Nothing changes at Old Trafford

[Castiron]

Wolves, who were brilliant btw, robbed of a blatant penalty.
What is the point of VAR? Anyone tell me.

[JayK]

Wolves, who were brilliant btw, robbed of a blatant penalty.
What is the point of VAR? Anyone tell me.

It’s ok, they’ve all apologised. So that’s ok aint it

[terrya1965]

I don't care what anyone says,the game is bent.That was the clearest penalty,you'll ever see.

VAR is used to benefits the bigger teams,especially Manchester and Officials United and LiVARpool.

How many of these ridiculous decisions do we see going for these 2 clubs and we have had many of them going against us.

[Whiskyman]

I don't care what anyone says,the game is bent.That was the clearest penalty,you'll ever see.

VAR is used to benefits the bigger teams,especially Manchester and Officials United and LiVARpool.

How many of these ridiculous decisions do we see going for these 2 clubs and we have had many of them going against us.

Bias towards the home team has nothing to do with the club imo, it has more do do with crowd reaction. Liverpool, the away team, didn't get anything for what I thought was a decent penalty shout at Chelsea. They would probably have got it at Anfield with 50,000 scousers screaming at the ref.

We get far more contentious decisions given in our favour at home than we do away. It's been that way ever since I started going to matches 50 odd years ago. As for your last paragraph there was an excellent piece of analysis at the end of last season in one of the Sunday broadsheets that completely blows that argument out of the water. Manchester City and Liverpool were denied more points by VAR calls than they gained and Nottingham Forest would have been relegated had VAR not been used in their matches. Worth a read. I think it was the Sunday Times but I can't swear to that.

[terrya1965]

I don't care what anyone says,the game is bent.That was the clearest penalty,you'll ever see.

VAR is used to benefits the bigger teams,especially Manchester and Officials United and LiVARpool.

How many of these ridiculous decisions do we see going for these 2 clubs and we have had many of them going against us.

Bias towards the home team has nothing to do with the club imo, it has more do do with crowd reaction. Liverpool, the away team, didn't get anything for what I thought was a decent penalty shout at Chelsea. They would probably have got it at Anfield with 50,000 scousers screaming at the ref.

We get far more contentious decisions given in our favour at home than we do away. It's been that way ever since I started going to matches 50 odd years ago. As for your last paragraph there was an excellent piece of analysis at the end of last season in one of the Sunday broadsheets that completely blows that argument out of the water. Manchester City and Liverpool were denied more points by VAR calls than they gained and Nottingham Forest would have been relegated had VAR not been used in their matches. Worth a read. I think it was the Sunday Times but I can't swear to that.

I see a different article at the end of the season showing we lost more points from VAR than any other club..I will try and have a look later

It's weird,because I don't think they are biased towards City.Arsenal and Chelsea seem to get the rub of the green too,but the other 2,it's in a different stratosphere

[Castiron]

I don't care what anyone says,the game is bent.That was the clearest penalty,you'll ever see.

VAR is used to benefits the bigger teams,especially Manchester and Officials United and LiVARpool.

How many of these ridiculous decisions do we see going for these 2 clubs and we have had many of them going against us.

Bias towards the home team has nothing to do with the club imo, it has more do do with crowd reaction. Liverpool, the away team, didn't get anything for what I thought was a decent penalty shout at Chelsea. They would probably have got it at Anfield with 50,000 scousers screaming at the ref.

We get far more contentious decisions given in our favour at home than we do away. It's been that way ever since I started going to matches 50 odd years ago. As for your last paragraph there was an excellent piece of analysis at the end of last season in one of the Sunday broadsheets that completely blows that argument out of the water. Manchester City and Liverpool were denied more points by VAR calls than they gained and Nottingham Forest would have been relegated had VAR not been used in their matches. Worth a read. I think it was the Sunday Times but I can't swear to that.

It still doesn't answer the question of why, such a blatant penalty wasn't given, and why VAR did t think the ref should have another look. The keeper wasn't watching the ball, and just ran into the attacker, the attacker didn't move, so how can it be classed as a coming together, as the ref has seen it.
It's a clear and obvious error by the ref, and I thought that VAR was brought in to correct clear and obvious errors?.

[Whiskyman]

Bias towards the home team has nothing to do with the club imo, it has more do do with crowd reaction. Liverpool, the away team, didn't get anything for what I thought was a decent penalty shout at Chelsea. They would probably have got it at Anfield with 50,000 scousers screaming at the ref.

We get far more contentious decisions given in our favour at home than we do away. It's been that way ever since I started going to matches 50 odd years ago. As for your last paragraph there was an excellent piece of analysis at the end of last season in one of the Sunday broadsheets that completely blows that argument out of the water. Manchester City and Liverpool were denied more points by VAR calls than they gained and Nottingham Forest would have been relegated had VAR not been used in their matches. Worth a read. I think it was the Sunday Times but I can't swear to that.

It still doesn't answer the question of why, such a blatant penalty wasn't given, and why VAR did t think the ref should have another look. The keeper wasn't watching the ball, and just ran into the attacker, the attacker didn't move, so how can it be classed as a coming together, as the ref has seen it.
It's a clear and obvious error by the ref, and I thought that VAR was brought in to correct clear and obvious errors?.

I think the answer to your question is the same as it has always been in these cases mate. Incompetence. The bloke in the VAR hut, or whatever they park the cunts in, has to take most of the blame because that silly cubt's there to see things, with the benefit of replays, different angles AND away from the influence of a big crowd that the onfield ref may have missed.
But,hey, nothing beats this does it ? So clearly te sort of incomopetence he showed many years ago is still alive and kicking. As Simple Minds once said.

[Castiron]

It still doesn't answer the question of why, such a blatant penalty wasn't given, and why VAR did t think the ref should have another look. The keeper wasn't watching the ball, and just ran into the attacker, the attacker didn't move, so how can it be classed as a coming together, as the ref has seen it.
It's a clear and obvious error by the ref, and I thought that VAR was brought in to correct clear and obvious errors?.

I think the answer to your question is the same as it has always been in these cases mate. Incompetence. The bloke in the VAR hut, or whatever they park the cunts in, has to take most of the blame because that silly cubt's there to see things, with the benefit of replays, different angles AND away from the influence of a big crowd that the onfield ref may have missed.
But,hey, nothing beats this does it ? So clearly te sort of incomopetence he showed many years ago is still alive and kicking. As Simple Minds once said.

Tells you everything.

https://www.skysports.com/football/live ... sip-column