VAR decisions

Or you only use when it is available at all games.

 

This is also something I believe in. It has to be the same rules for everyone in every round. It's a competition that has to have a level playing field.

What would people think if a few teams did not use VAR in the Premier League? They would not stand for it. I understand the costs, so of course you cannot force VAR on clubs that cannot afford the system.

The only time you can use it, is when it gets to Wembley for the semi-final. I'm not against it being used but it has to be used by everyone at the same stage of the competition, or else you are unfairly giving some clubs an advantage.

Our tie is a good example. Had it not been used we'd have won the tie. In the replay without VAR and having useless Graham Scott in charge, we run the gauntlet of going out because he missed something or judged the situation incorrectly as is often the case with him.

There is plenty wrong with VAR, like cherry-picking what they want to see, but you have to get the fundamental things correct. It has to be used by every club in the 3rd round etc, or not used at all.

 

What about we lose the replay to a decision that VAR would have overturned? It's not being used so that cannot happen.

You cannot use the system in one tie and not the other. It makes the whole thing farcical IMO.

 

No it doesn't. Just like in tennis when some games have Hawkeye and some don't.

 

That makes it ok then.

Any sport that allows two chances to start off the point is not one that should really be looked at for guidance. You may as well say to Deeney, it's ok if you miss the penalty at the first attempt you can have another go afterwards.

Football is football.....tennis is tennis. They have different rules and ideals.

We will be at a disadvantage in the replay. Everyone loves an underdog and I'm sure the decisions will heavily go in their favour, especially as there were two bad ones going against them in the first game. That will be in the mind of Graham Scott no doubt as he will feel he owes them something. There will be no VAR to bail us out in the replay as it did for Tranmere.

 

This is quite frankly the biggest reach you've ever done. It doesn't make any sense at all in terms of discussing Hawkeye vs VAR. I'm shocked you even posted it.

Yep, just like those players who have play on stupid Hawkeye-less Court 14 as opposed to Roger Federer on Centre Court. They seem to deal with it without too much moaning.

 

So the ref. thought it was a red and so did the VAR officials. Men who have been trained through the ranks to know what the rules are and interpret them correctly.

You however, a mere fan, apparently knows better and are critical of those fans who would rather trust the judgement of trained officials and their own interpretation of the laws as opposed to trusting in you.

 

I'm not saying it's not a good point you made with Hawkeye. It is actually a good one, but it's a totally different sport. Different traditions and philosophies etc. If anything, it's you that's made a big reach by brining in a totally different sport to back your point.

At Wimbledon most courts use it. It's used on Centre, Court One, Two, Three, Twelve and Eighteen. That pretty much takes cares of all the men's singles. Certainly anyone who is seeded is unlikely to play on a smaller court.

But if you want to use tennis as your example, they a lot more officials. They have 8 line judges and an umpire. That's NINE officials for one game on a court that's less than a quarter size of a football pitch controlling just 2 or 4 players.

 

It's not reasonable to expect an attacker to judge where his head is in relation to his opponent. It is reasonable however for him to be expected to judge where his feet are.

 

Those same highly trained officials that missed a penalty and got the offside wrong. Hmmm. Was there any evidence to show the red card was reviewed? Nothing shown on the screen. If it was reviewed it would have been the big dramatic build up with the scoreboard, but there was none of that.

I've watched football for 40 years and know what is a red card and what is not. I don't need some brainwashing into thinking whatever a decision a referee makes is correct by the virtue of him being a referee. If that's your view, you're welcome to it, however it maybe news to you, but referees do make mistakes...shock, horror!!

 

So your new view is now diametrically opposed to your old one that VAR favours the 'big six' then!

Tranmere didn't get two bad decisions. Ultimately they got two correct decisions.

It seems to me that you just find any excuse to contend that Watford are conspired against in any match. You're just making it up.

 

Yep refs make mistakes. Just a lot less than you. And it seems that after 40 years you still don't know what's a red card and what isn't. You know what you'd like it to be though and I have every sympathy with that view. I agree that red cards are handed out for handbags whereas much more serious stuff can be relatively overlooked.

Unfortunately though what currently is a red card and what we'd like them to be aren't the same thing at all.

 

I disagree

 

I disagree

 

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here about what's fair and what isn't.

Each match is an individual entity. As long as both teams in it are equally likely to be advantaged or disadvantaged by whatever technology is or isn't available then it's entirely fair. And it's entirely fair relative to any other match irrespective of whether technology is or isn't available in them too because you can both benefit or lose out from what is or isn't available.

 

Just imagine!!



This is why we need to ditch VAR.

 

Had we had VAR, we'd have already been promoted. Hogg would have had a penalty against Leeds and Poleon would off been sent off. Though one probably wouldn't have led to the other. Pretty sure Hogg was the last man too so in those days, that's a red.

