Women's World Cup: Final

This is the fourth time a Dutch team has reached the World Cup Final.
This time I'm the least optimistic we can win it.

Beforehand I said I'd be pleased if they reached the semi's.
Well they did more than that!
But only the second half of the quarters against Italy have they played well.
Especially the wingers have disappointed thus far. Lieke Martens (voted best player in the world! - though she does have a toe injury) and Shanice v/d Zanden have not shown what they are capable of, on the wings.
When we became European Champions, they made the difference
Vivienne Miedema (voted best player in the women's EPL has not been at her best, though she did score some nice goals.
I'd give us a 30% chance, but as Frank Rijkaard once famously said, the ball is round..

Another shit VAR decision in the 3rd place play off. England, two down, score twice in two minutes. Incredible excitement, only to have a marginal VAR handball decision deflate the atmosphere. Apologies to Mike Gaynes, he's explained very sensibly why VAR is a good thing and why we will accept it in time, but I think it's fucking bollocks.

Next season - number of goals from open play halved, number of goals from penalties doubled. Is this really what we want?

i just posted on another thread. Var really got it wrong and did not show camera angles from the other side of the pitch. This could be a great asset but not the way they are using it right now.

VAR has the potential to ruin the game as we know it.

I'm really afraid that it is going to ruin the game, and rather than even the field when it comes to penalties and contraversial decisions, it will be used to "help" the top teams by scrutinizing opposing teams more than themselves..

I've always thought referees have favoured certain teams, not always by big decisions, but by giving questionable fouls to break up our attacking play. Fouls given in midfield are really criticized, but can have a big influence in a game.

I have a feeling that VAR will be used in a similar, subtle way.

HI Michael [2] I fully endorse your sentiments, but in a less colourful way. I am on record as saying that I am 100% against VAR. The only changes that I consider improvements are the goal-line technology, because it's instant, and the spray, that ensures that players are ten yards from the ball at free kicks.

Fast approaching 81, nine days and counting, I readily admit to being a dinosaur, but I'm afraid that football as we know it will soon be a thing of the past, I fear that there will be no place for human error, unless it's by someone 200 miles from the action, referees and linesmen will be replaced by hooters and sirens, and the laws of the game will be reviewed every season. Age won't deter me, poor performances from Everton won't deter me, VAR and constant alterations to the laws of the game will signal the final straw.

In defence of Mike Gaynes, it would appear that he's from a country that regard the uncertainty, as a vital part of the entertainment, and it seems that they can't understand how a game can end with honours even.

Just out of interest I looked to see how much wages Phil Neville was earning as the manager of England Ladies team, apparently he is on between £250,000 and £300,000 per annum, not bad, but for some reason I expected him to be on more, don't know why.

Dave #6 - we could have a whip-round for him.

John @5 apologies for my "colourful" language; you put it far more elegantly than I did! I totally agree - goal-line technology and the free-kick spray are both non-controversial innovations that enhance the game, with no real drawbacks that I can see. VAR is a very different kettle of fish. It may enhance the game in some ways, but it definitely also detracts from it in other ways.

Francis, I think the Dutch women have done brilliantly in this tournament, coming in ranked #9 in the world and handling the top sides with aplomb.

With both Martens and Shanice dealing with injury issues and their backline making mistakes, I agree that they're a longshot to beat the US, but at this point they'd be my favorites to win the next one. This is a gifted young side that needs only WC finals experience, which they are about to get.

Thanks for the callouts, guys, but I'd rather talk about the game. The subject of VAR has worn itself out for now, and we'll have plenty of time to discuss it further when the Prem starts up.

@Mike, I was just thinking - as the most high-profile VAR enthusiast on this forum, you do realise that you are going to be held personally responsible for every VAR decision that goes against Everton this season? Naturally, you won't be given any credit for the VAR decisions that go in our favour. Such is life eh? Anyway, can I be the first to promise that I won't fall into the trap of shouting "fucking hell, what do you say now Mike Gaynes!" every time we get a shit VAR call in a match!

In Key West at the southern edge of America and off to watch the ladies play.

Big day for US Soccer - ladies in WC final and men in Gold Cup final against Arch-Nemesis Mexico.

Works for me, Michael!

I remember driving from Ft Lauderdale to Key West, many years ago Jamie, and all's I can say is that I hope your day, is as good as that drive was mate!

Honestly think that the USA, will lose today, but I'm not sure how the men will get on, in what must be a bit of a grudge match against Mexico.

A question for the American boys, which game would you prefer to win? And don't say the two of them because that's too obvious!

Tony

Tim Howard once said the Liverpool and Manchester derby's were like friendlies compared to facing the hostile Mexicans in their own back yard

Tony - it's a slow but scenic drive. Weird being surrounded by water on all sides.

Which game would I prefer to win? Both! 😜. But if I had to pick one I'd say the ladies.

It's a WC Final. Has to take precedent.

That's why I'm surprised that Jamie, has picked the women over the men Darren, even if it is a World Cup final.

That drive is a lovely memory because I'd never been driven surrounded by water on all sides, but it wasn't weird mate, it was brilliant, but isn't everything when you're young, and having a laugh with your mates!

Enjoy the day Amigo's, it seems like it must be a great day to be alive in the good old USA!

We can say the best team won, congrats USA.

But we had another VAR moment.
I've not said anything on the subject here yet.
My tuppence: It's novel, and due to modification.
It's certainly not perfect. I think most football fans are agreed to that.
I've not spoken with anyone who likes it as it is, over here.
The penalty given, was another joke.
Stefanie v/d Gragt did touch the ball, ever so slightly, and only visible from one camera angle, before she collided into the American player.
However, the ball was always going out for a goal-kick, totally unreachable for any American player.
How on earth a penalty can be given for this is a total mystery to me.
Yes, the defender was high with her foot.
But not that high! And she got to the ball first.

Luckily the match was not decided by that moment.
The second goal was very good. No problems with that at all.
Again I found the Dutch team to be playing poorly, had it not been for the keeper Sari van Veenendaal (the wo-man of the match), the score would have much higher.

