This ignores the main thrust of the article, which was, how far can VAR wind back the clock. They even gave examples of other games and other starting fouls/balls out of play. Nice job.
I disagree with you on what the main thrust was, but if that is the main thrust, then main thrust is also nonsense. The rule does not say “less than 17 seconds before the score.” It says from the beginning of the attacking phase of play. There are numerous examples of VAR going back 30 seconds or more to overturn a goal. It sucks for the fans of the attacking team, but that has been the rule for awhile now. And it has been applied much more egregiously than this one in past games.
I think thats the problem with your entire argument, its the “well thats the way it is”, or “it was worse in x game”, like thats any sort of valid excuse. It falls apart even quicker when you see it applied inconsistently. Sometimes they wind it back, sometimes they do not, you even say this.
Its hardly difficult to enforce an X number of touches since the last foul/out of play except where violent or otherwise dangerous play is involved, those are actually quite tightly defined, if not always enforced consistently. The current limitless rollback that we have for some instances is completely farcical.
The whole issue with VAR is its allowed to be inconsistent, its become a complete parody of what it was meant to be.
This ignores the main thrust of the article, which was, how far can VAR wind back the clock. They even gave examples of other games and other starting fouls/balls out of play. Nice job.
I disagree with you on what the main thrust was, but if that is the main thrust, then main thrust is also nonsense. The rule does not say “less than 17 seconds before the score.” It says from the beginning of the attacking phase of play. There are numerous examples of VAR going back 30 seconds or more to overturn a goal. It sucks for the fans of the attacking team, but that has been the rule for awhile now. And it has been applied much more egregiously than this one in past games.
I think thats the problem with your entire argument, its the “well thats the way it is”, or “it was worse in x game”, like thats any sort of valid excuse. It falls apart even quicker when you see it applied inconsistently. Sometimes they wind it back, sometimes they do not, you even say this.
Its hardly difficult to enforce an X number of touches since the last foul/out of play except where violent or otherwise dangerous play is involved, those are actually quite tightly defined, if not always enforced consistently. The current limitless rollback that we have for some instances is completely farcical.
The whole issue with VAR is its allowed to be inconsistent, its become a complete parody of what it was meant to be.