The VAR thread

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Haywood_6 said:

VAR should of given Spurs a penalty today. Clear and obvious penalty for the foul on Kane

 

Was it?  Can you be sure without snickometer that the defender didn’t get a small touch on the ball ? 100% wouldn’t have been overturned if given though 

 

on the current attackers offside at corners situations, I would change the interpretation as follows:  if you make contact with the  keeper when the corner is taken then you’d better make sure you get yourself onside or you will be considered to be interfering if you’re in an offside position 

[jammie82uk]

42 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Was it?  Can you be sure without snickometer that the defender didn’t get a small touch on the ball ? 100% wouldn’t have been overturned if given though 

 

on the current attackers offside at corners situations, I would change the interpretation as follows:  if you make contact with the  keeper when the corner is taken then you’d better make sure you get yourself onside or you will be considered to be interfering if you’re in an offside position 

I hate that is a thing, just because someone got a touch of the ball doesn’t make it any less a foul, VAR would have overturned the penalty surely because the “foul” was deemed outside the box 

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, jammie82uk said:

I hate that is a thing, just because someone got a touch of the ball doesn’t make it any less a foul, VAR would have overturned the penalty surely because the “foul” was deemed outside the box 

And conversely, just because someone fell over as if both his feet had been chopped off at the ankles does not make it more of a foul. We need to ignore Kane's obvious dive and decide whether that particular tiny contact is enough to make it a foul. And indeed whether every tiny contact should be deemed a foul, whether or not the player dives. 

[Spudulike]

This has to be a wind-up? 

 

What was the difference between this incident and Leicester's Harvey Barnes, who was adjudged to have impeded the Brighton goalkeeper last time out?

 

For the first [disallowed goal], Barnes is directly in view of the goalkeeper, and I think for the second, he made a movement towards the ball, which impacts the goalkeeper. That's why I think they're slightly different."

 

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12419536/ref-watch-david-de-gea-victim-of-instinct-at-old-trafford-emi-martinez-mind-games-and-lucky-ben-white

[Babylon]

9 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

This has to be a wind-up? 

 

What was the difference between this incident and Leicester's Harvey Barnes, who was adjudged to have impeded the Brighton goalkeeper last time out?

 

For the first [disallowed goal], Barnes is directly in view of the goalkeeper, and I think for the second, he made a movement towards the ball, which impacts the goalkeeper. That's why I think they're slightly different."

 

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12419536/ref-watch-david-de-gea-victim-of-instinct-at-old-trafford-emi-martinez-mind-games-and-lucky-ben-white

They are making it up as they go along. Apparently having to push a player out of the way = ok. Player looking at the ball go in the net = offside. 

 

They were literally still in physical contact when he headed the ball  The rule says "clearly impact the opponent" feck all about line of vision. 

 

Unreal, utterly unreal. 

 

Notice how he say "I understand why they gave it" and last week "I understand why they ruled it out" He's looking for excuses. 

Edited 27 September 2021 by Babylon

[StanSP]

Utterly pathetic. Do PGMOL even pay attention to what shite he spouts? 

[Super_horns]

Just now, StanSP said:

Utterly pathetic. Do PGMOL even pay attention to what shite he spouts? 

He works for them so potentially! 

[Corky]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

They are making it up as they go along. Apparently having to push a player out of the way = ok. Player looking at the ball go in the net = offside. 

 

They were literally still in physical contact when he headed the ball  The rule says "clearly impact the opponent" feck all about line of vision. 

 

Unreal, utterly unreal. 

 

Notice how he say "I understand why they gave it" and last week "I understand why they ruled it out" He's looking for excuses. 

Barnes leaning slightly three yards away and side on is a bigger distraction than a player stood virtually on the goalkeeper.

 

And they wonder why fans feel this is all a load of bullshit.

[Babylon]

39 minutes ago, Corky said:

Barnes leaning slightly three yards away and side on is a bigger distraction than a player stood virtually on the goalkeeper.

 

And they wonder why fans feel this is all a load of bullshit.

His attitude is no doubt the attitude of VAR, if at all possible don’t make the officials look wrong. Excuse and find reasons to back on field decisions, no matter how bloody ludicrous. 
 

I honestly can’t believe the shite he’s talking in the video. 

[messerschmitt]

34 minutes ago, Babylon said:

His attitude is no doubt the attitude of VAR, if at all possible don’t make the officials look wrong. Excuse and find reasons to back on field decisions, no matter how bloody ludicrous. 
 

I honestly can’t believe the shite he’s talking in the video. 