Again, the wingers failed, the Dutch tactics, a 4-4-1-1 formation looked good on paper, but in practice failed.

As an emancipated country, the women could do no better than the men, losing a World Cup final for the fourth time. It's no shame losing to a country with almost 15 times as many inhabitants.

Next year the Olympics.
I have no idea how many non-English players will make the GB team.
And how many of this USA team will be partaking.
But then again, the ball is round.

Francis, congrats again on the Dutch tournament performance and condolences on the outcome today, but I'm sorry, you're way off target on the pen.

The defender van der Gragt did not touch the ball, Morgan did. And she did not "collide" with Morgan. She kicked her solidly in the chest, knocked her down, albeit accidentally. That was a nailed-on, stone-solid penalty.

The referee missed it -- she thought the defender had kicked the ball out and gave a corner. VAR proved otherwise, and it was a very short delay and a very short look at the VAR screen by the ref. No complaints by the Dutch, either at the time or afterwards. They knew it too.

And that is exactly how VAR is supposed to work -- spot and correct clear and obvious errors, and do so in a very short time. The delay was less than a minute. On this occasion, VAR worked perfectly.

Congratulations to the ladies from America. totally deserved.

VAR ? . . I could weep

RIP football as we know and love it.

That's exactly how I've felt since Man Utd, got that penalty in Paris, Darren, and reading posts 18 and 17, then it's not going to stop many disagreements either.

Congratulations to the American girls, maybe they can bring a little bit of their professionalism to the White House, and let it rub off on Trump!

Tony, I'm pretty sure none of those women will have the slightest interest in rubbing anything off on Trump.

I assume our Brazil contingent of Fran and Jay are watching the Copa America final. Great atmosphere there.

I bet yer a few of them wouldn't mind rubbing him out though Mike! It was more a compliment to the professionalism of your girls really mate, because they have done your country proud.

They have indeed, Tony, thanks. On the pitch and off, for three generations of players. The unsung (and not televised) '91 group, the '99 superstars and the current double winners have all changed women's sport in America.

Today was probably the end of an era... they were the oldest team in the tournament, and I expect the Netherlands, England and France will all pass the US in the rankings over the next four years.

I'd have VAR for goal-line judgements and retrospective punishments and bin it for everything else.

It creates more arguments than it resolves and is another sad example of modern sport creating artificial 'incidents' that will never be as dramatic as the sport itself.

Have the US TV companies started selling adverts in the VAR breaks yet?

When that VAR decision in the Ladies USA game happened, I didn't think it was a pen.

I didn't want it to be a pen. I immediately said to my wife, "Never a pen. I hope this isn't a pen. I want them to earn the win from open play. Not back into it by taking the lead on a pen."

I thought Alex Morgan made a meal of it.

It was a penalty. But it was ever so soft, and I understand the outcry to reign in VAR, no matter how much I support it.

The better team won. But I'd have preferred us to score from open play to win the World Cup. The game changed immensely after the pen. The number of odd-man (woman) counters the USA had after that pen was insane. And they typically did terribly (looking at you Alex Morgan) finishing those opportunities.

Still proud. Still happy. Understand the outcry.

Now onto the Gold Cup, and for the love of God please, please beat the Mexicans!!!

Don't get your hopes up, JC. I don't think we have a prayer.

Nor do I Mike! But that's why we watch. ;0)

The penalty decision obviously had a great effect on the match forcing the Dutch to change their game. My opinion is that it was never a penalty as the defender tried to play the ball and the forward rushed in to her raised leg. I've said it before but their must be some intent to foul a player and to me it just wasn't there, it was a situation created by the American and I base that not on several replays but the fact that there was daylight between the foot (with studs down) and the forward which was closed by the forward's movement.

Alan J, you must be joking. Or badly in need of a new TV. Or glasses.

The "forward rushed in to her raised leg"???

Your version of events is a fairy tale worthy of a Disney movie.

That was as clear and obvious a penalty as there could be. The ball went over the defender's head and Morgan took it on her chest as the defender kicked at the ball. She kicked Morgan in the shoulder. Solidly. From behind. And her studs were NOT down. They were up. They went directly into Morgan's shoulder and raked down.

Intent? Don't be ridiculous. When you kick that high and get the player and not the ball, it's a foul. And in this case an absolutely stonewall penalty.

Every commentator said so, in English and Spanish. (I watched it on both.) Every news report said so. The only people who say otherwise are those who despise VAR so much that they can't stand the fact that in this case VAR correctly, properly detected a nailed-on pen that the ref couldn't see.

Meanwhile the Kariobangi Sharks play Everton reserves before a bigger crowd than at Women's World Cup Final!

True, Martin, although to be fair the Stade de Lyon was a sellout at 57,900. Slightly smaller than the national team stadium in Nairobi where Everton played.

Very true Mike! My attempt at irony!

Alan J:

You know, you're right. This photo clearly shows Morgan initiating the contact. And those silver things sticking into Morgan are definitely not the defender's studs.

https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/styles/marquee_large_2x/public/2019/07/07/alex-morgan-netherlands-high-kick.jpg?itok=4-82RSul

Paul - we already have goal line technology and that is sufficient and doesn't disrupt the flow of the game. VAR has its place in other sports but it has already ruined the viewing experience of fans who actually attend matches.

The issue with VAR is that when an offside/red card decision is made via VAR then why not play back the VAR back a little further. As there is likely to have been some infringement that influenced what later took place- logically you could carry this process until the match was replayed.

Mike, you're right about Stefanie v/d Gragt missing the ball.

The player herself admitted it. she added that there was no hard contact, and that Morgan cleverly made more of it. As some on here have noted too.

As written earlier, this was luckily not the deciding moment. The second goal was very good.

p.s. Steef is a local girl, from Heerhugowaard. I've played Bridge several times against uncles of her.

Interesting piece in one of the newspapers about VAR - I think it was the Guardian - saying that it reverses one of the quirks of the game.

Previously, it's been said that challenges which go unpunished in the penalty area are often given as fouls when they occur outside the box. Now, with VAR, the opposite will be true - any tiny offence in the box will be a penalty, but the same offence could well be missed in the centre circle. The article also suggested that there was an unfairness about this - why should it only be in the penalty area that mistakes go to VAR?

