VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[TheBeautifulGame]

they saw the touch and by the rules it's still a penalty. read the rules. I keep saying it.

Watch this :

Go to 7:04 in the video, following the save :



"And on the follow up upon listening to the VAR, they said that there was no touch."

Bollocks! Clearly there was a touch, and the touch on the ball occurred prior to any bringing down of the attacker. This proves that the VARs were literally blind, that they were unable to see the clear touch onto the ball prior to the contact.

Then he goes on to say that in actuality there was the slightest of touch, which could have affected things. Ya think? From that, it sounds abundantly clear that the VARs didn't see a touch, despite the fact that the ball clearly moved off the defenders foot prior to any other contact.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Watch this :

Go to 7:04 in the video, following the save :



"And on the follow up upon listening to the VAR, they said that there was no touch."

Bollocks! Clearly there was a touch, and the touch on the ball occurred prior to any bringing down of the attacker. This proves that the VARs were literally blind, that they were unable to see the clear touch onto the ball prior to the contact.

Then he goes on to say that in actuality there was the slightest of touch, which could have affected things. Ya think? From that, it sounds abundantly clear that the VARs didn't see a touch, despite the fact that the ball clearly moved off the defenders foot prior to any other contact.

it doesn't matter if there was a touch or not it's still a penalty. read the rules

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

it doesn't matter if there was a touch or not it's still a penalty. read the rules

What makes it a penalty? Saying "read the rules" isn't an argument.

I'm more concerned about the fact that according to the commentator who apparently heard the VARs say that they didn't see any touch. Meaning that they were clearly and obviously blind as to what occurred there.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

What makes it a penalty? Saying "read the rules" isn't an argument.

I'm more concerned about the fact that according to the commentator who apparently heard the VARs say that they didn't see any touch. Meaning that they were clearly and obviously blind as to what occurred there.

it is when you refuse to read them. go and actually read them

 

[Cassandra]

OK so why wasn't a free kick given then? What is their official explanation? If what you're saying is true, then they would be giving a different explanation. From what I've been hearing all the focus is on why it should have been a red card, and I'm reading about how it wasn't given because they couldn't prove it was a goal scoring opportunity or something, because of how the ball deflected which sounds mad.

Why the hell are they focused on which way the ball bounced? Why is everyone so fixated on whether or not it's a red card, meanwhile the elephant in the room clear as day factual 100% handball outside the box is being ignored, which they (for some reason) refused to correct despite you arguing that they had the ability to correct (even without a red) it if only they would bring the ref to the monitor. What an absolute riot!

Because VAR didn’t tell the referee they thought it was a red card! If they had the referee could have looked at it and said no it’s a yellow and a free kick. But it would still have been possible for the referee to show a red card, but it would have been the on field referees decision - had he felt like you he could have given just a yellow and free kick.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

it is when you refuse to read them. go and actually read them

You're completely missing the point. I am not the person responsible with making these decisions. The commentator right there pointed out, in no uncertain terms, that the VARs apparently were unable to see the touch that is quite clear visible from the one angle. That right there is scandalously if true. So they've falsely concluded that there was no touch, in addition the commentator falsely suggested that the defender wasn't even playing the ball, a comically absurd statement. This creates a a completely misleading interpretation of the situation, both from the commentators to the public and with the VARs making the decision.

And after all these shenanigans, we have you trying to lecture me to read the rules as if I'm the one missing something. Hey, brainiac, I'm the one who caught the fact that there was a touch, I was able to see that the defender was clearly playing the ball and got to the ball first. If that doesn't matter anymore, then the plot has been lost. But even if it doesn't matter, we still have the fact that the VARs were caught as blind bats called out by the very commentators who also falsely misled the public watching suggesting that he wasn't even playing the ball. Good lord the incompetence here.

I don't know if you've ever played football, but that's how we were taught how to defend. You get to the ball first before you make contact, that's the goal of a slide tackle. He successfully did that, but the VARs (and the commentators) apparently missed the touch completely which seemingly led to the penalty being confirmed. The blind leading the blind.

And you trying to lecture me on the rules as if you're some expert. How about you focus on the fact that the VARs apparently missed the touched, something that was quite clearly visible to anyone watching! Proving that we have absolute muppets calling the matches and also muppets making decisions in the VAR room.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Because VAR didn’t tell the referee they thought it was a red card! If they had the referee could have looked at it and said no it’s a yellow and a free kick. But it would still have been possible for the referee to show a red card, but it would have been the on field referees decision - had he felt like you he could have given just a yellow and free kick.

