VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

Xhavenjoe · 27 May 2025

TheBeautifulGame said:
That is what I'm trying to provide clarity for - so that we all understand why the decision was made. Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not

It was over a week ago, time to let it rest.

lust overlord · 27 May 2025

Xhavenjoe said:
It was over a week ago, time to let it rest.

Cue 2000 word essay on why he shouldn't let it rest.
;)

richardtheref · 27 May 2025

Just been talking to the head of referees development and training for Co Durham FA. He advised me that they have already incorporated the cup final incident in a training course. They have it as an example of bad practice.
On Sunday they held this course for level 3 referees and not 1 thought they got the right decision.

Paladin · 27 May 2025

TheBeautifulGame said:
Your contention isn't with me here, but with the VARs and their decision-making as it relates to the criteria. As a reminder, they looked at the situation and determined that it wasn't a denial of a GSO. So I would put it to you like this - why do you think they didn't determine that it was a denial of a GSO? Please answer that question.

That is what I'm trying to provide clarity for - so that we all understand why the decision was made. Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not. And remember, my personal view is that it was a denial of a GSO.

However, I am trying to explain to you what went into their decision and why they made it. So you can argue with me about it as if this was my decision and my criteria but that is not the case.

The disconnect here appears to be that you're interpreting it as a denial of GSO. That is certainly arguable as such but I would point out that they appear to have a very strict definition and a high bar for what they consider it to be. So it's not that you're wrong by claiming it was a denial of a GSO. It's that it wasn't an "abundantly clear" one according to their criteria and their decision-making process and that's what I'm trying to get across here.

We don't have to agree with their decision, but we should be able to understand why they made that decision. And that's what I'm trying to explain to you. If you object to it, then take it up with IFAB and VAR. Don't shoot the messenger. As you know, my view for why it wasn't a red card was through a different set of reasoning.

It says direction of play should be considered. The direction of play was not towards the goal. The ball was bouncing wide, Haaland was chasing it wide.

Possibly, as I alluded to, but not "obviously". Not clearly. It would have needed to be clearer and more obvious in the VARs minds for them to consider it a clear goal scoring opportunity. Not on the fringes, not without possession, not moving away from goal, etc.

It's also humorous that you keep saying that all this is irrelevant, but yet the decision was made as it was, so all this certainly was relevant or the decision wouldn't have been reached. I'm merely trying to understand it and explain it to you!

At the speed he was moving at, with the height of the boot, with the direction he was running in, if Henderson doesn't put the hand out, he kicks it on towards the sideline, wide of the box. Whether or not he would have been able to collect it and take a shot into an empty net is speculative. It's possible that could happen, but it's also possible that Henderson does one of two things. He either continues to chase him while keeping himself between Haaland and the goal, preventing a shot or making it a very difficult shot from the angle Haaland would have to shoot it from, or Henderson sprints back towards goal and tries to get himself back into normal position.

It would have been a long shot from a wide angle for Haaland to shoot into the empty net. Certainly possibly but "likely"? I'm not so sure, and the VARs certainly didn't think it was so take it up with them.

I'm not misquoting anything. I'm applying the criteria. While your points are certainly arguable they aren't as "obvious" as they would have to believe.

For some reason the VARs did not see it as you do, and the whole of the football world it would seem. But they made their decision and there are reasons why they made their decision, but you refuse to understand why.

That's your interpretation, not theirs. It's not as if you are taking an unreasonable stance. I would submit that given their criteria, given the direction of play and the lack of control from Haaland, that it didn't satisfy their apparent strict definition of what they would consider a denial of a GSO.

That seems to be the situation here. Not that your view is unreasonable, but that they need it to be "obvious" not just arguable. As always I'm glad to help and I look forward to your response

So we finally agree it was DOGSO. I'll answer your question, and then it's time to let it drop.

I have no idea why the VAR didn't ask Attwell to review that incident. I'm pretty sure it wasn't calculus, Henderson's head being in danger or the length of Henderson's arm though.

It's speculation, but my guess is that Gillett, the VAR, deliberately showed bias towards the underdog team.

We'll never know though, just like we will never know why Attwell allowed the Fernandes goal when Rashford was clearly offside, or why Villa were denied the opening goal against United.

Trevor Morley's Tache · 27 May 2025

richardtheref said:
Just been talking to the head of referees development and training for Co Durham FA. He advised me that they have already incorporated the cup final incident in a training course. They have it as an example of bad practice.
On Sunday they held this course for level 3 referees and not 1 thought they got the right decision.

Thet's because practically everyone (bar one obstinate individual on here) knows they screwed up.