For example, let's say we play the Shite and they constantly get away with fouls outside the box that break up our play but, as soon as we score, VAR is used to correct a tiny offside error by the linesman? Goals aren't only scored in the box, and goals are just as likely to be prevented by a foul further up the field stopping a breakaway attack.

So my suggestion: In the interests of fairness, VAR should be constantly in use for the full 90 minutes, with all decisions being taken remotely. Get rid of the ref and linesmen completely.

I stated on another thread that I was not a fan of VAR as it tends to take the excitement out of the game. Imagine the last minute of a game at Goodison against the other lot and Everton score, the fans go ballistic and suddenly the ref holds his hand up for VAR that takes a couple of minutes to see whether a player had his toes in an offside position.

Total deflation waiting for someone watching a screen to make a decision. In some instances it may be ok but nit picking decisions it will ruin the game for the most important people, (and they are the spectators) and when all is said and done the game will be nothing without them.

Interesting that Michael, because I had exactly those thoughts last week, when I was thinking about VAR.

I was actually thinking about the 1984 Milk Cup Final, and Howard Kendall saying that he'd never seen so many fouls given to Sharp outside the box, but when the same incident happened inside, the ref never gave Everton a penalty even once.

“It's black and white, it's black and white” repeat one thousand times, because it doesn't matter if a player is playing for it or not, football has become black and white!

Francis #35, Stefanie did her hometown proud -- part of a defense that ran up something like 600 consecutive shutout minutes. I think there's a very good chance she'll have her own chance to hold up the trophy in four years.

But her contact with Morgan was not inconsequential:

https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/styles/marquee_large_2x/public/2019/07/07/alex-morgan-netherlands-high-kick.jpg?itok=4-82RSul

Morgan is definitely a player to "make more" of a foul, but I'd suggest this was not such an occasion.

Ed #34, you says VAR "has already ruined the viewing experience of fans who actually attend matches."

Have you actually attended a match where VAR was used and found your viewing experience ruined? Have you spoken with fans who have? Have you even read news accounts where such fans were quoted?

If not, what is the source of your sweeping statement?

Many here have predicted the demise of the fan experience due to VAR, as William #37 does, but as far as I know you're the first to assert that it has already occurred. Please support the assertion.

The best team won, the US's greater investment in the women's game is certainly bearing fruit. Was a great game, but once the second goal went in, Holland were done for. The US's greater technical ability, and fitness was clear.

But Holland fought well, and it was a great game, and it was a great tournament.

VAR is one thing that has changed the game, but another even greater development is that now, Women's football is on the map. It will only get stronger and bigger from here on in.

On this, would be great to guarantee that ToffeeWeb keeps us up to date with all things Everton including the women's team. I guess that the Women's premier league will soon recieve the investment it should have had a long time ago.

Dunno about you Fran, but I was honestly more entertained by the women's WC than the fare on show for the majority of the Copa America games.

I enjoyed the tournament in France a lot more.

I noticed there was talk at the end of the tournament about how to increase the profile of the women's game, and one suggestion was to "piggyback" the men's PL games, by scheduling matches either before or after a PL game. Personally, think that's a bad idea. I can't imagine me getting to the match at 1pm to watch a double header, and definitely can't imagine hanging around after the game for another couple of hours to watch Everton women play. In fact, the ground is half empty five minutes before kick off right now, and a huge number of fans don't seem to stick around for final whistle let alone another match afterwards.

The other suggestion was to go to a summer season, which I believe they used to have. Sounds a better idea to me. When we're all desperate for a bit of footie, might be good to have something to watch.

Anyway, it's definitely a great time to push the women's game.

The 'piggyback' idea is awful, and is quite offensive. But also, the 'summer season' too is poor, it continues the idea that the Women's game is a 'gap-filler' before the 'proper' game starts.

What is needed is genuine investment, developing the grassroots, and building a fanbase. From those that I know, and from what I saw, there is a huge female fanbase that can drive female game. My female friends here are enthusiastic about the women's game, whilst the majority were always rather non-plussed by the men's game.

So for the women's game to grow, it needs to grow via the female fanbase too.

The fanbase at the average game at Goodison is what? 20% female, maybe less? I'd hazard a guess that if Everton women play, it'll be 70% or more.

So it needs to be seen independently to the mens game. One thing I know, there is more of a chance of Everton women winning the 'women's premier league', then we do of seeing the men.

I'd be thinking they are talking about piggy backing the tv coverage not back to back games. The ground staff would just love back to back games hey. I can see how having a womens game shown live before a mens game would really help grow the game. However it depends on the market along with the standard of play. Maybe they can test it out with some top of the table games. I was pleasantly surprised that the standard has very much improved.

That's the best I've seen the US play. They did dominate albeit because the Dutch chose to sit back. On reflection the US team should have been more offensive in the knockouts but the management in those rounds was excellent. The centre backs and in particular Ertz are the real rock that allows their front three and Lavelle to counter so well.
Without Ertz it I think the Peloton will catch them up, Mike alluded to it and I thinks he right.
The penalty...well I personally would never give it, but once VAR intervenes it's been reduced to contact or no contact. That's the sad part. All the considerations which go into giving a pivotal call like that are reduced to the binary. On that judgment it's a pen. Sigh.
For me; the Dutch player is first to the ball, Morgan is behind her and not yet close enough to challenge. As the ball further approaches the Dutch foot is up, Morgan is still not able to compete, tellingly her hand go up, and she looks away as she arrives, she is not playing the ball. There is no discernible touch and her follow through contacts Morgan, who, already knows she's in the wrong place and exacerbates the contact. It was careless yes, and the follow through of an attempt to clear the ball, it wasn't a tackle or a reckless attempt to endanger the player.
It also was far from the level of foul against both sides that had been either missed or allowed to go.
All these factors play a part in a decision yet VAR reduced that to contact or not even though Morgan was not able to get in a position to compete for the ball. Not for that.

