Referees’ Performances | 2024/2025

cheekybids said:
The ref made a call he didn’t need to…

VAR made a call no evidence of handball so you can disallow it for handball…. There was no evidence it could hit Haaland below the sleeve because it didn’t.

None of those calls make sense, it won’t even make the news, which makes it a safe decision to make.
Click to expand...

The refs call made no sense. VAR said they couldn’t tell whether he had handballed it or not so they were right not to intervene.

It was entirely the refs fault.
 
cheekybids said:
No I disagree.

VAR framed at as we can’t see if it was handball or not. VAR should have said we saw no handball.
Click to expand...

They framed it as that because that’s what they thought, they couldn’t see whether it was handball or not, I couldn’t tell definitively from their replays either.

The issue was the referee giving the decision in the first place. Had he given the goal then VAR wouldn’t have intervened either.

I hate VAR but I don’t have an issue with it not intervening in that decision as neither decision was clear and obvious.

It was entirely the refs fault as he’s the one that clearly guessed.
 
meltonblue said:
They framed it as that because that’s what they thought, they couldn’t see whether it was handball or not, I couldn’t tell definitively from their replays either.

The issue was the referee giving the decision in the first place. Had he given the goal then VAR wouldn’t have intervened either.

I hate VAR but I don’t have an issue with it not intervening in that decision as neither decision was clear and obvious.

It was entirely the refs fault as he’s the one that clearly guessed.
Click to expand...

That’s nonsense. VAR is to provide clarity so the clear response is there is no footage of Haaland handling the ball. It shows clear bias that when you can’t see what you want to see you then say I can’t be sure.
 
Enough with this shitty "VAR is unsure so stick with the decision". If VAR is unsure, the ref should go to the monitor and have a look. Let him make the final call based on his own eyes. If he wants to stick with the decision, have at it, if he wants to change it, have at it either. VAR should tell the ref to go to the monitor unless they think he got it right rather than only tell him to go if they think he got it wrong.

meltonblue said:
They framed it as that because that’s what they thought, they couldn’t see whether it was handball or not, I couldn’t tell definitively from their replays either.

The issue was the referee giving the decision in the first place. Had he given the goal then VAR wouldn’t have intervened either.

I hate VAR but I don’t have an issue with it not intervening in that decision as neither decision was clear and obvious.

It was entirely the refs fault as he’s the one that clearly guessed.
Click to expand...

But you've said it yourself, the referee has guessed. Then why stick with his purely chance based decision rather than have him go and have a look if the var is unsure..
 
When VAR took so long it was clearly looking cor a handball. It appears it didn’t need to find a hand ball so why take so long & why start looking at offside?
 
Watching the replay and keeping an eye on the ref, there's no sign of him blowing his whistle. He takes a look but doesn't blow. Unless he got a msg from the linesman.
 
meltonblue said:
They framed it as that because that’s what they thought, they couldn’t see whether it was handball or not, I couldn’t tell definitively from their replays either.

The issue was the referee giving the decision in the first place. Had he given the goal then VAR wouldn’t have intervened either.

I hate VAR but I don’t have an issue with it not intervening in that decision as neither decision was clear and obvious.

It was entirely the refs fault as he’s the one that clearly guessed.
Click to expand...
Why didn't Var ask him to view it again on the screen ?
 
chris63 said:
Watching the replay and keeping an eye on the ref, there's no sign of him blowing his whistle. He takes a look but doesn't blow. Unless he got a msg from the linesman.
Click to expand...
He blows the whistle after the cameras cut to Haaland celebrating (i.e. the time you would normally blow it to signal a goal) so you can't actually see his signal. But he doesn't move his whistle to his lips when he sees the 'handball.' The key for me is that literally no-one in the ground or the commentary team reacted as if the goal had been disallowed, just that they were going for the standard VAR check after a goal. The graphics team change the score to 2-0 and don't change it back until Spurs are nearly scoring up the other end. The commentary team then spent the four minutes talking as if they hadn't given the handball and were just making sure he didn't handle it, and then here's the exact conversation between the commentator and co-commentator:

"In the absence of conclusive evidence, the VAR official Graham Scott is going to agree with the referee's on field decision... ...Well this is interesting. Unless the referee immediately gave......That's obviously what he must have done Clive. Well a little bit of uncertainty there. Certainly Erling Haaland ran away and celebrated the goal. But maybe the referee actually blew for the foul and wanted it checked."

So a TV company with full access to a four-minute VAR discussion about a decision doesn't know what that initial decision was. At the very least, this indicates the level of shambolic, vague communication that led to that disallowed goal against Liverpool last season. At worst, it indicates them desperately looking for an excuse to disallow a goal and when they can't find one, just changing what the referee's initial decision was. "No, I blew for a free kick." This is why they need to be miked up. If he blew for a free kick, it should be immediately obvious to everyone. It shouldn't be the case that the referee blows a whistle and then everyone has to guess what it meant.
 
cheekybids said:
No I disagree.

VAR framed at as we can’t see if it was handball or not. VAR should have said we saw no handball.
Click to expand...

They must have watched it 36 times, and couldn't find the handball, but said that there was no evidence that he didn't handball it. That's a load of crap. If you can't see it after that many checks then surely you've proved it didn't happen.
 
It feels like one of those where they should have said, “We don’t see the handball from Haaland, but it clearly comes off the arm of the first defender and then the raised hand of the second defender. Are you sure it was Haaland you saw handle the ball? We think you should have a look in Slo-Mo on the monitor to see whether you want to EITHER reconsider the goal or award a penalty for defensive handball.”

INSTEAD, we get a phantom handball decision that then immediately turns into what should have been the equalizer in the 99th minute of a 90+4 game!!
 
Combat Carl said:
I don't understand why the ref blew his whistle in the first place when it would always get reviewed by VAR anyway. But they saw no handball by Haaland so surely goal should've stood. Absolute farce of a decision.
Click to expand...
So you want a system where referees make no decisions whatsoever and everything is left to VAR's 5 minutes process?
God help us!
 
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