VAR

[cromwell]

VAR was sold on a lie.
It was only going to be used to correct '“clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents”'.

Well, if it takes you five minutes of slo-mo replays from many different angles to reach a decision, whatever happened isn't "clear and obvious".

France v the Netherlands last night.
The Dutch score and straightaway the joy of the goal is taken away by the dreaded "goal review".
Three or four minutes later, Judge VAR comes back with the verdict - the wrong verdict.

That shot was going in regardless of where the dutch player was standing, the keeper had no chance of ever getting to it. You wonder if some of these blokes have ever kicked a ball. Every ex-footballer on the BBC panel said "wrong decision".

"It's as though they are looking for reasons to disallow goals" said the BBC commentator plaintively.
Yes, and some of us have been saying this for months.

[Workingman]

It's a good shot but... a player is offside and could, possibly, impede the keeper. No goal - correct.

VAR = rubbish.

[JoM]

I hate it with a passion.

It takes away so much of the enjoyment when a goal is scored, you celebrate and then wonder if the tannoy announcement “VAR checking goal” is going to be made, and quite often it is and five minutes later you’re still wondering if the goal stands or not.

Crommers, we’ve been saying the same. Judging by the amount of time it takes for VAR to rule whether a goal should stand or not, it feels like they’re scrutinising every second of play leading up to the goal in an attempt to find a reason to disallow it.