VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[deano ou812]

Some absolutely thick fuckers on social media some numpty saying ref was right and VAR was right to not get involved this is what your up against thick cnuts everywhere..

 

[Feed the Elk]

It’s a shame that the purpose of VAR is not to get decisions right. It seems it’s only there to backup or give an alternative view to the referee.

As a football fan I’d rather VAR just got to the correct decision even if the ref does/doesn’t see it

I’d like to see it introduced for balls going over the line for throw ins and corners/goal kicks

And re the penalty incident last night, VAR should be aiming to get to the correct decision - ie a Spurs handball in the build up to the goal and prior to any potential Haaland hand ball. So in theory play advantage and allow the goal or if no advantage it should be a penalty as the spurs defender redirected the ball with his hand.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

And re the penalty incident last night, VAR should be aiming to get to the correct decision - ie a Spurs handball in the build up to the goal and prior to any potential Haaland hand ball. So in theory play advantage and allow the goal or if no advantage it should be a penalty as the spurs defender redirected the ball with his hand.

There are only 3 things the ref had could have seen/ not seen.

A) No handball by any one ( or he didn't see a handball)
Goal stands
B) Handball by defender.
Was it a penalty?
C) Haaland handled the ball
No goal

I can't fathom how the ref saw C.

Looked at it several times and I cannot spot Haaland handling the ball at any stage.

 

[drthingy]

There are only 3 things the ref had could have seen/ not seen.

A) No handball by any one ( or he didn't see a handball)
Goal stands
B) Handball by defender.
Was it a penalty?
C) Haaland handled the ball
No goal

I can't fathom how the ref saw C.

Looked at it several times and I cannot spot Haaland handling the ball at any stage.

I am not going back to look but where was the Ref does it look like his position he could have been able to see or not?

 

[johnny crossan]

There are only 3 things the ref had could have seen/ not seen.

A) No handball by any one ( or he didn't see a handball)
Goal stands
B) Handball by defender.
Was it a penalty?
C) Haaland handled the ball
No goal

I can't fathom how the ref saw C.

Looked at it several times and I cannot spot Haaland handling the ball at any stage.

He didn't but the ref called handball in error and VAR didn't find any conclusive evidence to correct him so original decision stood.

 

[RadcliffeRick]

Someone in Malaysia will bloody know.

Sssshhhhh loose lips and all that !

 

[Xhavenjoe]

I am not going back to look but where was the Ref does it look like his position he could have been able to see or not

The flute was after slipping and nearly fell down on his backside

 

[St.Pauli support]

We can go in circles for another 50 pages,
but it's good standard to wait stopping the game, give the goal and check if there was something wrong. Then decide.

If the ref stops the situation 5 yards in front of goal he MUST be absolutely sure - and neither him nor the assistant could have been.

In Germany refs are often asked for a comment afterwards and they often say sorry I made a mistake. That's helpful as we know it's human to make mistakes.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

He didn't but the ref called handball in error and VAR didn't find any conclusive evidence to correct him so original decision stood.

The video showed clearly that the ball was handled by the Spurs player before it struck Haaland. They twist the excuse every time they rule out a goal.

 

[Blueknows]

There are only 3 things the ref had could have seen/ not seen.

A) No handball by any one ( or he didn't see a handball)
Goal stands
B) Handball by defender.
Was it a penalty?
C) Haaland handled the ball
No goal

I can't fathom how the ref saw C.

Looked at it several times and I cannot spot Haaland handling the ball at any stage.

VAR saying no conclusive evidence to his original decision ? so why the fuck arent var telling him its not clear Erl handled the ball ? how many times when someone scores do you hear var will check it and a goal ends up being disallowed for one reason or other ? var was supposed to be introduced to get decisions right yet now its morphing into not contradicting the refs original decision ? someone please make it make sense

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

VAR saying no conclusive evidence to his original decision ? so why the fuck arent var telling him its not clear Erl handled the ball ? how many times when someone scores do you hear var will check it and a goal ends up being disallowed for one reason or other ? var was supposed to be introduced to get decisions right yet now its morphing into not contradicting the refs original decision ? someone please make it make sense

Why didn’t the ref check the monitor?