Yes Mike - I have been to all games that Everton have been involved when VAR has been used, have you? have also witnessed the impact of VAR on the FA Cup over the past two seasons and it's often ruined the game. Even Alan Pardew criticised it when WBA won at Anfield in the cup.

I have attended 47 seasons worth of Everton home games (plus a few hundred away games) so I think can comment on the difference between VAR and non VAR games - and I might have a fair understanding of what fans who attend the games might think.
What first hand evidence is your opinion founded upon ? - Please don't tell me about other sports that use it successfully because football is it?

Ehrm...not being funny Ed, but what games have Everton been involved in that used VAR? What Everton games, if any, was VAR actually referenced to overturn or uphold a decision that detracted from the match day experience of the match-going fan?

I can't think of a single one.

The one time we needed it, away to Milwall in the FA Cup last season, the FA foolishly allowed a two-tier system, accepting that non-PL were not obliged to have VAR for their home games.

Mike#40 - I appreciate your comment was directed to Ed and he has responded #47 above. You do however refer to the views of fans who have attended matches and had the experience ruined by VAR, also asking if Ed has read news accounts of fans who have. You may recall (indeed you acknowledged my post) that I have posted about attending a match (Porto v Fierense) that most definitely was ruined not just for me, but also for many others in attendance by VAR.

I think there was a game at Goodison last season were VAR was used,maybe concerning a tackle on Richarlison, whether it was a foul, or whether the foul was inside or outside the penalty box, but I' m not absolutely sure about this.

Jay, was it that non premier league grounds were not obliged or that they were not set up for it? Wasn't right anyway. Either all or none.

Dave there were two games - Rotherham and Lincoln in the League Cup and FA Cup

John(#46); That's about the way I saw it and for me never a penalty. I think it has been seen for several seasons now that defenders slide in to clear a ball and forwards deliberately fall over their legs in an attempt at getting (almost said winning as commentators like to) a penalty.

And I'm not even cracked up.

Ed#52 - I'm with you as to how VAR affects/is likely to affect match going fans however I don't think it was used in the Lincoln game. I do agree that it was used in the Rotherham game.

David @ 51. No. It wasn't a case that only non-league teams were excused using VAR. It was for all and every team from the Championship down. Only home ties of PL teams had the finances and infrastructure to use VAR in the FA Cup.

You might recall the Swansea-Man City cup tie in which Swansea went 2-0, but lost 3-2. Like Milwall, Swansea are a Championship side. If VAR had been in operation, possibly two of City's three goals would have been ruled out.

So Ed, just two Everton games that you can recall in which VAR was in operation. Can you recall a single controversial moment, or prolonged decision making process in either of those two games, that seriously detracted from your match attending pleasure?

Let's critique VAR on actual events, not imagined ones.

Ed #47, I didn't ask if you'd attended either of the Everton games where VAR was used. I asked if it ruined your fan experience, or that of anyone you spoke to there. Since you decline to describe any situations where it did, apparently it did not. I'm sorry if it ruined your FA-Cup-TV-watching experience, but that wasn't my question.

Martin #49, yep, I remember that. But I was pretty sure you hadn't talked to Ed about it. ;>)

JP #46, we must have been watching a different play. Morgan was past the defender when the ball in was deflected over the defender's head. Not only did Morgan compete for the ball, she won it, played it off her chest. The defender turned and kicked at it, and got Morgan instead right after Morgan played it. Observe if you will the photo linked in my response at #39. The photo clearly shows solid contact on Morgan's shoulder by the defender's studs just after the ball has come off her chest -- and that contact is from behind Morgan. I'm amazed that you can dismiss that photo as a depiction of a no-foul. To me it's a clear pen. And no complaints from the Dutch, either at the time or afterwards.

There were plenty of games in which VAR caused confusion last season, Jay

City vs Spurs CLSF
PSG vs Man U CLQF
Man U vs Reading Cup QF
Burnley vs Barnsley Cup QF

To name but a few

Not however Everton vs Lincoln as you rightly say Martin as it wasn't chosen as a trial game - so apologies for that error - might seem great for armchair fans but for those of us who actually are in the ground it's a load of shite, creates confusion. and is still totally subjective and often wrong. Just like non VAR referees decisions.

Point in question - Spurs handball against the RS in the CL final - Penalty or not? - VAR didn't really clear that it up did it?

There will always be arguments. For the longest time everyone has whined at referees and other officials for wrong calls and now they have an independent panel looking at all kinds of replay angles many people are still not satisfied.
What do they expect, shit happens no matter what so we have to accept it. Mostly the team that loses or their fans will complain the loudest when a VAR decision is unfavorable but what else is there.

Ed, I was addressing one specific claim you made about attending ALL the matches in which VAR was used featuring Everton. By consensus that amounts to one game in which there was no controversy or prolonged delay.

As for your list of games, my recall of, for example, the calls in the City-Spurs game was that it ADDED to the theatre on the night for the live (and TV) audience, rather than detracted from it.

For me, VAR worked very well at last year's WC and for the most part in the CL where used last season. Unquestionably, in the summer tournaments where it is being used, FIFA and regional federations following FIFA rule changes and instructions things have tipped too far and that needs addressing.

If things are not reviewed and the confusion and long delays continue, then I will also arm myself with a pitchfork and flaming torch to protest about it. But I'm not there yet.

Funny

I thought this VAR lark was to eliminate doubt, put everyone's mind at rest that the correct decision will be arrived at. . but even after 20 viewings from 10 different angles we still cant get people to agree on whether it was a penalty or not.

Ditch it. Football is an unrehearsed live entertainment. warts and all. VAR kills it as a spectacle and when all said and done, the call is still in the eye of the beholder.

Football has thrived for over a century, it`s a global game and is STILL spreading . . why the fuck do some people feel the need to "fix it" ?

Darren, you do know they're not going to ditch it, right?

I don't know anything of the sort Mike.

think it will empty grounds quicker than Baywatch

Really? You think fans will stay home because of VAR?

I admire your faith, mate, but I think you're betting on a horse that will never get out of the gate.

I think it'll be even worse than that Mike.