So let me get this straight, in order for the referee to be brought to the monitor, the VARs would have to decide first that they "thought" it was a red card, and then once the ref goes to the monitor he could then decide that it wasn't a red card, and then and only then could corrective action be taken as it pertains to giving a free kick sans any cards given. And that would require (essentially) the ref going against the VARs recommendation, something that rarely happens anyway, because as we all know, despite the referees going to the monitor and supposedly making the final decision (except with offsides of course, smh), that it's the VARs which 99.9% of the time merely tells the ref what to do and the ref is just supposed to go along with it.

Surely you can see how incredibly insane, backwards and inefficient this process is. Why should the VARs have to decide that it was a red card (something completely subjective particularly in this case) in order for a non-subjective quick decision of a handball to be made? Why couldn't the VARs just see the handball factually and tell the ref to issue a free kick right then and there? Why would all this other jazz about a red card being recommended need to happen in order for such a problem to be corrected?

What you've just described there is an indictment of VAR as a system, in how poorly designed and how useless it is. There is no reason why anyone should even need to conclude that a red card should be given in order for such a clear 100% factual error to be corrected. But that's what I've been on about for quite some time, how the entire system is designed so poorly, it's practically useless and maddening in situations like this I think you'd agree. So rather than infighting over this and fighting over if there should be a red card, we should all be able to agree that the fact that a red card would even need to enter into the equation in order for such a clear error to be corrected is quite surely unsatisfactory.

 

[Cassandra]

But there is a mechanism, if the referees have the nous, equally weirdly the referee could give a yellow card to Haaland for a high boot, but in my eyes that would be totally wrong too. But these things are possible.

 

[RiversideBlue]

Last time I checked, the word boundary is standard English. Don't know what you're on about, but cut out the nonsense please.

There's only one person talking nonsense on here fella.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

But there is a mechanism, if the referees have the nous, equally weirdly the referee could give a yellow card to Haaland for a high boot, but in my eyes that would be totally wrong too. But these things are possible.

The moral of this story. VAR is a complete unmitigated disaster! And the further down this rabbit hole we go, the more it gets exposed in new and ever more infuriating ways. SACKING NEEDED!

 

[RiversideBlue]

Last time I checked, the word boundary is standard English. Don't know what you're on about, but cut out the nonsense please.

You also call it a telecast in one of your posts. Where are you from because its not the UK. That's fine but be honest or are you just trying to wind us all up?

 

[Gordyola]

Right, that's my point. The only way that they could have given a FK was to send the keeper off in that scenario, which is why they didn't give the FK. They did not conclude that it was deserving of a red card, clearly. Whether you agree with it or not.

He batted the ball away from Erling =
DOGSO and the very vast majority of people professions ex refs commentators neutral fans all agree there is no doubt

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

There's only one person talking nonsense on here fella.

You haven't added anything meaningful to this discussion. While I continue to do my due diligence and bring pertinent matters to your attention, and without bias. I'm not afraid to bring up what happened there with the penalty given to City because I pride myself on being objective when analyzing contentious decisions.

Meanwhile instead of furthering the discussion with relevant points you've proceeded to obfuscate it would seem, claiming that I'm talking nonsense when I'm clearly bringing the fight to the VAR nonsense and exposing the problematic negative effect it continues to have on our sport.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

You also call it a telecast in one of your posts. Where are you from because its not the UK. That's fine but be honest or are you just trying to wind us all up?

Fans of football are being wound up by VAR. I am merely calling out the shenanigans in the hopes that something can be done about it to return football to normal. Why are you so concerned with where I'm from? Because I use certain terms you are not used to? Cut out the nonsense, respond substantively.

 

[Gordyola]

What rules would those be? Traditional football rules or VAR-induced re-refereeing re-interpreted bollocks?

So you're telling me that was a penalty? Funny how the blind VARs saw no touch whatsoever, which apparently according to the commentators was what caused it to be confirmed as a penalty. Clearly that was an error. Clearly it was seen on the replays that there was a touch on the ball before ANY other contact was made. Are we arguing that it's a penatly because it was a supposed dangerous challenge, never mind that he got to the ball first?

The blind commentators saw no playing of the ball, the blind VARs saw no touching of the ball. Yet clearly he nicked the ball before any contact. There's no way that should have been given a penalty following a VAR review. I could accept it in real-time, but with those replays, for VAR to confirm that as a penalty is actually mad.

Why do you think that a glance of his foot on the ball clears him of a foul even if he got a significant touch it can still be a foul His touch did not any affect on the ball, he then with his sliding took Bernie out

 

[halfcenturyup]

so you would have tolerated Palaces off side goal being allowed to stand aswell as the Henderson hand ball ?

For the millionth times, yes. Like we did for decades before VAR. Would we have complained and gone crazy, yes of course.

And then we would have admitted it's a tough job and mistakes can happen. The only difference is that this time we wouldn't be stupid enough to say we need some sort of video review system. Not any more .....