 

[Blueknows]

Why didn’t the ref check the monitor?

thats the main gripe why ? I was asking the same on the rashford offside goal against us as well......why always us ?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Why didn’t the ref check the monitor?

Because offside and handball are factual decisions, not subjective. Apparently .....

 

[TinFoilHat]

I doubt a Howard Webb apology would have been enough if Spurs has equalised after.

 

[halfcenturyup]

From Mr PGMOL apologist at ESPN:

"What happened: Erling Haaland thought he had doubled Man City's lead at Tottenham Hotspur with a second goal in the fourth minute of added time, but it was ruled out on the field by referee Jarred Gillett for handball. The VAR, Graham Scott, looked for proof that the decision was wrong.

VAR decision: No goal

VAR review: This is the two-tier handball law in full effect.

If the ball touches an attacker's arm, even accidentally, then he cannot immediately score a goal. Yet if the ball accidently comes off a defender's arm in the same passage of play -- it may have done so for Archie Gray, and it definitely did for Kevin Danso -- that isn't punishable by a penalty.

Verdict: Haaland is extremely unfortunate, because if the goal had been awarded by Gillett it wouldn't have been ruled out. There just wasn't the definitive evidence to determine if the ball came off his bicep on one of two possible occasions, or it it was his chest and/or that of Gray."

That cleared it up. Not. So many questions.

 

[deano ou812]

From Mr PGMOL apologist at ESPN:

"What happened: Erling Haaland thought he had doubled Man City's lead at Tottenham Hotspur with a second goal in the fourth minute of added time, but it was ruled out on the field by referee Jarred Gillett for handball. The VAR, Graham Scott, looked for proof that the decision was wrong.

VAR decision: No goal

VAR review: This is the two-tier handball law in full effect.

If the ball touches an attacker's arm, even accidentally, then he cannot immediately score a goal. Yet if the ball accidently comes off a defender's arm in the same passage of play -- it may have done so for Archie Gray, and it definitely did for Kevin Danso -- that isn't punishable by a penalty.

Verdict: Haaland is extremely unfortunate, because if the goal had been awarded by Gillett it wouldn't have been ruled out. There just wasn't the definitive evidence to determine if the ball came off his bicep on one of two possible occasions, or it it was his chest and/or that of Gray."

That cleared it up. Not. So many questions.

And there we have it how to manipulate a possible result blow up immediately if a goal is scored then ..

 

[richardtheref]

The great Dermot Gallagher on ref watch this morning said it was clear the ref blew his whistle as soon as Haaland handled the ball. At this point I watched the incident again and 2 things came to mind.
1. He never handled it
2. The ref blew the whistle once Haaland and McAtee were celebrating not immediately as Dermot would have it.

 

[Blue Maverick]

From Mr PGMOL apologist at ESPN:

"What happened: Erling Haaland thought he had doubled Man City's lead at Tottenham Hotspur with a second goal in the fourth minute of added time, but it was ruled out on the field by referee Jarred Gillett for handball. The VAR, Graham Scott, looked for proof that the decision was wrong.

VAR decision: No goal

VAR review: This is the two-tier handball law in full effect.

If the ball touches an attacker's arm, even accidentally, then he cannot immediately score a goal. Yet if the ball accidently comes off a defender's arm in the same passage of play -- it may have done so for Archie Gray, and it definitely did for Kevin Danso -- that isn't punishable by a penalty.

Verdict: Haaland is extremely unfortunate, because if the goal had been awarded by Gillett it wouldn't have been ruled out. There just wasn't the definitive evidence to determine if the ball came off his bicep on one of two possible occasions, or it it was his chest and/or that of Gray."

That cleared it up. Not. So many questions.

So var can disallow a go but not give a goal?

 

[Paladin]

The great Dermot Gallagher on ref watch this morning said it was clear the ref blew his whistle as soon as Haaland handled the ball. At this point I watched the incident again and 2 things came to mind.
1. He never handled it
2. The ref blew the whistle once Haaland and McAtee were celebrating not immediately as Dermot would have it.

Not the first time Gallagher has been wrong with his opinion.

 

[Paladin]

If the referee thought Haaland committed a handball offence, but the cameras from all the different angles couldn't show the ball touching Haaland's arm, isn't that a clear and obvious mistake?