VAR

[Joe_Fox]

What's your thought?

 

[City Fan]

Keep VAR. Properly train some refs.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

Like Alan Shearer said, the technology is fine. Great even. It's the people behind it still making the same stupid decisions they always were, only now they're doing it with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[tedfoxxx]

Should be able to listen to the review process because the whole thing feels like an attempt at an arse covering exercise.

 

[parafox]

It's very simple - keep it, but don't have complete and utter corrupt ****ing halfwits running the thing.

They also need to stop standing around waiting for VAR to confirm absolutely everything. They will only give a penalty straight away these days if someone is impaled with a pitchfork.

 

[Joe_Fox]

But therein lies the problem. There doesn't seem to be any capable people available to run VAR, so what do you do?

I've often thought a review system should be used, a bit like in cricket. Two reviews (or maybe just one) per half. If your review is successful, you get it back. If not, it's gone.

I also think it's probably about time the clock was managed by someone other than the ref, and actually shown to the public. I know, I know, it's not really football, but to be honest, nor is football right now. It's ****ed.

 

[Miles Away]

But therein lies the problem. There doesn't seem to be any capable people available to run VAR, so what do you do?

I've often thought a review system should be used, a bit like in cricket. Two reviews (or maybe just one) per half. If your review is successful, you get it back. If not, it's gone.

I also think it's probably about time the clock was managed by someone other than the ref, and actually shown to the public. I know, I know, it's not really football, but to be honest, nor is football right now. It's ****ed.

Joe, I completely agree about the time clock.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I've often thought a review system should be used, a bit like in cricket. Two reviews (or maybe just one) per half. If your review is successful, you get it back. If not, it's gone.

This, even up against a large back catalogue of pretty sturdy competition, is the worst thing you’ve ever offered to this site

 

[pork pie fox]

Joe, I completely agree about the time clock.

Yep, I’ve said it for years. 30 mins of ball in play time per half, stop the clock any time the ball is dead.

 

[Miles Away]

Yep, I’ve said it for years. 30 mins of ball in play time per half, stop the clock any time the ball is dead.

Would make the game so much better.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I do like the clock suggestion though.

 

[M17TT C]

They were talking about this on the radio the other day and I think it was the Chelsea Spurs game a few weeks back that had less than 45 mins of playing time.

If it was changed (which would never happen imo) the half time would have to be reduced to 30 mins of playing time with the clocked stopped/started to only count 'in play' time.

 

[Joe_Fox]

It would be interesting to trial the clock thing just to see what happened. The problem is that Sky et al would hate it as it would cause them scheduling headaches and whilst TV is the most important thing in football, it ain't going to happen.

 

[Joe_Fox]

I do like the clock suggestion though.

I'm honoured.