I don't see Sky putting up with fans switching to the racing or whatever other sport is on, because they don't want to wait for a referee to watch an incident 10 times only to fuck his decision anyway.

Just read the comments on here.

It's definitely a 50/50 this one men.

I agree with Mike, that the powers that be, won't want to look stupid and backtrack now that VAR, is here.

I agree with Darren, that it's taking all the emotion out the game, it's still creating arguments, and it might just kill the game, with everything becoming so black and white.

“I predict a riot”, is how I see VAR, in its present guise?

Hi Mike [various posts] I am not only anti-VAR, I'm also against the alteration to the laws of the game that have recently been introduced. The days of 'In the opinion of the referee' and 'ball to hand', have been replaced by 'in the opinion of the 'VAR officials' and 'arms in unnatural positions'.

I have stated on other posts, my support of goal-line technology because it provides an instant decision, and I consider the introduction of the spray at free kicks, so simple it's the work of a genius.

I acknowledge that you may well have been brought up watching sports that feature VAR, and are more suited to such treatment. I respect your views but at 81 [next Monday], the use of VAR is more likely to deter me attending matches than anything else.

I suspect you (and Mike) are right Tony. Probably wishful thinking on my part.

It's going to be very difficult for the powers that be to admit they got it wrong, if indeed it is deemed that they did get it wrong.

Very sad though

Fair enough Jay

We will have to agree to disagree. Goal line technology I am fine with because it is an objective mathematical decision made by a sensor and a computer which can tell you how many cm the ball is or is not over the line. VAR is still a subjective decision and it delays the game. Remember the adage the referees decision is final, we might need to change that until when the referee has finally made a decision. Apparently. VAR replays are going to be shown in grounds? - is that correct -? if they are I can see trouble ahead.

I can see myself giving the game a miss Darren, if Everton are knocked out of the cup, like PSG were against United.

I personally think it would be much easier to prove the cheating, but why should a player stay on his feet, if he's going to get away with a penalty?

Just watched Jay Woods link, showing Jesus carrying on like a little kid, but he's only young, he shouldn't have been sent-off for that foul, so it really does seem that VAR, can be very selective at times?

Goal-line technology is fine, but I personally think they should have stripped the laws right back, once they decided to introduce such controversial technology, (VAR) and I know they aren't making it up as they go along, but with everything becoming black or white, it doesn't seem to matter no more, and the most emotional sport in the world, is definitely going to lose its soul, without change?

You don't think Jesus shouldn't have got a yellow card for his challenge, Tony (#69)? You surprise me. I thought it was an in the back challenge with no chance of getting the ball and highly likely to injure the opponent. After all, it was a second yellow, not a red card dismissal and, in my opinion, a worthy case for a yellow card. And then tantrums. He needs to grow up.

It seems the actual controversy is, as Mr McFarlane Snr correctly points out, over the way the laws have been written and how refs are told they are to be interpreted (handling is now based upon expanding the silhouette) and how some on here want them to be interpreted.

VAR allows the application of the letter of the law. That said, it allows it to be done accurately. The slight contact with the English player in our box in the USA-England game that resulted in the penalty being awarded, was, in slow motion, correct, although I doubt that 19 out of 20 refs would give it in real-time, myself included.

Contrary to the opinion of some on here, it has not destroyed the fans' enjoyment in the Bundesliga. Goals are regularly chalked off and other plays reviewed. The stadia are quite full and I see no one leaving as a result of the VAR time.

Perhaps the happier medium would be to only use VAR for offsides calls and for review when a ref gives a penalty rather than a review of whether a penalty should have been given in the cases where it was not. This then lets the ref be the judge in that instance while in the actual flow of the game and to consider intent, positioning, amount of contact, etc.)

For those that disagree with this suggestion, I will only note that on every set piece and corner there is a foul in the box that VAR could review and require a penalty or a free kick be given. VAR has not been expanded to this but there is an argument that it should be in the interest of fair application of the laws of the game and the application of VAR in an even-handed manner.

Remember a while ago when sky introduced their revolutionary new technology where they could freeze a game then pan to a camera angle from any point, including aerial shots? Why can't they do this for VAR? Surely that freeze gram would show the whole crowd why an offside was given instead of the dodgy camera angles at the moment.

I also agree with the clear daylight for offsides. Where on the body is offside given at the moment? If it's feet, are you penalised for having size 13 feet compared to size 8? If it's chest, could you have your back to goal (in an offside position) but your chest onside? The margin for offsides at the moment is ridiculous and does not give anyone an advantage. If it was clear daylight for offside VAR's, then there would be less arguing as the player would have to be blatantly offside for it to be given. After all, isn't the advantage meant to be given to the attacking players?

I didn't think it warranted a second yellow, after watching Jay's link Terry, but I didn't see the game, and maybe he was on his last warning?

It wasn't that aggressive, he went with his side, (which was definitely more his arse than his elbow) but I suppose we all see things differently, even when it's black or white.

The kid definitely needs to grow-up, but he felt hard done by, playing in a final for his country, and if he wasn't on his last warning then I don't believe it was enough to produce a second yellow, and I would be surprised by anyone who thinks he should have been sent-off for that.

We all see the game differently Terry, but by trying to judge, as if I was the defender who was heading that ball, then I wouldn't have thought Jesus had tried to do me, more he was just being impetuous, (acting the c..t) and that's why I'd like to see a sin-bin introduced, because your team will still be disadvantaged, whilst you think about how stupid you've just been, and definitely think this is another thing that needs looking at?

Football is getting stripped of emotion, but that's only my personal view, and is why I watch so very little of it these days.

Kevin #72, the current idiotic standard is that if a part of the body you can use to score a goal is offside, then you're offside. That means an extended arm is not a violation, but an extended leg is. As I've said ad nauseum, the problem is the rules and their interpretation, not VAR. Like giving a pen for handball on a pass that hits a dangling arm from two yards away. Ridiculous.

Tony #69, VAR wasn't used in Gabriel Jesus being sent off. For my money the 2nd yellow was a bit harsh, but the ref was watching him very carefully for signs of retaliation after another incident. His infantile tantrum afterwards is what should get him banned from a few internationals going forward.

