VAR thread 2022/23

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Have taken x24 hours, to be devil's advocate, not wearing my blue tinted specs,
checking the wording of laws of game, as it applies currently & its still offside..

No shit Sherlock..! I know, but as I said. Trying to be devil's advocate on decision.

But its only just offside and then only if you look at different aspects & decisions.

Firstly, VAR would have been involved. The "not involved" is untrue. They would've been involved as a goal scored.
They would have checked firstly, if the goalscorer Fernandes, was in offside position from initial ball forward and
whether Rashford touched the ball prior to Fernandes, then ruled Fernandes, onside on both points.As Rashford
has not touched the ball he, like Fernandes, are not offside in their objective offside ruling. Then we come to the subjective part of the ruling, whichunder the wording of the law is problematical. Critically does Rashford positioning prevent any defensive player playing the ball, eg does he contact or obstruct by his position, the ability of any defender
in carrying out that challenge. This is where the wording is problematical. Technically no defender challenged for the
ball. Ederson, didn't challenge him and because Ederson technically had a clear run to the ball, you could argue that
Rashfords mere physical positioning would not strictly have prevented that challenge. Fact that that same physical
presence does conflict with Edersons decision making, eg his positioning and whether to sprint out to clear ball etc
isn't directly specified in wording. So again being devils advocate, technically, this aspect is not relevant, so not offside.
The same for Akanji. He could have challenged. So again have to consider Rashford positioning to Akanji and the ball.
Rashford hasn't made contact, so did Rashford position directly obstruct Akanji potential to challenge/clear the ball.
As he didn't attempt a challenge, technically under law its ref subjective decision. Referee subjectively says Rashford
hasn't . VAR has already deemed Fernandes objectively onside. Referee made subjective call on Rashford obstructing
any defenders route to the ball. VAR doesn't overule onfield decision on a subjective call. So goal can technically stand
on this law and Referees call on the subjective parts. Not that I agreed then or now.
However, if you also look at laws regarding if defenders do make an intentional challenge on a player, previously in an
offside position but has not yet touched the ball. If they challenge and foul that player when he's just running towards
the ball, then it's a foul by defensive player. However, if attacker in process of t6rying to engage the ball then it's no foul
but offside. So technically, when Rashford changes his feet position, if he had been challenged at that moment, any
"foul" is technically after the offside, by player changing feet to engage the ball, think of a penalty taking his run to ball.
So, technically by altering his feet position, at that moment he revises his position from onside eg just running towards
ball to changing his feet to engage the ball, just prior to Fernandes taking it off his toes.
So even if you give maximum positioning to absolute law of game, eventually you reach a position that its still offside.

Here's few other conflicts.

1st Akanji/Ederson put an intentional challenge & win the ball then rebounds off Rashford into goal, its a goal, even
though Rashford ran further x30 yards from his initial offside position to be in better placed offensive position

2nd Akanji/Ederson go to ground in challenge for ball to prevent Rashford "shooting" although at that he would have been offside but they dont know that. If either or both dont touch ball or Rashford, then neither can defend goal v Fernandes
shot
3rd A defender, in this case Akanji doesn't want to challenge the Attacker as they know, that by challenging they face a
playing him back, "onside", or the own goal scenario described above. However, VAR may reveal he's onside by another
defender. If he does challenge Rashford & there's no contact between the x2 players and Akanji slices ball past Ederson,
into the goal, will the goal stand? As there's no contact between the two players, in wording there's only, has Rashford
physical positioning obstructed Akanji challenge for the ball, well the ref could say he didn't, as no contact between x2 players and Akanji played eg "made contact" with the ball, but if Rashford not there would contact with ball been clean
and no resultant own goal

Anyway, it was offside yesterday and it's still offside today....
 
gingerprince said:
Have taken x24 hours, to be devil's advocate, not wearing my blue tinted specs,
checking the wording of laws of game, as it applies currently & its still offside..

No shit Sherlock..! I know, but as I said. Trying to be devil's advocate on decision.

