2017/18 UEFA Champions League

Osmosis Jones

Turtwig wrote: »

Can't Coutinho still win the UCL if Liverpool win it?

The club can give him a medal yeah, can't imagine they would.

TripleAce

awec wrote: »

Yea this "nobody will want to draw <insert team name>" after a good result is really just bollocks.

If you're Real Madrid you don't care who you get.

If you're Bayern Munich you want Roma or Liverpool.

If you're Liverpool you want Roma.

If you're Roma you want Liverpool.

Doesn't matter how the teams got there, if you said at the start of the season that Roma were a potential CL semi final opponent then everyone would be happy to get them, that still remains the case. Same for Liverpool, a remarkable achievement to get to a semi final and a very potent front three but still a level below Bayern or Real as a team.

Agree. Replace Real with Juve though :cool::)

garra

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Embarassing for UEFA they’ve decided not to use VAR in next season’s CL. Astonishing how its not a 2nd yellow for Fazio, even allowing for the fact his 1st was pretty dodgy.

Delighted they are not changing a fantastic product by inflicting VAR on it, just to satisfy pedants who don't appreciate it's still essentially a "sport" at the end of the day.

niallo27

Turtwig wrote: »

Can't Coutinho still win the UCL if Liverpool win it?

It's got 2005 written all over it when a certain little Judas also left the club to win trophies.

OwaynOTT

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

The club can give him a medal yeah, can't imagine they would.

I'd send him one.

inforfun

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Roma should have been down to ten men though, ridiculous decision by the ref not to send Fazio off.

I still have nightmares of that same ref when he was in charge of Feyenoord - Roma.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV26bcCuvn8

That is about 3 meters away from the official behind the goal line.

He then went on to sent a Feyenoord player off for a clumsy tackle that was yellow at most.
Points Gervinho to an inflatable banana that ended up on the pitch egging him on to make a stink. Which you can be assured, Italians will do.
Lets just say that Roma probably had a little smile when Turpin was announced for last night's match.

Rekop dog

mickmackey1 wrote: »

There's been no new winner of the EC/CL in the 21st century ffs, except Chelsea who are hardly paupers. The chances of a surprise winner are less than they ever were.

Doesn't have to be a maiden winner for it to be a surprise. The longer time goes on the less likely there is to be a new winner but likes of Porto or Liverpool or Inters titles would have all been long odds the seasons they won it in 21st century.

munchkin_utd

garra wrote: »

Delighted they are not changing a fantastic product by inflicting VAR on it, just to satisfy pedants who don't appreciate it's still essentially a "sport" at the end of the day.

yea, the prick with a stick is a much more effective tool

Mr.H

OwaynOTT wrote:

I'd send him one.

Exactly. I'd give him a medal just so it will always remind him that he missed out

LiamoSail

mickmackey1 wrote: »

There's been no new winner of the EC/CL in the 21st century ffs, except Chelsea who are hardly paupers. The chances of a surprise winner are less than they ever were.

Neither City not PSG have ever won it and both were among the favourites this year, while Liverpool and Roma were both considered rank outsiders.

It's not an easy competition to win, so of course it will dominated by the historically successful clubs. There is still the chance of an outsider winning it though, both Roma and Liverpool this year, possibly even Seville all stand a decent chance. Look at Atletico in recent years.

TheCitizen

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Really? not conceded a goal at home. Played Barcelona, Chelsea, Athletico.

Messi, Hazzard, Greizman

i think the last 4 are all capable of beating each other.

Yes really. Roma will be big outsiders of the 4 that will be left. Bar Sevilla pull off a shock similar to Roma last night

garra

munchkin_utd wrote: »

yea, the prick with a stick is a much more effective tool

Is that the question then, which is the most effective tool for referring a football match?
Yes I suppose we should ignore the fact that watching sport for entertainment does not require video analysis, does not require delays in the flow of the game, does not require analysts slowing down the action to ponder the intent of players who are moving at full throttle, does not require anything other than 22 players and one chap in the middle. Keep it simple, keep it attractive to watch, leave out the pedants who have to be anal about every bloody decision, and ENJOY THE GAME!

j8wk2feszrnpao

garra wrote: »

ENJOY THE GAME!

I think you are missing the point. It's difficult to enjoy the game if blatant bad decisions are being made when video tech could help out.
VAR isn't going to solve everything; but it can help enormously.

bucketybuck

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. It's difficult to enjoy the game if blatant bad decisions are being made when video tech could help out.
VAR isn't going to solve everything; but it can help enormously.