TheBeautifulGame · 27 May 2025

richardtheref said:
Just been talking to the head of referees development and training for Co Durham FA. He advised me that they have already incorporated the cup final incident in a training course. They have it as an example of bad practice.
On Sunday they held this course for level 3 referees and not 1 thought they got the right decision.

If that's the case, then the public deserves to hear the VAR audio to understand how they arrived at that decision and what went into it. Further, the IFAB and / or the VAR leadership would have an obligation to issue a public apology if they conclude that the VARs incorrectly arrived at their decision. Up to this point, we have not heard such an admission from them. The official statement was simply that they did not determine it to be a denial of a GSO and no additional details were provided.

To highlight the shambles that VAR decision-making is in their application of the LOTG, we seem to have quite the schism between the IFAB / VAR powers that be and the experts in the sports media (and the fans of course) as it pertains to what the correct decision should have been.

I think we can all agree that this problematic situation is unsustainable and clarity from the VAR administrators is sorely needed at this point.

Trevor Morley's Tache · 27 May 2025

Paladin said:
So we finally agree it was DOGSO. I'll answer your question, and then it's time to let it drop.

I have no idea why the VAR didn't ask Attwell to review that incident. I'm pretty sure it wasn't calculus, Henderson's head being in danger or the length of Henderson's arm though.

It's speculation, but my guess is that Gillett, the VAR, deliberately showed bias towards the underdog team.

We'll never know though, just like we will never know why Attwell allowed the Fernandes goal when Rashford was clearly offside, or why Villa were denied the opening goal against United.

I still think that decision was based on 'spoiling the game as a contest'. Of course, the only way we'll know this is if they release the audio of the discussions between the officials and those in the VAR room, and I think we all know they aren't going to do that.

TheBeautifulGame · 27 May 2025

Paladin said:
So we finally agree it was DOGSO. I'll answer your question, and then it's time to let it drop.

I've said from the beginning that I saw it as a denial of a GSO. You just haven't been paying attention apparently if you think that only now I agree about that. I'm merely trying to do what our friend lectured me about, that we shouldn't be discussing if the rules make sense, but to apply them as they are worded. That's what I have done.

Paladin said:
I have no idea why the VAR didn't ask Attwell to review that incident. I'm pretty sure it wasn't calculus, Henderson's head being in danger or the length of Henderson's arm though.

Those are merely observations related to the situation.

Paladin said:
It's speculation, but my guess is that Gillett, the VAR, deliberately showed bias towards the underdog team.

Speculation indeed. I try to stick with the facts of what occurred and apply logic to it rather than delving into the conspiracy realm.

Paladin said:
We'll never know though, just like we will never know why Attwell allowed the Fernandes goal when Rashford was clearly offside, or why Villa were denied the opening goal against United.

Well we know why Villa were denied the opening goal against United. It was because the ref blew the whistle prematurely, thinking he saw something he didn't. Which is understandable to an extent, i.e. human error. And from a distance I could understand that the ref may have been too far away to see that clearly. Though it was the wrong call, it can accept it as wrong, what I can't accept is that VAR has shown itself to be incapable of correcting basic errors.

TheBeautifulGame · 27 May 2025

Trevor Morley's Tache said:
I still think that decision was based on 'spoiling the game as a contest'. Of course, the only way we'll know this is if they release the audio of the discussions between the officials and those in the VAR room, and I think we all know they aren't going to do that.

Pressure should be put on them to do so. They've done it before. There's no excuse for them not to release the audio with something this contentious and controversial in such an important match. They also owe it to the public to then officially declare whether or not the VARs applied the law correctly in determining what a denial of a GSO is according to them.

TheBeautifulGame · 27 May 2025

Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Thet's because practically everyone (bar one obstinate individual on here) knows they screwed up.

No need to be hyperbolic about it. We all agree that they screwed up, including me. I've been the biggest VAR critic there is.

Trevor Morley's Tache · 27 May 2025

TheBeautifulGame said:
Pressure should be put on them to do so. They've done it before. There's no excuse for them not to release the audio with something this contentious and controversial in such an important match. They also owe it to the public to then officially declare whether or not the VARs applied the law correctly in determining what a denial of a GSO is according to them.

They've done it before when it has been beneficial for them to do so. No way they will release the audio of a conversation pertaining to an incident that potentially changed the outcome of the final match of a cup competition.

Trevor Morley's Tache · 27 May 2025

TheBeautifulGame said:
No need to be hyperbolic about it. We all agree that they screwed up, including me. I've been the biggest VAR critic there is.

Hyperbolic?

Unless you've changed your mind in the last few pages you've stated they were correct not sending the keeper off.