Fans of football are being wound up by VAR. I am merely calling out the shenanigans in the hopes that something can be done about it to return football to normal. Why are you so concerned with where I'm from? Because I use certain terms you are not used to? Cut out the nonsense, respond substantively.

What do you want people to say, apart from you are wrong on both counts?

Keeper handling the ball outside the box is an offence. The sanction depends on the circumstances. If it's a DOGSO it's a red card. It doesn't matter where his feet were, where he thought he was. Red card all day long.

Getting a touch on the ball doesn't stop an action being called a foul.

No-one who has followed decision making in the PL will argue with any of that.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

He batted the ball away from Erling =
DOGSO and the very vast majority of people professions ex refs commentators neutral fans all agree there is no doubt

I do not need to argue for or against the red card, my issue is with VAR needing a red card to be part of the decision-making process in order for a clear factual error to be corrected.

Regardless of whether or not you think it should have been a red card, that is irrelevant to the clearer and more pressing need of punishing the handball itself and issuing a free kick promptly. To even bring a red card into the calculus is a problem as it shifts the focus from what would otherwise be a clear objective factual decision that could be made quickly to a much longer more prolonged and dicey review of something purely subjective like a possible red card. It greatly complicates the decision which is why I'm not as focused on the red card as you are.

That's my position on that. And for you to claim that because the Dermys of the world or other so-called experts who have been wrong countless times and often engage in group think and rarely ever disagree with one another is some kind of validation that the red card was warranted is utterly laughable. I don't take marching orders from clueless mainstream pro-VAR imbeciles. I interpret situations based on my knowledge and experience with football over a very long period of time. I don't claim to have a perfect understanding but I have a sound knowledge of the sport and the way in which VAR is operating is cleraly problematic and plaguing the game. So rather than infighting over largely irrelevant details, I think we should focus on the larger problem that we all continue to observe : the sheer lunacy and incompetence of VAR that continues to hover over the sport like a dark cloud.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Why do you think that a glance of his foot on the ball clears him of a foul even if he got a significant touch it can still be a foul His touch did not any affect on the ball, he then with his sliding took Bernie out

He has as much right to the ball as the attacker. He played the ball successfully, extended his foot, got the touch he needed to reasonably avoid a foul. You can say he took him out after getting to the ball, yet in that Roma match last week Roma were denied a penalty after having their player taken out (without the defender getting anywhere near the ball) and the ref at the monitor deciding that it was the attacker who ran into the defender. Imagine that. The inconsistency and false interpretations of these kind of situations would drive any fan mad.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

What do you want people to say, apart from you are wrong on both counts?

Keeper handling the ball outside the box is an offence. The sanction depends on the circumstances. If it's a DOGSO it's a red card. It doesn't matter where his feet were, where he thought he was. Red card all day long.

Getting a touch on the ball doesn't stop an action being called a foul.

No-one who has followed decision making in the PL will argue with any of that.

You know, over time we've agreed on an awful lot. We don't have to agree on everything to still have respect. I didn't personally see that as a red card. Sue me. If you think it's a red card fair play to you. So we see this one differently. That's OK. I've given my take and I respect yours. We can agree to disagree on this one. I think you can understand where I'm coming from on it, even if you disagree and likewise I can understand your perspective on it.

The larger point that I think you can agree on is why would they need to even have a red card enter into the equation in order to correct the more clearer, the factual, non-subjective part of it, the handball itself and resulting free kick?

My view of this, disagree with it all you want, is simply that the handball occurred on the edge of the box. He was attempting to get back in before punching it out, as he would be allowed to do if he got back in fully, which he was unable to do but only just. I think it would be harsh to send him off for that. And for anyone to conclude that should be a red would be using the same misleading elements that we've already agreed about, about how decisions should be made in real-time not through super slow mo where everything like a handball by the GK just outside the edge of the box looks worse.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could think that keeper deserved to be sent off for that. But I respect you and others who do, this is just something we disagree on. It's really not a big deal. The larger point we should all be able to agree on is that VAR continues to show how poorly it was designed and it continues to get exposed in new ways and continues to infuriate fans. And any way you slice, VAR continues to create far more controversy than there were was before, on a consistent basis, which is hugely problematic for the future of the sport.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Italian Journalist Deems VAR Intervention In Inter Milan 2-2 Lazio Serie A Draw “Embarrassing”

Italian journalist Maurizio Pistocchi took stock of a controversial VAR call in last weekend’s 2-2 draw between Inter Milan and Lazio.Pistocchi took to Twitter via FCInter1908 to deliver his assessm...

sports.yahoo.com

Premier League's longest-ever VAR check: Why is it taking so long?

EmailPrintOpen Extended ReactionsVideo Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?After each weekend we take a look at the major incidents, to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol...

ghanasoccernet.com