Decisions are no worse today than they have ever been, as long as I have been alive I have been hearing about the state of referees.

But I honestly feel you have missed the point. You want VAR so you can remove contention from the game, to remove contentious incidents. Trust me on this, contentious games that generate debate, disagreement, anger and passion are far more enjoyable than sports where everything is black and white and everybody goes home with a result.

And thats without even getting into the undeniable fact that most of these incidents are wholly subjective in the first place and so VAR won't actually solve a damn thing.

j8wk2feszrnpao

bucketybuck wrote: »

Decisions are no worse today than they have ever been, as long as I have been alive I have been hearing about the state of referees.

I don't disagree.
But we have video tech now, so yesteryear isn't valid.

bucketybuck wrote: »

But I honestly feel you have missed the point. You want VAR so you can remove contention from the game, to remove contentious incidents. Trust me on this, contentious games that generate debate, disagreement, anger and passion are far more enjoyable than sports where everything is black and white and everybody goes home with a result.

And thats without even getting into the undeniable fact that most of these incidents are wholly subjective in the first place and so VAR won't actually solve a damn thing.

You don't know what I want.
VAR can help clear up black and white situations. Judgement calls are exatcly that, and VAR may only help to minimize them. I follow American Football, rugby and I've seen some cricket as well; VAR doesn't always work, it just helps.

GavRedKing

bucketybuck wrote: »

Decisions are no worse today than they have ever been, as long as I have been alive I have been hearing about the state of referees.

But I honestly feel you have missed the point. You want VAR so you can remove contention from the game, to remove contentious incidents. Trust me on this, contentious games that generate debate, disagreement, anger and passion are far more enjoyable than sports where everything is black and white and everybody goes home with a result.

And thats without even getting into the undeniable fact that most of these incidents are wholly subjective in the first place and so VAR won't actually solve a damn thing.

VAR would have sorted out the offside goals that Pool got and City didnt.

It would have also sorted out the 2nd city goal last night.

Thats 3 huge incidents that were missed in 180 mins of football alone.

If your team are on the right end of the results its brilliant, if you're on the opposite end of it, you'll be shouting for VAR.

I'm all for VAR as long as the implementation is seamless, they're still making a balls of it at the moment but the technology is there and it should be used IMO.

TitianGerm

GavRedKing wrote: »

VAR would have sorted out the offside goals that Pool got and City didnt.

It would have also sorted out the 2nd city goal last night.

Thats 3 huge incidents that were missed in 180 mins of football alone.

If your team are on the right end of the results its brilliant, if you're on the opposite end of it, you'll be shouting for VAR.

I'm all for VAR as long as the implementation is seamless, they're still making a balls of it at the moment but the technology is there and it should be used IMO.

It probably would have awarded a free out for the Sterling foul on VVD in the build up to the City goal last night as well.

Also VAR would have seriously killed City momentum last night if the ref was stopping every few minutes to consult VAR. City were very good in the first half last night and that was because of the constant pressure they put Liverpool under.

GavRedKing

TitianGerm wrote: »

It probably would have awarded a free out for the Sterling foul on VVD in the build up to the City goal last night as well.

Also VAR would have seriously killed City momentum last night if the ref was stopping every few minutes to consult VAR. City were very good in the first half last night and that was because of the constant pressure they put Liverpool under.

The ref, or his assistant who was pretty close, didnt deem it a foul in play so why would he go back and over rule himself with VAR on the "foul" by Sterling?

There was only two incidents that VAR would have been used in the first half, both goals, that would have hardly killed Citys momentum when the first goal was awarded correctly, after 2mins and the second goal was scored about 3 mins before the end of the half where the ref played no stoppage time, even after handbags by Ederson and Otamendi rolling around like he had been shot.

Pool done incredibly well to weather the storm and get to HT only 1 down and for that they deserve huge credit.

bucketybuck

GavRedKing wrote: »

VAR would have sorted out the offside goals that Pool got and City didnt.

Would it really?

Even a day later you have people disagreeing about whether they were offside or not, you really think VAR would have had a definitive answer within a few minutes? Even after we have already seen VAR make a complete mess of off-side calls in its trials?

VAR would have sorted nothing, all it does is change which side is complaining afterwards.

bucketybuck

GavRedKing wrote: »

The ref, or his assistant who was pretty close, didnt deem it a foul in play so why would he go back and over rule himself with VAR on the "foul" by Sterling?