Deeney wouldn't have been sent off either as we'd have been coasting to promotion while Dull sh*t themselves and lost.

Zola would have taken us up. Abdi, Vydra and Forestieri would have led us to 6th place and a FA Cup victory in our first season back. We'd have played football that even the media would be creaming themselves talking about. Zola would have left Watford after 3 trophies and a decent fight in a Champions League group.

Man, I wish we'd had VAR in the Championship.

 

I do try and support you HB1 because much of what you say is spot on, but you do have a blind spot when it comes to biased refereeing (which is not the same as bad refereeing). When we're the underdogs in the Premier League you say the referees, VAR and the authorities generally are biased against us, but when we're playing against underdogs in the Cup those same authorities will apparently be biased in their favour.

 

Yes...spot on. We get a bad deal regardless of who we play with or without VAR. When we play with VAR those decisions which initially went our way get overturned, but vice-versa that doesn't happen. It goes down as the VAR official missed that one. Yeah right. It's impossible for THREE handball goals scored against us to stand, yet that has happened.

I'm not disagreeing the VAR decisions were correct in the Tranmere game, but why wasn't the red card looked at? There always seems to be some excuse made and everyone laps it up as being a valid reason and will back it to the hilt.

Goals scored against us at Newcastle, Spurs and Southampton should have been clearly disallowed, yet were allowed to stand, robbing us of THREE 1-0 victories. We ended up with a couple of 1-1 draws and a 2-1 defeat because of those decisions. That's massive in a season we're having. 7 points.

What about that clear handball by Murphy against Brighton, with the score at 0-1, we should have been awarded a penalty. What about the fouls on Deulefuo at Everton and Spurs. Both clear penalties ignored.

Tranmere get two VAR decisions go their way, Burnley get a penalty after a VAR review. They were correct decisions, but nothing ever seems to go our way. The only one I can think of all season where VAR has overturned in our favour was the soft penalty we were given against Chelsea, which didn't change the result anyway.

 

I think it is entirely reasonable when he knows he's busting a gut to get ahead of the defender to hopefully head a cross into the goal...

 

Over the weekend (I can't remember the match) a team made a break forward on the left and a forward in the middle breaking forward from the halfway line, onside, pointed to where he wanted the pass to go (that was his mistake) and the pass came and he duly put the chance away for a great goal...….. only it was ruled offside because of his figure!!

 

Frankly, the mess we find ourselves in is basically 100% down to VAR and it’s usage in the FA Cup.

Had VAR been used in the Swansea vs. Man City game last year, City would have been knocked out. We’d have clearly won a final against either Swansea or Brighton, rather than being on the receiving end of a frightful beating, that destroyed all confidence and belief in our ability to play football.

With the increased profile and European competition on the horizon, we’d have strengthen effectively over the summer to deal with competing on two fronts, wrapping up the Sarr deal early, and supplementing him with various other high profile signings.

At the time of writing, led by Javi Gracia, Watford find themselves in 5th spot, primed for a run at the top 4.

 

Agreed, but had Swansea correctly beaten Man City, I'm not sure Swansea would have beaten Brighton at Wembley. Had we played Brighton instead of the City debacle, our very next game was Brighton at home where we were also destroyed.

I can accept being thrashed by the best team in the country in a major final, but to get thrashed by Brighton in the FA Cup final would have been even more soul destroying. If you look at it like that, not using VAR probably did us a favour.

 

How do you know it wasn't? As has been mentioned elsewhere, guidelines are that all straight red cards are reviewed as a matter of routine but don't necessarily need the over the top stadium announcement that it is being checked.

Have the club announced if it is being appealed yet?

 

Pointless as we never win an appeal because the FA hates us and always backs the refs decision no matter what.

 

Have Brighton ever thrashed anyone?

 

Yeah Us!

3-0 at our place this season

 

I'm not sure Chris Hughton's Brighton would have thrashed us to be fair. They rarely left their own half.

 

I really do hope this starts a new trend. There's absolutely no reason at all why the ref. viewing the pitch-side monitor should take any longer than Stockley Park by itself.

 

The clue's in the A. Assistant. Use VAR to assist the ref. Not to tell him what to do.

 

Exactly, and that is where Mike Riley has screwed up. The whole point of Video ASSISTANT Referees is to help the ACTUAL Referee come to the right decision, but that decision should ultimately be made by the ACTUAL Referee. At the moment we have a situation where Refs are implementing decisions for things they haven't seen themselves and that is not how it should be working. It's like giving the linesman a whistle and letting him have the final say on things instead of flagging to get the referees attention.

 

How does Lacazette stay on when Pereyra was sent off for an almost identical incident. Albeit Bobby was less aggressive.

 

He’s an Arsenal player, not a Watford one.