But its only just offside and then only if you look at different aspects & decisions.

Firstly, VAR would have been involved. The "not involved" is untrue. They would've been involved as a goal scored.
They would have checked firstly, if the goalscorer Fernandes, was in offside position from initial ball forward and
whether Rashford touched the ball prior to Fernandes, then ruled Fernandes, onside on both points.As Rashford
has not touched the ball he, like Fernandes, are not offside in their objective offside ruling. Then we come to the subjective part of the ruling, whichunder the wording of the law is problematical. Critically does Rashford positioning prevent any defensive player playing the ball, eg does he contact or obstruct by his position, the ability of any defender
in carrying out that challenge. This is where the wording is problematical. Technically no defender challenged for the
ball. Ederson, didn't challenge him and because Ederson technically had a clear run to the ball, you could argue that
Rashfords mere physical positioning would not strictly have prevented that challenge. Fact that that same physical
presence does conflict with Edersons decision making, eg his positioning and whether to sprint out to clear ball etc
isn't directly specified in wording. So again being devils advocate, technically, this aspect is not relevant, so not offside.
The same for Akanji. He could have challenged. So again have to consider Rashford positioning to Akanji and the ball.
Rashford hasn't made contact, so did Rashford position directly obstruct Akanji potential to challenge/clear the ball.
As he didn't attempt a challenge, technically under law its ref subjective decision. Referee subjectively says Rashford
hasn't . VAR has already deemed Fernandes objectively onside. Referee made subjective call on Rashford obstructing
any defenders route to the ball. VAR doesn't overule onfield decision on a subjective call. So goal can technically stand
on this law and Referees call on the subjective parts. Not that I agreed then or now.
However, if you also look at laws regarding if defenders do make an intentional challenge on a player, previously in an
offside position but has not yet touched the ball. If they challenge and foul that player when he's just running towards
the ball, then it's a foul by defensive player. However, if attacker in process of t6rying to engage the ball then it's no foul
but offside. So technically, when Rashford changes his feet position, if he had been challenged at that moment, any
"foul" is technically after the offside, by player changing feet to engage the ball, think of a penalty taking his run to ball.
So, technically by altering his feet position, at that moment he revises his position from onside eg just running towards
ball to changing his feet to engage the ball, just prior to Fernandes taking it off his toes.
So even if you give maximum positioning to absolute law of game, eventually you reach a position that its still offside.

Here's few other conflicts.

1st Akanji/Ederson put an intentional challenge & win the ball then rebounds off Rashford into goal, its a goal, even
though Rashford ran further x30 yards from his initial offside position to be in better placed offensive position

2nd Akanji/Ederson go to ground in challenge for ball to prevent Rashford "shooting" although at that he would have been offside but they dont know that. If either or both dont touch ball or Rashford, then neither can defend goal v Fernandes
shot
3rd A defender, in this case Akanji doesn't want to challenge the Attacker as they know, that by challenging they face a
playing him back, "onside", or the own goal scenario described above. However, VAR may reveal he's onside by another
defender. If he does challenge Rashford & there's no contact between the x2 players and Akanji slices ball past Ederson,
into the goal, will the goal stand? As there's no contact between the two players, in wording there's only, has Rashford
physical positioning obstructed Akanji challenge for the ball, well the ref could say he didn't, as no contact between x2 players and Akanji played eg "made contact" with the ball, but if Rashford not there would contact with ball been clean
and no resultant own goal

Anyway, it was offside yesterday and it's still offside today....
Click to expand...
And they were corrupt yesterday and they're still corrupt today.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I've said it before a hundred times. They are trying to describe in detail all the possible handball and offside offences in an attempt to remove inconsistency. Every year there are more and more definitions of what is and what isn't offside and handball. So much so, that no-one now knows anything any more. If spectators can't understand the rules, what are they spectating exactly?

