Var debate 2019/20

Forgive me if I am wrong but - I always thought that VAR was adjudicating on errors that are ‘clear and obvious’. Is this correct?

If it is how can either the disallowed goal at WHU and the one against Spuds be a ‘clear and obvious’ error. Clear and obvious to me means that it should have been picked up on the field and wasn’t. How could you have expected an official to have spotted either of those two?
 
Fred_Quimby said:
Forgive me if I am wrong but - I always thought that VAR was adjudicating on errors that are ‘clear and obvious’. Is this correct?

If it is how can either the disallowed goal at WHU and the one against Spuds be a ‘clear and obvious’ error. Clear and obvious to me means that it should have been picked up on the field and wasn’t. How could you have expected an official to have spotted either of those two?
Click to expand...
This just my impression, but I think if the ref makes a ruling, i.e no one in Rodri, or say he gives a pen. VAR only asks him to look at it / over rule if it's clear and obvious error
 
Marvin said:
This just my impression, but I think if the ref makes a ruling, i.e no one in Rodri, or say he gives a pen. VAR only asks him to look at it / over rule if it's clear and obvious error
Click to expand...
They don't want him to review it as they don't want them to use the monitors
 
daztrueblue91 said:
The difference with Laporte’s is that Jesus still had a lot of work to do. If Laporte’s deflection would have rolled across the line for Jesus to tap into an empty net then I could understand the need to cancel it.
Click to expand...

I could understand the argument, but I still wouldn't support it being cancelled. If the ball hits you, it's a random event and the ball can go anywhere random. I think that's just part of the game and we should allow play on in those circumstances, even if it leads to a goal. IMO.

It not, then you get into the debate about how much work did the scorer have to do afterwards and then the whole thing becomes very subjective. Honestly, I think the best interpretation of laws, for me, would simply be if you deliberately handle it, it's an infringement and if it's accidental, then it isn't. And you define deliberate by the usual "hand towards the ball", "arm in unnatural position" etc. Of course there will always be subjectivity, but you want to try to make it as objective - and least prone to interpretation/incompetence/corruption as possible.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Would you take the 3% if they are always against us? As opposed to 10% which are 5% in our favour and 5% against?
Click to expand...

I think now it's in place, it can only get better. We've probably had the brunt of the technology because of the two Spurs ties. But in the law of the game both decisions were correct. In our league there have only been 20 matches and we're not the only ones asking for consistency in penalty calls (Brighton handball, Laporte pull) but the goals it chalks off have all been correct decisions as far as I'm aware. Pen calls don't bother me as much as you can miss a pen, or have the pen cancelled by VAR again. It's things like the ball went out of play and the other team score, or a two footer like the one on Leroy that WILL get punished. I'd rather have VAR than have a player given a horror tackle and the oppo player gets away with it.
 
Manchester1894 said:
I think now it's in place, it can only get better. We've probably had the brunt of the technology because of the two Spurs ties. But in the law of the game both decisions were correct. In our league there have only been 20 matches and we're not the only ones asking for consistency in penalty calls (Brighton handball, Laporte pull) but the goals it chalks off have all been correct decisions as far as I'm aware. Pen calls don't bother me as much as you can miss a pen, or have the pen cancelled by VAR again. It's things like the ball went out of play and the other team score, or a two footer like the one on Leroy that WILL get punished. I'd rather have VAR than have a player given a horror tackle and the oppo player gets away with it.
Click to expand...

It isn't aboit the calls it's aboit the affext on enjoymemt of that mommemt of joy or despair being removed as the souless life sucking entity tgat is VAR ruins celebrating a goal for the most insignificant calls.

The dissaloud winner last week wasn't clear and obvious so really VAR shouldn't have been used to decide, the on field refs original call should have.
 
Manchester1894 said:
I think now it's in place, it can only get better. We've probably had the brunt of the technology because of the two Spurs ties. But in the law of the game both decisions were correct. In our league there have only been 20 matches and we're not the only ones asking for consistency in penalty calls (Brighton handball, Laporte pull) but the goals it chalks off have all been correct decisions as far as I'm aware. Pen calls don't bother me as much as you can miss a pen, or have the pen cancelled by VAR again. It's things like the ball went out of play and the other team score, or a two footer like the one on Leroy that WILL get punished. I'd rather have VAR than have a player given a horror tackle and the oppo player gets away with it.
Click to expand...

Can you please explain why you say “But in the laws of the game both decisions were correct” with more emphasis on the LaPorte event - showing the language of the LotG and not various interpretations of them?

I’m not trying to be a smart arse but I just don’t see it having read The FA and IFAB texts of Law 12.

