VAR thread 2022/23

[Paladin]

This bloke isn’t a rag, he isn’t a scouser, he explains the decisions for espn



And sometimes he explains when they get it wrong.



I think Rashford was offside and I think it was totally the wrong decision but I understand why it wasn’t given as offside having read his thoughts on it.

I'm surprised we are still discussing this. I think Dale Johnson is incorrect on at least one point. These are his words.

Rashford cannot be deemed to be "interfering with play," because this applies exclusively to "playing or touching a ball" and is an automatic offside offence. As Rashford didn't touch the ball, he cannot be "interfering with play."

Who said Rashford didn't touch the ball? Where was the forensic examination to prove that he didn't? Cann (the linesman) can't have said this definitively because Akanji obscured his view when he ran past Rashford. Attwell can't have said this definitively because Rashford was between him and the ball. VAR didn't intervene, so nobody knows this for sure.

This bit isn't subjective, it is factual. How many times do we see cameras playing show motion footage to find the most minimal of touches? No such thing on the Rashford run, so nobody actually knows for sure.

 

[Paladin]

He does explain why Ederson’s reaction to what Rashford may be about to do, is irrelevant by law.
——

The real case for discussion is about Ederson, and whether his actions would have changed had Rashford not been there. Perhaps, but Rashford doesn't impact the goalkeeper's ability to come and play the ball. He may affect his choice to do so, and how he might shape for a save, but the law doesn't discuss how a player might behave differently if the offside player isn't present; it only discusses the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

———

And no, I don’t agree with the decision. And neither does he. But he understands the laws of the game as well as anybody.

I think Johnson is wrong here too. He says Rashford's run doesn't impact Ederson's ability to come and play the ball. That is patently nonsense. Ederson doesn't know Rashford was in an offside position, so he can't just run to the ball and clear it as if Rashford isn't there at all. Ederson's actions are predicated on Rashford being onside, and that is pretty much the definition of interfering with an opponent. No referee at even park football level would seriously deem that to be not interfering. If they did, they would never reach PL level.

Johnson might be an experienced commentator on these events, but it doesn't mean he is always right. You might say that is a horse in a Newcastle shirt, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a zebra.

 

[Bluearmy]

Interesting watch here 4 min in, look at how VAR is used perfectly and contrast that with its application with the Liverpool (fabino) incident and the red shirts in general. There is nothing wrong with the technology and everything wrong with bent officials here….

It also shows the offside doesnt matter, the foul will take precedence….

 

[Stephen230]

I think Johnson is wrong here too. He says Rashford's run doesn't impact Ederson's ability to come and play the ball. That is patently nonsense. Ederson doesn't know Rashford was in an offside position, so he can't just run to the ball and clear it as if Rashford isn't there at all. Ederson's actions are predicated on Rashford being onside, and that is pretty much the definition of interfering with an opponent. No referee at even park football level would seriously deem that to be not interfering. If they did, they would never reach PL level.

Johnson might be an experienced commentator on these events, but it doesn't mean he is always right. You might say that is a horse in a Newcastle shirt, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a zebra.

Whether he’s right or not is maybe debatable. But I think you’re missing his point. He specifically says that Ederson could ( would ) have acted differently without the presence of Rashford. But there is no mention in law of a player reacting differently to an opponent in an offside position, being cause for an offside offence having occurred.

He acknowledges that Rashford has affected Ederson’s choice not to come and play the ball. His point is, he hasn’t physically stopped his ability to do so. That seems totally wrong to every fair minded person. But his job is to point out the actual law, not how fair he thinks it is.

 

[Cassandra]

On all those early photos, if rashford didn't chase the ball, ederson had plenty of time to have a touch and pick a pass or belt it well into the other half

Is it possible to have laws of the game that aren’t loose or ambiguous in a contact sport like football though?

Could you word a law that covers exactly what a foul is, that covers every possible incident you’d like to be penalised, excludes every possible incident you’d like to not be penalised, and not be the slightest bit ambiguous?

Perhaps the problem is that the laws, as such, tend to try to be too prescriptive; the law itself should try to state the principle of the law and to support that with examples of the kind of circumstance that a referee should take into account when making a decision. Looking at the offside law 11;

Instead of starting -
1. Offside position
It is not an offence to be in an offside position....

It could start -
1. Offside Law
The purpose of the offside law is to prevent a team gaining an advantage by having one or more players in an offside position when a ball is played by one of its players. This is the principle of the law that the referee should apply in making offside decisions. In applying this principle the referee should be mindful of the following guidance.