This is exactly the wrong way to go and it is ruining the game. The problem is that every time you put more detail in these regulations, new possibilities emerge that haven't been considered, so you need more and more detailed rules. More confusion, and you have the Rashford incident which didn't, according to some including the referee, fall into any of the 4 or 5 situations described as being active in the new offside law, so he wasn't off-side. Despite the fact that everyone concedes he was in front of the last man, and gained an advantage.

Now there is an idea. Scrap all these rules and let VAR decide if he was in front of the last man and the referee decide if he gained an advantage. Simple. Understandable. Won't always be uncontroversial, but we won't have all this "letter of the law" nonsense we have now. And handball. God help us if we just have the accidental/deliberate distinction. How would we manage without three pages of rules that have to be followed, that change every year and no-one can relate to?

This is what happens when you let referees like Colina make the rules instead of just applying them, imo.

Sorry, rant over.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
gingerprince said:
Have taken x24 hours, to be devil's advocate, not wearing my blue tinted specs,
checking the wording of laws of game, as it applies currently & its still offside..

No shit Sherlock..! I know, but as I said. Trying to be devil's advocate on decision.

But its only just offside and then only if you look at different aspects & decisions.

Firstly, VAR would have been involved. The "not involved" is untrue. They would've been involved as a goal scored.
They would have checked firstly, if the goalscorer Fernandes, was in offside position from initial ball forward and
whether Rashford touched the ball prior to Fernandes, then ruled Fernandes, onside on both points.As Rashford
has not touched the ball he, like Fernandes, are not offside in their objective offside ruling. Then we come to the subjective part of the ruling, whichunder the wording of the law is problematical. Critically does Rashford positioning prevent any defensive player playing the ball, eg does he contact or obstruct by his position, the ability of any defender
in carrying out that challenge. This is where the wording is problematical. Technically no defender challenged for the
ball. Ederson, didn't challenge him and because Ederson technically had a clear run to the ball, you could argue that
Rashfords mere physical positioning would not strictly have prevented that challenge. Fact that that same physical
presence does conflict with Edersons decision making, eg his positioning and whether to sprint out to clear ball etc
isn't directly specified in wording. So again being devils advocate, technically, this aspect is not relevant, so not offside.
The same for Akanji. He could have challenged. So again have to consider Rashford positioning to Akanji and the ball.
Rashford hasn't made contact, so did Rashford position directly obstruct Akanji potential to challenge/clear the ball.
As he didn't attempt a challenge, technically under law its ref subjective decision. Referee subjectively says Rashford
hasn't . VAR has already deemed Fernandes objectively onside. Referee made subjective call on Rashford obstructing
any defenders route to the ball. VAR doesn't overule onfield decision on a subjective call. So goal can technically stand
on this law and Referees call on the subjective parts. Not that I agreed then or now.
However, if you also look at laws regarding if defenders do make an intentional challenge on a player, previously in an
offside position but has not yet touched the ball. If they challenge and foul that player when he's just running towards
the ball, then it's a foul by defensive player. However, if attacker in process of t6rying to engage the ball then it's no foul
but offside. So technically, when Rashford changes his feet position, if he had been challenged at that moment, any
"foul" is technically after the offside, by player changing feet to engage the ball, think of a penalty taking his run to ball.
So, technically by altering his feet position, at that moment he revises his position from onside eg just running towards
ball to changing his feet to engage the ball, just prior to Fernandes taking it off his toes.
So even if you give maximum positioning to absolute law of game, eventually you reach a position that its still offside.

Here's few other conflicts.

1st Akanji/Ederson put an intentional challenge & win the ball then rebounds off Rashford into goal, its a goal, even
though Rashford ran further x30 yards from his initial offside position to be in better placed offensive position

2nd Akanji/Ederson go to ground in challenge for ball to prevent Rashford "shooting" although at that he would have been offside but they dont know that. If either or both dont touch ball or Rashford, then neither can defend goal v Fernandes
shot
3rd A defender, in this case Akanji doesn't want to challenge the Attacker as they know, that by challenging they face a
playing him back, "onside", or the own goal scenario described above. However, VAR may reveal he's onside by another
defender. If he does challenge Rashford & there's no contact between the x2 players and Akanji slices ball past Ederson,
into the goal, will the goal stand? As there's no contact between the two players, in wording there's only, has Rashford
physical positioning obstructed Akanji challenge for the ball, well the ref could say he didn't, as no contact between x2 players and Akanji played eg "made contact" with the ball, but if Rashford not there would contact with ball been clean
and no resultant own goal