Another perfect example, in my opinion that was a foul all day long and the goal should not have stood, if it had been reviewed then it absolutely would have to be ruled out.

Do you disagree? Or do you just think the ref would have disagreed? Doesn't matter, the important thing is that there is no correct answer, its all just opinion and as such VAR is meaningless. Its not giving the correct answers, its just giving a different persons opinion of the correct answer. We are no better off than we were when it was the ref's opinion that counted.

garra

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. It's difficult to enjoy the game if blatant bad decisions are being made when video tech could help out.
VAR isn't going to solve everything; but it can help enormously.

My view is that football is a fast flowing game - yes a game, not a trial or an inquest or a videotape of a murder to be reviewed - and that bad decisions in football can happen but will usually even themselves out over 90 mins... And even if those poor decisions don't even themselves out in someone's eyes, its a sport to be enjoyed and not over-analysed to death.

Referring by video moves the game on, moves it to a place where it is being judged in terms of "incidents", instantaneous moments to be unmercifully picked apart and analysed from different angles, which means we won't be talking about how teams created momentum, maintained pressure, passed and moved the ball around.. We will be discussing "incidents" instead of football. Like MOTD.

Yes a couple of incidents last night could have been served better by a very quick reference to video, but my concern is that it slows the game down and removes the spectacle of a SPORT, to be enjoyed, fallible and all as it is...

j8wk2feszrnpao

garra wrote: »

Yes a couple of incidents last night could have been served better by a very quick reference to video, but my concern is that it slows the game down and removes the spectacle of a SPORT, to be enjoyed, fallible and all as it is...

Yes, it's a sport. But it's also a huge business. There is money and glory on the line (as well as peoples careers and jobs).
Football needs to decide what it wants. Full VAR, some VAR, no VAR. We've seen goal line tech help those contentious decisions; players doesn't even moan about those anymore.
VAR cannot resolve all the issues. It can just help when implemented correctly.

bucketybuck

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Yes, it's a sport. But it's also a huge business. There is money and glory on the line (as well as peoples careers and jobs).
Football needs to decide what it wants. Full VAR, some VAR, no VAR. We've seen goal line tech help those contentious decisions; players doesn't even moan about those anymore.
VAR cannot resolve all the issues. It can just help when implemented correctly.

Goalline technology is an example of a technology implemented correctly, real time decisions made instantly based on objective information.

Its not subjective whether the chip has passed over the designated line and there is no delay in getting an answer.

Goal line technology - objective and immediate. VAR - subjective and delayed. There is a world of difference in those applications and again, thats without getting into the aspect of "just because you could doesn't mean you should".

garra

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Yes, it's a sport. But it's also a huge business. There is money and glory on the line (as well as peoples careers and jobs).
Football needs to decide what it wants. Full VAR, some VAR, no VAR. We've seen goal line tech help those contentious decisions; players doesn't even moan about those anymore.
VAR cannot resolve all the issues. It can just help when implemented correctly.

I just feel you have it the wrong way round. The reason it is a huge business and watched and loved by so many is because it is played out in real time and is not subject to analysis paralysis. Yes goal line technology is an excellent aid to the ref and i supported its introduction because it gives an instantaneous binary decision.
As we have seen with var this season though, it slows the game and often results in poor decisions.
By the way, the fact that people can have a career playing or managing a sporting team is something to be grateful for, regardless of the odd poor decision. First world problems!

j8wk2feszrnpao

bucketybuck wrote: »

Goalline technology is an example of a technology implemented correctly, real time decisions made instantly based on objective information.

Its not subjective whether the chip has passed over the designated line and there is no delay in getting an answer.

Goal line technology - objective and immediate. VAR - subjective and delayed. There is a world of difference in those applications and again, thats without getting into the aspect of "just because you could doesn't mean you should".

There are some subjective decisions that can be assisted with VAR, but not always. Anything who thinks different has not seen VAR in other sports.

VAR can be used, and can be used very well. From my viewing of it so far, it's not VAR but those using it that are the issue. If it's not clear and obvious to over rule an on-field decision, then the game needs to move on.

j8wk2feszrnpao

garra wrote: »

I just feel you have it the wrong way round. The reason it is a huge business and watched and loved by so many is because it is played out in real time and is not subject to analysis paralysis. Yes goal line technology is an excellent aid to the ref and i supported its introduction because it gives an instantaneous binary decision.
As we have seen with var this season though, it slows the game and often results in poor decisions.
By the way, the fact that people can have a career playing or managing a sporting team is something to be grateful for, regardless of the odd poor decision. First world problems!