John #66, so we agree on the rules changes, if not VAR. I just think it would be a shame for you to miss games on account of the latter, and I hope it won't have such a profound affect on you, because I really don't think it will affect the game as much as you think. And I still want to go to Goodison with you!

This is what is going to make VAR so subjective,Tony (#73). I thought the challenge worthy of a yellow card. You did not. Fair enough but how can we expect consistency from those making the VAR decisions?

Hi Kevin [72] regarding the offside law, I made the same observation on another thread, it being that defender and attacker could be perfectly level. but because the attacker wore larger boots he would be deemed off side.

The offside law [law 11], in my time of watching and playing football, has gone from being level, and the attacker is deemed offside, to being level and the attacker is deemed onside, and then later, that there should be daylight between defender and attacker, before offside is given. Now with the advent of wall-to-wall TV coverage and VAR, the law has been changed to what we witness in today's game, hairline decisions.

The roles of the referee, and what I still refer to as linesmen, have been taken over by the TV cameras, lines across the screen, the game is still controlled by humans but from a distance, and this is considered progress?

John Sr. #76, I would call it "evolution" rather than progress. VAR is the inevitable result of enhanced technology. The rules changes are the inevitable result of under-intelligent, overly-officious bureaucrats tinkering endlessly with things that don't require it.

Terry #75, is it your understanding that the Prem will use VAR to make or review yellow card decisions? I hadn't heard that. I'm accepting of VAR but that particular application of it would be rampant idiocy.

Tony Abrahams @ various. Jesus was booked for the exact same foul in the first half by (for me) a fair and just ref who let a lot go and was certainly no homer. You don't send off a player of the host nation in the final if you were.

The player Jesus took out the second time had, just a few minutes earlier, been booked himself for a cynical foul, bundling Jesus over the touchline as he attempted to break away.

Maybe the ref saw it as a bit of retribution. Like yourself, I thought both yellow cards were harsh, but possibly we are basing our opinions on our time playing football. In today's game - in the same way if in rugby you tackle a bloke while he jumps for the ball with both feet off the ground - such challenges in football are now considered wreckless and uncontrolled with the real risk of injury the player on the receiving end.

Still on the Copa America, there was a very, VERY interesting item on the final in tonight's national news, a full 24 hours after the game.

* Given that it is a full 12 years since Brazil last won the title
* Given that it was the trainer Tite's first title with the national team
* Given that Alison was named the goalkeeper of the tournament
* Given that Everton was named MoTM and picked up the leading goal scorer award
* Given that Dani Alves was named best player of the tournament AND racked up his world record 40th title as the skipper of the team

You would think that Globo (the biggest TV network in Brazil) would have plenty of alternatives to showcase for a news item.

But they chose none of the above and went with...our Richarlison!

As I've previously reported, he is really liked in Brazil and he continues to enhance his reputation. They did a lovely piece with him and his family before the Copa America when he promised to dedicate any goal he scored to his great-grandmother.

Last night, in the post-match live interviews, he was asked what was the name of his great-grandmother...and he had a brain fade and couldn't remember! Obviously it plagued him because a few minutes later, when they were interviewing Casimiro, Richarlison reappeared to interrupt and say his great-grandmother's name!

They joked about that in the piece they did with him today, but they revealed the very, very close relationship he now shares with the ultra professional Dani Alves. Some of you might recall in the group phase Brazil beat Peru 5-0 and Dani Alves scored. In celebration, he made a point of pointing to Richarlison (who was on the bench and not playing) then imitated Richarlison's pigeon dance.

Richarlison also praised Alves for calling and texting him all the time when he was quaratined from the team for four days, including sending him a photo of an empty chair alongside Alves indicating how Richarlison was missed.

I was surprised when Richarlison stepped up to take the penalty, but he revealed tonight how that happened. Dani Alves was the designated penalty taker of those remaining on the pitch (Jesus sent off, Coutinho and Firmino substituted) and Richarlison approached his skip and said 'Let me take this skip. I'll score.' And to his enormous credit, Alves agreed.

On reflection, who would you prefer our boy to be mixing with and learning from? Neymar, or Alves..? Not even close, is it?

Mike (#77), not thinking that at all. You have two people seeing the same incident and forming two different conclusions. I'm questioning how the VAR review team can reach an unified decision that will make sense to us all.

Terry, the #1 objective of VAR is to provide a way to correct clear and obvious refereeing errors or oversights that determine the outcome of games -- or tournaments. VAR worked perfectly that way in the WWC when England was deservedly granted a pen in the USA game and when the USA was deservedly granted a pen in the final, both of which the ref had failed to call. VAR most certainly did not work perfectly in other applications, resulting in the inconsistencies you point out.

Those inconsistencies will never be worked out completely. They will always be there. Over time, as the use of VAR is improved, those inconsistencies will be reduced, but the system will never be perfect. VAR is intended to make things better, not infallible.

The dire predictions that VAR will "ruin the sport" and the calls to "ditch it" are always heard when replay is first brought in, when the imperfections are obvious. And as the imperfections are slowly corrected, the objections always fade over time and replay/VAR becomes accepted as a part of the game. It has happened in every other sport in which replay systems have been deployed. Every one, without exception. It will happen in football.

So we will have VAR next year but a different iteration. The premier league are to go with no monitors, the decision will be on the way so of the intervening VAR, the on field referee will not get a chance to review. Presumably to speed it up?!
Mike Riley has already hinted England will not enforce the feet rule with goalkeepers on penalty kicks, he has also suggested grappling at corners and free kicks may go the same way.
It feels like ‘cultural norms' may play apart in what kind of VAR we get.

All we know for sure is. Penalty for Liverpool.

Mike, I don't think VAR will 'ruin' football. There are some strong concerns I have that need resolving.

1. Will it lead to referees abdicating responsibility and going to VAR unnecessarily? The England penalty in the semi was blatant. It was a disgrace that it went to VAR at all, a bigger disgrace that it took so long to make the decision.