This one goes into my top ten of Dermot Gallagher explanations, my personnel favourite is still the one from the Manchester City game when he explained why Dennis Praets was a handball but De Bruyne punching Maddison's free kick over the bar wasn't and of course his explanation of why Ederson's punch to Iheanacho's face wasn't a penalty as "contact was inevitably"

Edited 27 September 2021 by messerschmitt
not finished

[CUJimmy]

Leaving aside the fact that Dermot Gallagher is utterly hopeless.  Other ex referees and pundits have a very different view.

 

Ole says we want consistency which I can agree with to an extent but not if they are consistently wrong.  I would rather referees learned from their mistakes and got it right next time even if that works against us in the short term.  If I thought that the refs had got together on Monday and said “Look guys, we got that one wrong, same situation next week and it’s a goal” then I could live with that.  However they would have to say that publicly otherwise players and managers are guessing so it isn’t going to happen.

[Spudulike]

 

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

 

Is that the actual var still? There should be another line for lookman’s furthest point forward ….

[Phube]

20 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Is that the actual var still? There should be another line for lookman’s furthest point forward ….

I don’t think they need it… it’s quite conclusive!

[davieG]

23 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

 

I said it at the time when they showed that in fact I’ve said right from the intro of VAR we rarely if ever see the point of contact with the ball and if that’s an example of what they use then the whole thing is pointless. It might just as well be based on the linesman call.

[Legend_in_blue]

In that still the ball has already left Vardy's head.  The distance between his head and the ball is the width of Lookmans foot also.

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Phube said:

I don’t think they need it… it’s quite conclusive!

Every PGMOL VAR still I’ve seen for offside has two lines ?

[moore_94]

Rodgers has said he saw another image where Vardy was making contact with the ball and Lookman was still offside and that the decision was correct

 

“I saw that clip that everyone else saw,” Rodgers said. “In that image, the ball had already left Vardy's head and the distance between the ball and the head was the same distance that Lookman is offside.

 

“I think they showed the wrong picture. I saw an image where Vards is making contact with it and Ade is offside.

 

“They got it right. It's tough to take when it’s so tight.”

 

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/football/leeds-united/leicester-city-boss-brendan-rodgers-reacts-to-var-decision-which-cancelled-ademola-lookmans-winner-against-leeds-united-at-elland-road-3448511

[StanSP]

I'm confused. They showed the wrong picture but then says they got it right?

[Phube]

The Lookman offside is not the contentious one.

 

It’s Vardy’s offside/foul/red when the ball was played by the Leeds player that is the contentions one. This should have led at least free kick to us.

 

The reason I believe it was not given was because of Evan’s missed handball at the start of the move. Which would have led to huge arguments from Leeds.

[Phube]

7 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I'm confused. They showed the wrong picture but then says they got it right?

As in; the screen shows the image above, but Rogers saw a different image which still showed Lookman as offside. 

[turlo]

The frame they are showing on TV replay isn't always the final one used by VAR. There was a another game recently where they showed the VAR decision during the game and it looked onside then they showed a different one after the game which showed it was correctly offside. 

[BenTheFox]

I would rather it be scrapped, but if they are to keep it then they have to have a time limit on it. If the VAR can't decide whether there has been a clear and obvious error within twenty seconds then it's not a clear and obvious error and the on-field decision should stand. 

[Lambert09]

18 minutes ago, Phube said:

The Lookman offside is not the contentious one.

 

It’s Vardy’s offside/foul/red when the ball was played by the Leeds player that is the contentions one. This should have led at least free kick to us.

 

The reason I believe it was not given was because of Evan’s missed handball at the start of the move. Which would have led to huge arguments from Leeds.

I think the issue is that you cant give a free kick. It could only intervene for a red card or penalty.... I don’t think they wanted the hassle of sending him off for it. 
 

if they were able to give the free kick and a yellow I’m sure they would have 

Edited 7 November 2021 by Lambert09

[StanSP]

2 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

I think the issue is that you cant give a free kick. It could only intervene for a red card or penalty.... I don’t think they wanted the hassle of sending him off for it. 
 

if they were able to give the free kick and a yellow I’m sure they would have 

Therein lies an issue then if they didn't want the hassle.

 

If it's a red card incident (which this arguably was) then it should have been checked.

 

First you check if any part of the play was offside. Came off Struijk so that's a no.

 

Second is if there's any foul in the build-up. There was, on Vardy.

 

So I think the VAR official (who was it?) got it wrong. Can understand the on-field officials not noticing it because it was close between Struijk and Lookman. But this is why VAR was brought in - to correct these kinds of issues. I think they messed up.