2. Offside position
It is not an offence to be in an offside position.........

It would be much more difficult to justify that the United "goal" did not breach the principle of the offside law as stated.

 

[Stephen230]

Perhaps the problem is that the laws, as such, tend to try to be too prescriptive; the law itself should try to state the principle of the law and to support that with examples of the kind of circumstance that a referee should take into account when making a decision. Looking at the offside law 11;

Instead of starting -
1. Offside position
It is not an offence to be in an offside position....

It could start -
1. Offside Law
The purpose of the offside law is to prevent a team gaining an advantage by having one or more players in an offside position when a ball is played by one of its players. This is the principle of the law that the referee should apply in making offside decisions. In applying this principle the referee should be mindful of the following guidance.

2. Offside position
It is not an offence to be in an offside position.........

It would be much more difficult to justify that the United "goal" did not breach the principle of the offside law as stated.

Dunno mate. That sounds like you’re giving the referee even more grounds for subjectivity and even more scope for inconsistency from incident to incident.

 

[Blue Mist]

Whether he’s right or not is maybe debatable. But I think you’re missing his point. He specifically says that Ederson could ( would ) have acted differently without the presence of Rashford. But there is no mention in law of a player reacting differently to an opponent in an offside position, being cause for an offside offence having occurred.

He acknowledges that Rashford has affected Ederson’s choice not to come and play the ball. His point is, he hasn’t physically stopped his ability to do so. That seems totally wrong to every fair minded person. But his job is to point out the actual law, not how fair he thinks it is.

We are now getting to the stage of repeating ourselves. The bloke does not address the fundamental point that Rashford ran with the ball at his feet. He drew his foot back to shoot. That is interfering with play and therefore offside.
This ESPN man is the only person in the media saying he was not interfering and therefore not offside, you and a couple of others have leapt onto this lone voice to prove you/Var/Pigmob are right.

 

[Paladin]

Whether he’s right or not is maybe debatable. But I think you’re missing his point. He specifically says that Ederson could ( would ) have acted differently without the presence of Rashford. But there is no mention in law of a player reacting differently to an opponent in an offside position, being cause for an offside offence having occurred.

He acknowledges that Rashford has affected Ederson’s choice not to come and play the ball. His point is, he hasn’t physically stopped his ability to do so. That seems totally wrong to every fair minded person. But his job is to point out the actual law, not how fair he thinks it is.

Apologies if I misunderstood, but he is wrong by your explanation also. The law says a player is offside is they are "interfering with an opponent by making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball".

Running with the ball at your feet is an obvious action. Feigning to kick the ball is an obvious action. Obstructing an opponent from a direct route to the ball is an obvious action. Leaving the ball for an opponent at the last second is an obvious action. All these obvious actions affected City's players.

Ederson's "ability" to play the ball is clearly impacted, because he is unable to play a ball that is possessed by an opposition player. If he goes to play the ball, the opposition player, who Ederson thinks is onside, will just kick the ball before Ederson gets to it.

Also, under law 2, Rashford's actions are consistent with "shielding the ball". You can't shield the ball and fail to interfere with play simultaneously. It's a shame the expert Johnson didn't consider other aspects of the LOTG.

This nonsense about pretending Rashford isn't there is subterfuge. He was there. He had a major impact on what happened. Some people are jumping through hoops trying to legitimise the goal. The law is pretty clear on the matter. Don't let people convince you otherwise.

 

[Paladin]

He acknowledges that Rashford has affected Ederson’s choice not to come and play the ball.

This sounds very much like interfering with an opponent, which is covered by the LOTG.

 

[Stephen230]

We are now getting to the stage of repeating ourselves. The bloke does not address the fundamental point that Rashford ran with the ball at his feet. He drew his foot back to shoot. That is interfering with play and therefore offside.
This ESPN man is the only person in the media saying he was not interfering and therefore not offside, you and a couple of others have leapt onto this lone voice to prove you/Var/Pigmob are right.

I had left this but someone resurrected it. I’ll make one more comment and then that’s it on the subject for me.

He does go into great detail about all aspects of the move, including Rashford drawing his foot back. It’s still there for anybody to view if they wish. He’s also quite receptive to discussing his opinions.

He also does not say a goal was the correct call. He does in fact say the exact opposite, that offside would have been the better decision and he would fully expect any similar incidents to be given off side in the future.

What he does say is that the VAR was correct not to get involved, as by the letter of the law, it can be justified that the referee hadn’t made a clear error.

Not sure why you gleaned from this that I agree with him on that. I specifically said I disagree with him at the time. And I still do.