2. Is it a push to make the game 'more exciting' in these days of shorter attention span & hungry TV advertising folk?

3. How much will VAR be used to back up & justify these ridiculous new laws, rather than giving referees orders to give penalties/cards for holding, grappling, etc.

4. Who is monitoring the monitors and how is their performance measured? That would give us a clue to the real intention behind VAR.

I appreciate there will be some bedding in with this. VAR's usefulness spends on the intent of the authorities and their willingness to retreat from over-using their new toy.

Football is a game that is meant to flow, with human contact, refereed by people who actually understand the game and the movement of footballers. My chief concern is that VAR at give us a staccato game (for US TV?) with weak referees too willing to go to the studio for verification and players/fans crying for VAR at any opportunity.

PT #82, I think you're too harsh on the England penalty. I had to watch the slo-mo replay three times on TV before I spotted the contact of the England player's foot on the American's knee. It happened for a fraction of a second and was hidden. I'm not surprised the ref had to spend a few moments perusing the VAR screen.

No, I do not think it is a push to make the game more exciting. I think it is a push to get more calls right.

Regarding the "flow" of football, of course you're right, but I would point out that hockey is even faster, with fewer natural stoppages and much more human contact. And the NHL has steadily expanded its use of instant replay since 1991, reviewing goals, offside and potentially serious penalties, and allowing coach's challenges. It is wholly accepted by players, coaches and fans, even with the occasional delays and goal-overrule letdowns.

One thing frequently mentioned here by VAR skeptics is that last point -- supposedly fans will stop going to games because their goal celebrations sometimes come for naught. Fact is, hockey fans go just as crazy as footy fans when a goal is scored (plus the train whistles, pounding music and flashing lights), but they've grown accustomed to having some goals overruled by replay, and it hasn't hurt hockey attendance one bit -- in fact it's growing steadily.

As to the balance of VAR vs. referee independence... well, that will just be worked out over time, as it has in all the other sports. But it will certainly be a rough and uncertain ride this first season.

That's exactly my point in an earlier post Terry, I just can't see VAR, bringing consistency, simply because they have gone too far with it, way too early, and we all know football mate, it's that fast you could go back forever and spot little niggles, that constantly go on with-in the field of play.

Where do you draw the line? Because VAR, in its present guise is throwing up more questions than answers imo?

Whatever my views on VAR, I do accept that it is almost certainly here to stay (in some form) and, contrary to what a few people are saying, I doubt if it will stop fans from going to the match. The game does change, or evolve as Mike G would say, and I remember a time before red and yellow cards, when only one sub was allowed (I'm not quite old enough to remember no subs), when kicking the bejaysus out of an opponent was par for the course (watch the Leeds v Chelsea cup final of 1970 for a reminder), when there was no white spray for marking out ten yards at free-kicks, when a defender could pass back to the goalie etc.

VAR, to my mind, is probably the most intrusive of all these changes, and the most unneccesary, but we will get used to it pretty quickly. It will be just one more thing to moan about.

Having said that, Tony is right IMO - it will be almost impossible to have consistency without pulling back a thousand incidents and taking them to VAR. There will surely be more discussions on MOTD about the refereeing errors that AREN'T looked at, than the ones that are?

I think Terry@79, has come up with the best question on this very intelligent thread.

Niasse got banned for diving, even though the ref said he still thought the player hadn't deceived him, and yet Maddison, is caught diving, hook line and sinker, to get a fellow professional sent off, yet he goes unpunished?

I've often questioned the ulterior motives of some referees, and honestly think my suspicions will only get worse, once these decisions are made in the VAR STUDIO?

Paul T, I think Jay Woods is correct, when he says we tend to make our decisions on how it was when we used to play ourselves, and that's why I thought it was never a penalty, when England were awarded that pen against the USA.

“What was she waiting for” I thought, “why didn't she just get to the ball early and smash it into the goal” instead of waiting for it to come right across her body? So going back to Terry@79, I could just imagine the fight we would have been having if we were both on the panel for that game Paul!

"Contrary to what a few people are saying, I doubt it will stop fans going to the match"

You don't even have to leave this thread to see crystal clear evidence that it is likely to do exactly that.

What is fascinating is; who is opposed and who is in favour. Myself (50 years attending) Tony Abrahams (30-35 ? years attending) John Mac (70 years attending ) ALL state clearly that there is a very real possibility of us staying away from at least some games due to this coma inducing game killer. Read the comments. Honest comments and they come straight from the horses mouth.

I can see the appeal for armchair fans. As soon as a contentious issue comes up, They can nip to the fridge and get a beer, or a sarnie while a decision is made. Non-action is so much easier to endure when you're sprawled on your sofa, They can even log into the live forum and ask others what they think while the ref looks at the incident from 12 different angles. They don't need to worry about traffic, buses, trains after the game. The kids losing interest as their toes freeze. Their match day commitment starts 5 minutes before the game and ends 5 minutes later.

And before anybody starts bleating and throwing up the " You think you're a better blue" shite. Let me say; I spent over 3/4 of last season as an armchair fan. I'm judging nobody, nor am I claiming superiority for any section of the fan base. I'm simply pointing out its a different experience.

The argument that it has worked in other sports has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. Egg chasing was always stop-start.
This is EPL football. The match goer gets impatient enough with lengthy delays taking throw ins and Goal kicks. if he wanted to see even lengthier delays caused by officials he could always go and watch the daft arsed American version and get all of 11-12 minutes action - per quarter.

I think its fair to say the three clubs promoted to the EPL this season are bigger than the three clubs who went down. However. I still believe that average attendances for EPL games in the second half of next season will be lower than they were in the second half of the last.

Will it be the end of football ? it will for some. There is a very real possibility that life long traditionalists will be driven away by meddling, well meaning Johnny-come-lately's

Football ?. . I guess it depends on what football is to you as an individual, but its not football as I know it

It used to be a simple game to play and understand, the very best game, for me, to watch, nothing better, again for me.

As Darren says above, VAR, at the very least, will make fans of the game, match going fans, think is it worth it, in it's present form, and with apologies to fans of other sports who use it, I couldn't give a whatchamorecallit.