I addressed the VAR stuff above; it's more down to the people implementing VAR than VAR itself. That needs to be improved.

But we can't just judge VAR within such a small amount of time of its use. It needs to be trialed and improved before it can ever be fully judged. A small bit of pain now may be of significant benefit in the future.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Would it really?

Even a day later you have people disagreeing about whether they were offside or not, you really think VAR would have had a definitive answer within a few minutes? Even after we have already seen VAR make a complete mess of off-side calls in its trials?

VAR would have sorted nothing, all it does is change which side is complaining afterwards.

I've put anyone still suggesting City's goal may possibly have been offside last night on ignore. It was obvious to me at full speed it didn't come off a City player. Once that's checked (literally 10 seconds) get a shot showing the initial ball played forward and no-one is near offside. Under 30 seconds, right outcome, simple.

EDIT: A better reply may have been something more glib along the lines of "We still have people debating if the earth is flat, we kinda need to move and not allow lunatics to hold us back.

munchkin_utd

I totally disagree with the statement that the game flows perfectly without interruption, at least not when theres a controversial decision, when players crowd around the referee and spend minutes arguing about the decision, even though he is never going to change his mind based on their humpyness.

its only these penalty, red card, goal decisions which can be reviewed, so why not have someone look at the videotape at the same time as "emotional" players vent their anger and delay the game?

theoneeyedman

Rumour has it that following his performances in the Champions League and the manner in which they exited the competition, Manchester City have tabelled a €150million bid for Edin Dzeko....

TheCitizen

bucketybuck wrote: »

Would it really?

Even a day later you have people disagreeing about whether they were offside or not, you really think VAR would have had a definitive answer within a few minutes? Even after we have already seen VAR make a complete mess of off-side calls in its trials?

VAR would have sorted nothing, all it does is change which side is complaining afterwards.

Have to disagree with that. VAR if implemented correctly would have changed both those decisions to the correct calls. There may be some mistakes with VAR especially at the beginning but overall it will improve the game immeasurably.

GavRedKing

bucketybuck wrote: »

Would it really?

Even a day later you have people disagreeing about whether they were offside or not, you really think VAR would have had a definitive answer within a few minutes? Even after we have already seen VAR make a complete mess of off-side calls in its trials?

VAR would have sorted nothing, all it does is change which side is complaining afterwards.

Anyone arguing it was offside is 100% in the wrong.

If it hits Milner (it did) Sane isnt offside and the goal should have stood.

Sane isnt offside from the initial ball that Karius made a hash of and neither is he offside when it came back in off Milners thigh.

If I was a Pool fan or it happened to Chelsea I'd be delighted for getting away with it.

The ref should have seen it, the linesman was probably too far away and blind sided but the official on the goal line has the best view.

Personally, I'd prefer correct calls given, for or against teams instead of guessing.

In this day and age, VAR should be implemented in top tier professional football, theres no excuse that it shouldn't.

bucketybuck

GavRedKing wrote: »

Anyone arguing it was offside is 100% in the wrong.

You are missing the point though, I don't care if it was off or it was on, couldn't give a toss because it doesn't matter. What matters is that one side is complaining about it.

Today without VAR one side is complaining about it.
Tomorrow with VAR the decision is changed and the other side is complaining about it.

So what has been achieved? All those changes and we just end up where we started.

Its the nature of subjective decisions and nothing is going to change that. You might think that this one incident was the clearest offside ever, no doubt about it in your mind whatsoever. But its still just your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.

eagle eye

The first thing that has to be done is the referee has to make a decision on the field and VAR can only overturn that decision if it's certain that it was incorrect.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

You are missing the point though, I don't care if it was off or it was on, couldn't give a toss because it doesn't matter. What matters is that one side is complaining about it.

Today without VAR one side is complaining about it.
Tomorrow with VAR the decision is changed and the other side is complaining about it.

So what has been achieved? All those changes and we just end up where we started.

Its the nature of subjective decisions and nothing is going to change that. You might think that this one incident was the clearest offside ever, no doubt about it in your mind whatsoever. But its still just your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.