Anyway, it was offside yesterday and it's still offside today....
Click to expand...
For me a big element that is not being talked about is Ederson's role in all of this. He may suspect that Rashford was offside but he doesn't know for sure. As such he has no option other than assume Rashford is clean through on goal and to position himself the best he can to make the save. If Rashford stops running then Eddy has a completely new set of circumstances to consider.
 
abu13 said:
For me a big element that is not being talked about is Ederson's role in all of this. He may suspect that Rashford was offside but he doesn't know for sure. As such he has no option other than assume Rashford is clean through on goal and to position himself the best he can to make the save. If Rashford stops running then Eddy has a completely new set of circumstances to consider.
Click to expand...
Eddie was set for a Rashford shot, and when he dummied it to Freddie Bruno he didn't have time to sort his feet out.
 
abu13 said:
For me a big element that is not being talked about is Ederson's role in all of this. He may suspect that Rashford was offside but he doesn't know for sure. As such he has no option other than assume Rashford is clean through on goal and to position himself the best he can to make the save. If Rashford stops running then Eddy has a completely new set of circumstances to consider.
Click to expand...
Exactly. No way Ederson from his position on the pitch can be clear if he is offside/interfering or not and so acts like he isnt and possibly stays in the box because of it

A bit like the ref, who from his position on the pitch cannot be sure on any of that either, but feels he is in a position to overrule the lino. Bent twat!!
 
Hart of the Matter said:
Fulham penalty, 3 mins after incident and still get it wrong, striker clearly steps on Trippers foot. Who benefits...? United
In addition commentator doesn't know rules and stated double touch penalty would need to be retaken. They don't even know the fkn rules...
Click to expand...
Eh, trippier boots his leg. Pen all day long!!

Agree about the commentator and the double touch, clueless
 
hampshireblue said:
But they didn't discuss it endlessly. If anyone has a recording, it would be interesting to hear how long it was form the incident to the "final decision" being made.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that long before the rat faced **** was dancing around , so " endlessly " is an exaggeration imo
 
Fulham player stamps on Trippier’s right shin/ foot before Trippier makes any contact. It wasn’t a penalty. You could argue on the Burn shirt pull but it wasn’t clear and obvious (I thought the player went down at the slightest touch).

We were given a free kick just outside the box when Longstaff dived, the ref must have realised and moved the free kick at least 8 yards back to try and stop us scoring.

The ref got a few wrong today and VAR somehow missed the foul on Trippier.

Oh, the non offside decision in your game was a complete joke and it seemed to me that the referee over ruled the linesman and VAR didn’t call a clear and obvious error. Think it was the ref who messed up there.
 
Bluearmy said:
He might accidentally stand on trippier’s right foot during the incident, that doest give trippier the right to clean him out with his left foot. Clear pen as both managers have agreed
Click to expand...
Didn’t MotD show that Trippier actually stood on the defenders foot/ankle first and when it went to the screen, VAR didn’t show the ref the alternate angle meaning he didn’t get to see the original incident that set this off?
 
The Fulham player tries a couple of step overs and then stands on Trippier’s foot which stops him getting to the ball with his right foot. It’s a foul.

For the Burn incident VAR would have intervened as the Fulham player handles the ball before the (very light) pull.

Without putting any bias on it just say what you see on the video.
 
Every PL ground should show tge review on the screens. LiVARpool and ManUre should be made to fit screens. Bournemouth have it. Or projectors to projection screens. A stack of 1990 plasma screens. Anything but nothing.
 
Maybe add a Captain's Challenge each game. For obvious and apparent errors, VAR must step in. If your challenge fails, then you lose the right to challenge for the next game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top