Darren, as you quote me at the top of your comment, for the record I'd like to point out I'm a season ticket holder, I'm against VAR (as you will have seen in all my comments) but I'm simply doubting that VAR alone will really stop season-ticket holders going to the match - whichever club they support. If I'm wrong, and those who are saying they will stop going because of VAR aren't actually just being over-dramatic, we (and we're not unique) have thousands on the waiting list who will take up the ditched season tickets.

Compared to Sky constantly shifting matches at short notice to ridiculous times of day for example, or Allardyce being put in charge, my gut feeling is that the introduction of VAR will have a lesser effect on attendences.

Yes, it's a bad misjudgment of the nature of the game and of its support. Rhythm and timing matter fundamentally, and if you tamper with those in football then you are turning it into something else. Things can be very "rational" but, at the same time, fatal.

We are not unique is very true Michael, just old school. I can spot a cheat a mile off, even though they say the camera never lies!

Goal-line technology is definitely evolution, but people sitting inside a box, telling the ref that he's got a decision wrong, “IN THEIR OPINION” is something I'm just not sure about?

If VAR, is not all over the place, then it must be some of the present rules, made by the decision makers, especially if you only get a free-kick if you are clean through and are fouled 2 inches outside the box, but you can get a penalty for a pass that's going out the box, but hits someone's arm before it gets there?

That's a very good post by Darren@87, and I upset my good mate the other week, during one of our discussions on football.

He tends to go with the rule-makers, and I pointed out to him that I think it's because he watches a lot more football on TV.

He's got a season ticket, but probably only uses it for about ten games per season , and he took it the wrong way (for a minute) when I suggested he was often swayed by the telly.

How can you be swayed by the telly, especially when they can give loads of different angles and opinions. He told me that when Man Utd got that pen in Paris, he did think for a minute that, “It's hit his arm” and that was enough for me!

Tony, a really insightful thought in that comment.

I've argued long before the introduction of VAR, which I think should have limited scope the rules as there are do not reflect the modern game nor are written with technology in mind.

The element that concerns me the most is in reducing multi-faceted decisions into binary elements the rules do not even give you a flow to base the decision on.

Handball is a great one, you touched on it in the comment. Why on earth do you get a penalty kick for a shot or pass/cross which is clearly not on target or going straight out of play? The first notion would be to check, like pitching outside leg in cricket, as soon as that is established then ignore the claim. You wouldn't give a penalty if it struck a defenders arm and went out, would you? You give a goal. So the same should be true when the action doesn't affect the play.

Rules really should only be enforced when there is a significant opportunity removed that affects play. Too many times a technical breach is penalized to the collective sigh of all involved.

However to flip this, both the fans and the players have accepted and grown a culture which has outmoded the rules, cheating, time wasting and other elements of gamesmanship in the professional era have impacted the game whose rules simply are not fit to deal it.

Before technology creeps into the game full time the rules new a significant review and update.

Agree 100% with Tony, Darren on VAR.

It will see me giving some games a miss next season.

Hi Darren [87], in fairness, I think Dave Abrahams should be included in your list of long-serving loyal fans, and as Dave says, "Football was a simple game to play and understand". There were always contentious issues, but we recognised that the referee was, [like the pope], infallible and we accepted this, though sometimes begrudgingly.

Regarding VAR disallowing goals because of an infringement early in the build-up, offside or foul, what would they make of a 'linesman' giving a throw to the wrong side, something we have all witnessed, which leads to a goal? My fear is that, when clubs cotton on to this injustice, VAR will be forced to make further inroads. This possible scenario will, [in my opinion] be another nail in the coffin of football as we knew it.

I really do get the dislike of VAR but what doesn't compute, John #94, is your statement that you "will some games a miss next season". Why only some? Do you know in advance which games are going to be impacted by VAR? Why not boycott matches all together?

Sorry, I just don't understand this logic.

Darren that is a solid post. I know we can all be reluctant to accept change. it is fair to say the games you watched in your youth are a million miles away from what you see now.

Footballs that would take your head off when wet or leave you mildly concussed.
Tackles that would start at the knee. Taking man & ball
Defenders heading the opponents head, instead of the ball. Backpass to the keeper. keeper limited to 6 paces with ball in hand
No feigning of injury, it was a man's game, you took the knock.
A season ticket for under £30 (1981)

A lot of these changes have been cosmetic and many haven't. It hasn't hurt the game. In fact what has saved the game is live footy. Actually not a fact just an opinion. Attendances were in decline pre EPL and there may have been the odd periods of solid attendance but they were not the norm.

The game is now so much bigger than it was, be that good or bad is up to each individual.

Sad fact is the referees get things wrong each game and are constantly being slammed by managers for their collective ineptitude. Whilst I would never advocate a VAR takeover, I do believe that if used correctly it will help a level playing field.

John#94 - my gut feeling was that I too agree with Tony and Darren in that I have "threatened" to miss games because of VAR. I then read Michael#89 and agree that both the appointment of Allardyce and Sky meddling with kick off times are much more irritating but neither has made me not go to any match (home or away) that I have been able to attend. On reflection therefore, whilst I am 100% against VAR (which I don't believe will be applied fairly) it is unlikely to cause me to stop going to the match.

I can see where you are coming from there, Martin. From my point of view I don't think it will be a conscious decision to miss games, more of a getting fed up with the situation after stop start to flow.

I can imagine myself getting pissed off during the season.

* My Heroes: Alex Young, Vernon, Ring, Labone, Collins etc. Wonderful players yet humble and down to earth. Again, as far removed from the likes of Pogba as it's possible to get.

I'm not a great fan of VAR, at least in the way it's currently being used, but I won't be missing any games because of it. Next season, if I'm still here, will be my 61st season.

John # 94. Your comment that VAR will make you give some games a miss next season reminds me of the old insurance, in house, joke.

A farmer insures his herd of cattle against being struck by lightening (more common than you may think). When the insurance guy calls around for the renewal premium the farmer says he reckons he's overpaying by insuring the entire herd and, as he only loses one cow each year, he'll just insure against losing the one. Sure, says the salesman, which one?

Just copy and paste it into the new thread, Darren. It needs to be there.