You're talking 100% pure and utter bull****. So what if there are idiots who want to argue it was offside? Other than them and a few trolls no-one is arguing. Get the obvious decision correct and let the trolls and droolers complain.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

You're talking 100% pure and utter bull****. So what if there are idiots who want to argue it was offside? Other than them and a few trolls no-one is arguing. Get the obvious decision correct and let the trolls and droolers complain.

Good lad.

garra

GavRedKing wrote: »

Anyone arguing it was offside is 100% in the wrong.

If it hits Milner (it did) Sane isnt offside and the goal should have stood.

Sane isnt offside from the initial ball that Karius made a hash of and neither is he offside when it came back in off Milners thigh.

If I was a Pool fan or it happened to Chelsea I'd be delighted for getting away with it.

The ref should have seen it, the linesman was probably too far away and blind sided but the official on the goal line has the best view.

Personally, I'd prefer correct calls given, for or against teams instead of guessing.

In this day and age, VAR should be implemented in top tier professional football, theres no excuse that it shouldn't.

Fifa are correct to not implement VAR into football now, keep the game simple, keep the game flowing, keep the game on the pitch and enjoy the sport.

Please God they will not meddle with the spectacle of a football match by introducing delays and external off the pitch influences, which narrow the focus of the game to "incidents" instead of the back & forth battle. It is pedantry of the highest order to agonise over every decision of an official, life isn't like that so why should football be?

munchkin_utd

garra wrote: »

Fifa are correct to not implement VAR into football now, keep the game simple, keep the game flowing, keep the game on the pitch and enjoy the sport.
<snip>

Fifa are introducing it and it will be used in the world cup
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43438344

garra

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Fifa are introducing it and it will be used in the world cup
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43438344

Bollox. Wasn't gonna watch it anyway..

Seriously though it is not going to improve the game as a spectacle. What a shame..

Agent Coulson

Wait for VAR at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar it will go along the lines of this..


This VAR replay is brought to you by.....Insert sponsors name...

irishman86

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Wait for VAR at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar it will go along the lines of this..


This VAR replay is brought to you by.....Insert sponsors name...

So?
They dont do that in rugby why would they go the american way ?

VAR can't be used until it's upgraded and it's working correctly. It was hardly a success earlier this season in the cup.

ERG89

https://twitter.com/ASRomaEN/status/984108992401166337?s=19

j8wk2feszrnpao

garra wrote: »

Bollox. Wasn't gonna watch it anyway..

Seriously though it is not going to improve the game as a spectacle. What a shame..

You don't know what it's going to do, just as you didn't even know it was being used at the WC.

Talisman

irishman86 wrote: »

So?
They dont do that in rugby why would they go the american way ?

Because FIFA likes to take money from sponsors.

j8wk2feszrnpao

bucketybuck wrote: »

You are missing the point though, I don't care if it was off or it was on, couldn't give a toss because it doesn't matter. What matters is that one side is complaining about it.

Today without VAR one side is complaining about it.
Tomorrow with VAR the decision is changed and the other side is complaining about it.

So what has been achieved? All those changes and we just end up where we started.

Its the nature of subjective decisions and nothing is going to change that. You might think that this one incident was the clearest offside ever, no doubt about it in your mind whatsoever. But its still just your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.

That is just not true.
If the ref went to VAR and saw that it was Milner who played the ball, he'd have awarded the goal.
Who exactly, apart from the morons and those against VAR, would have complained?
That was not subjective. It was black and white and not an opinion.

Mr.Nice Guy

Tonight's team news:

Real Madrid XI: Navas; Carvajal, Varane, Vallejo, Marcelo; Casemiro, Kroos, Modric; Isco, Bale, Ronaldo.

Juventus XI: Buffon; De Sciglio, Benatia, Chiellini, Alex Sandro; Khedira, Pjanic, Matuidi; D. Costa, Higuain, Mandzukic.

Bayern Munich XI: Ulreich, Kimmich, Boateng, Hummels, Rafinha, Martinez, Robben, Muller, Rodriguez, Ribery, Lewandowski.

Sevilla XI: Soria, Navas, Mercado, Lenglet, Escudero, Banega, N’Zonzi, Sarabia, Vasquez, Correa, Ben Yedder.

An early Sevilla goal would make things interesting.

BoJack Horseman

78 seconds in and Juve score!

Osmosis Jones

Is this just gonna play out exactly like last night?

Utopia Parkway

Could easily be 2-0.

GavRedKing

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Is this just gonna play out exactly like last night?

No hope.