VAR thread 2022/23

[Stephen230]

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.

I can’t even remember how I got dragged back into this now. I think someone misquoted something he said. I quoted one small passage that he made but he goes into great length on his review, covering all the points you mention. I’m not here to defend everything he says. I don’t even agree with him on this. I was just pointing out what he’d said in reply to a question originally.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

It will never work when it's mate's checking out each others mistakes.
You scratch my back and I will scratch yours.

This is how I see it. They appear to be an organisation that manages to be very insecure yet very arrogant at the same time.

They’re too insecure to allow VAR to correct on-field mistakes by the ref while also being arrogant enough to think that everyone can’t see what they’re doing.

A terribly run organisation. Amateurish would be too kind a word for it.

(And yet I still much prefer our refs to CL refs!)

 

[Bluearmy]

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.

you can add.... “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

 

[Djibrilshairdo]

Just adding insult to injury. What a joke of an organisation.

Refs body accepts Fabinho should have had red card

Referees' body PGMOL accepts Liverpool midfielder Fabinho should have been sent off for a tackle on Evan Ferguson in Sunday's FA Cup tie at Brighton.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Stephen230]

Just adding insult to injury. What a joke of an organisation.

Refs body accepts Fabinho should have had red card

Referees' body PGMOL accepts Liverpool midfielder Fabinho should have been sent off for a tackle on Evan Ferguson in Sunday's FA Cup tie at Brighton.

www.bbc.co.uk

Liverpool’s what?

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Rashford was offside, Fabinho, as well as others should have been off. There can be no debate unless you are either click-bait or don’t understand football.

Can anybody confirm when any of these situations haven’t been given, apart from for the Red tops or against any other?

 

[creed]

Just adding insult to injury. What a joke of an organisation.

Refs body accepts Fabinho should have had red card

Referees' body PGMOL accepts Liverpool midfielder Fabinho should have been sent off for a tackle on Evan Ferguson in Sunday's FA Cup tie at Brighton.

www.bbc.co.uk

What makes it even more egregious is the oxymoronic line in Stone's report (assuming it's accurate) that PIGMOL decided to boost transparency with private briefings (to select journos?).

If they were serious they would issue public statements, stand down those responsible so they could get extra training and just generally suggest they might - as an organisation - be a teensy-bit accountable.

 

[RobinHood]

Just adding insult to injury. What a joke of an organisation.

Refs body accepts Fabinho should have had red card

Referees' body PGMOL accepts Liverpool midfielder Fabinho should have been sent off for a tackle on Evan Ferguson in Sunday's FA Cup tie at Brighton.

www.bbc.co.uk

The statement means shit. The damage was done on the field, irrespective of the result.

 

[cheekybids]

This is how I see it. They appear to be an organisation that manages to be very insecure yet very arrogant at the same time.

They’re too insecure to allow VAR to correct on-field mistakes by the ref while also being arrogant enough to think that everyone can’t see what they’re doing.

A terribly run organisation. Amateurish would be too kind a word for it.

(And yet I still much prefer our refs to CL refs!)

They have the intelligence to know that whilst Dippers & Rags are sufficiently looked after that they’ll be left alone.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I did wonder if anyone with the capacity to understand words would read it, thanks.

The guy gets feedback from PGMOL for his articles so I am less confident than I used to be that he is being impartial in his analysis. If he was, the feedback would dry up. If he is talking about mistakes, it's because PGMOL have fed him that line probably. Normally, it's just "another referee on another day may have given a different decision. That's subjectivity, folks."