Also, how can you be certain or sure or even optimistic that 2 footed challenges will be punished by VAR when the Rodri penalty was not given?

Again I’m not trying to be smart-arse about things

Come on City
 
Manchester1894 said:
Ref's get abuse for getting 10% of decisions wrong, if VAR means SAY 3% of decisions are wrong, I'll take the 3% thank you very much
Click to expand...

So you will settle for 3/10 decisions then.
How are we doing so far in getting one of those decisions in our favour?

Offside not visible to the naked eye - no goal!
Handball not visible to the naked eye - no goal!
Penalty visible from outer space - no penalty and head of VAR publicly whitewashes the whole thing as desperate cheating by City.


The only decisions in our favour will be when we are already 4-0 up.
 
Bandofblues said:
So you will settle for 3/10 decisions then.
How are we doing so far in getting one of those decisions in our favour?

Offside not visible to the naked eye - no goal!
Handball not visible to the naked eye - no goal!
Penalty visible from outer space - no penalty and head of VAR publicly whitewashes the whole thing as desperate cheating by City.


The only decisions in our favour will be when we are already 4-0 up.
Click to expand...

They did a review of var saying how good it was apart from 3 decisions all against city
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
Llorente’s goal was a fair goal.

By the laws of the game, he didn’t gain possession or control of the ball and score nor did it hit his arm and go straight in.

It hit his arm then hit his hip and went in. That’s a fair goal.
Click to expand...

Get fucked!
Hits a spurs arm and goes in - fair goal?
Hits a city arm, maybe, not sure whose, deflects, striker still has to collect the ball before anyone else, control it, curl a blinding shot and no goal !

Get fucked !
 
Manchester1894 said:
I think now it's in place, it can only get better. We've probably had the brunt of the technology because of the two Spurs ties. But in the law of the game both decisions were correct. In our league there have only been 20 matches and we're not the only ones asking for consistency in penalty calls (Brighton handball, Laporte pull) but the goals it chalks off have all been correct decisions as far as I'm aware. Pen calls don't bother me as much as you can miss a pen, or have the pen cancelled by VAR again. It's things like the ball went out of play and the other team score, or a two footer like the one on Leroy that WILL get punished. I'd rather have VAR than have a player given a horror tackle and the oppo player gets away with it.
Click to expand...
In the made up rules by the prem,by the governing body who sets the rules the goals so far were wrongly ruled out,we have had 3 reviews,2 goals wrongly disallowed as neither was clear and obvious and by the law of the governing bodies rules it was not a handball by eric
 
karen7 said:
In the made up rules by the prem,by the governing body who sets the rules the goals so far were wrongly ruled out,we have had 3 reviews,2 goals wrongly disallowed as neither was clear and obvious and by the law of the governing bodies rules it was not a handball by eric
Click to expand...


Again, the handball by Laporte meant the goal was correctly ruled offside.....Going by the IFAB rules that someone posted the other day and then read the detailed explanation of that rule it was rightly ruled offside. (Someone posted the link the other day and then when you went to the website and hovered over the rule it game you a detaled explanation of them which was worded in such a way that meant the goal was correctly ruled out.

Im not sure which other goal you are talking about but Im assuming it the GJ one vs West Ham....why was that wrong to rule it offside? It was extremely close but he was just offside? All goals are reviewed autmatically so it doesnt have t be a clear and obvious error to envoke that review
 
Chippy_boy said:
I could understand the argument, but I still wouldn't support it being cancelled. If the ball hits you, it's a random event and the ball can go anywhere random. I think that's just part of the game and we should allow play on in those circumstances, even if it leads to a goal. IMO.

It not, then you get into the debate about how much work did the scorer have to do afterwards and then the whole thing becomes very subjective. Honestly, I think the best interpretation of laws, for me, would simply be if you deliberately handle it, it's an infringement and if it's accidental, then it isn't. And you define deliberate by the usual "hand towards the ball", "arm in unnatural position" etc. Of course there will always be subjectivity, but you want to try to make it as objective - and least prone to interpretation/incompetence/corruption as possible.
Click to expand...

They’ve muddied the waters by bringing the assist rule into the equation. If they clearly stated that the ball cannot be scored directly from the hand, whether accidental or not, and left it at that it would be much easier.

Another way of looking at it is whether the deflection off Laporte resulted in a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity.

I remember the old rule that if a defender fouled an attacker and denied them a goal scoring opportunity then it would result in a red card. If the defender would have fouled Jesus in that situation there would have been no chance he would have ever received a red card using the old law.

That is a logic that could be applied but again it would be a subject decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top