![]()
on May 11, 2026, 15:02:02, in reply to "Pretty fundamentally disagree on your first point."
They gave it more time because they wanted to ensure it was right. I don't think they were taking all that time looking for reasons to give it. I think they were taking all that time looking for any reason they shouldn't give it.
Previous Message
That call might well decide the league, but it absolutely cannot be treated differently from any other call any other matchweek. Timing and sequence of the matches shouldn't matter to something like this.
I don't know if a shot clock is the right answer or not. But when you make clear and obvious the standard of review, that brings the amount of time into the review process.
I don't think the the standard of review is necessarily right. I think it is too deferential. The idea that "well, he had a clear view and chose not to call it, so it can't be clear and obvious and VAR has to defer to something that is obviously wrong" is just stupid I think and defeats the purpose of the tool.
But I also recognize that VAR (1) can't take huge chunks of time to reviw calls and (2) VAR can't review everything.
Which is why I'm kind of leaning to a place I never, ever thought I'd be, which is just scrap it. It's not that it's not a good idea. It's a great idea but one that is just too difficult to implement remotely well. So the game's maybe probably better off without it in its current iteration.
Previous Message
it's a call in the last 90 seconds of a match that could very well decide the league.
it should be treated differently, especially since they're adding the review time back in, anyway.
do you want a shot clock on the review?
"the alchemy of the tartar sauce and cheese with the fish combined with the buttery steamed bun is so good." - Sounder re: a Filet O Fish![]()
30