

[QUOTE=Romanis;38926370]

The question is would you as a top referee in an A game be it club or international, raise your flag for such a minor infringement and thus deny a goal?

/QUOTE]

As an A rated referee in an international or a top club game, I would be first wondering why I had a flag!

[Romanis]

[QUOTE=Geoff Parkstone;38926639]

The question is would you as a top referee in an A game be it club or international, raise your flag for such a minor infringement and thus deny a goal?

/QUOTE]

As an A rated referee in an international or a top club game, I would be first wondering why I had a flag!

Unless I'm mistaken about current rules, you still have to qualify as a referee first before finally settling as a linesman. You don't become a referees assistant when you sign up. You become a referee.
So that's what I meant. But ok let's say as a Fifa Assistant referee then.
In today's match I noticed another infringement which was ignored. A Mexican player was surrounded by 2 Koreans at the edge of the field. In other to get past them, he stepped out to give himself more room before coming back in and stroking the ball past them. He wasn't flagged and I dunno if the referee noticed but no action taken. And he was near the 4 th official.
Another grey area in the modem game where the Law although clear is overlooked to keep the game flowing.

[Romanis]

Pot, kettle, black. None so blind as he who will not see.

Of course you are right. Even when you're wrong, you're right. A bit of name calling, a few irrelevant accusations, ambiguity and adamantly sticking to your guns, gets you over the line all the time. Good For You.

The irony of your choice of phrases, I have to declare you the Victor.

[MadAmster]

Of course you are right. Even when you're wrong, you're right. A bit of name calling, a few irrelevant accusations, ambiguity and adamantly sticking to your guns, gets you over the line all the time. Good For You.

Congratulations Romanis. A perfect self reflection from you.

[MadAmster]

After an almost sleepless night racking my brains I still can't work out how Sweden were refused that penalty against Germany yesterday. It was a foul. It was in the area. It was a penalty but not given.

I can understand the ref not wanting to give it, he was way, way behind play. His assistant was up with play and in a direct line with the incident and should have given it or, at the very least, said over the microphone that VAR should look at it. VAR should have reviewed it and given it but didn't. I await an explanation with baited (but not held) breath. We won't get one.

VAR has worked in quite a few situations. It has failed in 2 or 3 situations. IMO its failings are down to teething troubles and will improve. There are those, however, who think that Sweden didn't get the penalty because it was against the Germans.