TheBeautifulGame · 27 May 2025

Trevor Morley's Tache said:
They've done it before when it has been beneficial for them to do so. No way they will release the audio of a conversation pertaining to an incident that potentially changed the outcome of the final match of a cup competition.

If they don't release the audio and/or issue a clarification on it, then how can anyone associated with the sport be confident in VAR moving forward? I wouldn't be surprised if they change the laws again in the offseason to avoid a repeat of such an instance. But if they make any changes to it and announce it publicly, then that would be quite revealing in their own right. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. But something must be done, and if it isn't then it's even more of a shambles than it already was.

TheBeautifulGame · 27 May 2025

Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Hyperbolic?

Unless you've changed your mind in the last few pages you've stated they were correct not sending the keeper off.

For a different reasoning than that of determining that it was a denial of a GSO, which I said from the beginning that I personally considered it one. My argument was that the wording of the laws (as it pertains to deliberate or non-deliberate handball inside / outside the box) were confusing and contradictory in nature. I did however quite accurately point out that while I personally considered it a denial of a GSO, that their wording suggested a stricter definition of what constitutes that and a higher bar for what that is than we have.

TheBeautifulGame · 27 May 2025

Explained: Why Dean Henderson avoided red card for handball outside Crystal Palace box to deny Erling Haaland in FA Cup final clash vs Man City | Goal.com US

Dean Henderson can count himself lucky for escaping being shown a red card after he handled the ball outside the area.

www.goal.com

As I explained :

"The officials judged Haaland to be taking the ball wide and away from goal as the reason as to why Henderson was not given his marching orders, marking a significant decision in the cup final."

On the BBC's coverage, Gary Lineker said that VAR explained: "The direction in which Haaland was going made it a possible, but not an obvious goal scoring opportunity."

When explaining this I was told that this was irrelevant. But as it you can see, it was directly relevant to the decision that was reached.

I also corrected the false claim echoed by many on here that it was Henderson's swat that put the ball wide, rather than the direction Haaland was going. I pointed out that Haaland was in fact running wide prior to the swatting and that appeared to be what caused it to not be considered a denial of a GSO.

Trevor Morley's Tache · 27 May 2025

TheBeautifulGame said:
Explained: Why Dean Henderson avoided red card for handball outside Crystal Palace box to deny Erling Haaland in FA Cup final clash vs Man City | Goal.com US

Dean Henderson can count himself lucky for escaping being shown a red card after he handled the ball outside the area.

www.goal.com

As I explained :

"The officials judged Haaland to be taking the ball wide and away from goal as the reason as to why Henderson was not given his marching orders, marking a significant decision in the cup final."

On the BBC's coverage, Gary Lineker said that VAR explained: "The direction in which Haaland was going made it a possible, but not an obvious goal scoring opportunity."

When explaining this I was told that this was irrelevant. But as it you can see, it was directly relevant to the decision that was reached.

I also corrected the false claim echoed by many on here that it was Henderson's swat that put the ball wide, rather than the direction Haaland was going. I pointed out that Haaland was in fact running wide prior to the swatting and that appeared to be what caused it to not be considered a denial of a GSO.

And yet in the Rag's/Villa game they arrived at a completely different conclusion when the attacker was even further from goal, heading in the direction of the corner and with defenders coming back to cover. Yes, Martinez floored the attacker, but it didn't meet any of the criteria for a red card other than in the opinion of the referee it was DGSO.

TheBeautifulGame · 27 May 2025

Trevor Morley's Tache said:
And yet in the Rag's/Villa game they arrived at a completely different conclusion when the attacker was even further from goal, heading in the direction of the corner and with defenders coming back to cover. Yes, Martinez floored the attacker, but it didn't meet any of the criteria for a red card other than in the opinion of the referee it was DGSO.

And I said as much myself, that the laws surrounding what constitutes a denial of a GSO and what goes into each decision are open to interpretation and subjective. My issue is with the LOTG, how they are worded and how VAR arrives at decisions. And by the way, how they have become worded is largely a result of VAR's influence.

I can only guess that what made that a red card more than anything is that it was a hard collision and that the keeper was well out of his box. It was also given as a red straight away from the referee on the pitch so in order to reverse that the VARs would need to convince the ref that it wasn't deserving of a red card.

This only reinforces my point that the criteria is confusing and difficult to apply consistently. And it would also seem that the extent of any hard collision that occurred would possibly override any of the criteria which seemed to be the case here. I also noted that there was a lack of a hard collision, or any collision for that matter with the Henderson handball and that is one of the reasons why I would have considered it harsh to send him off.

There's definitely an argument that it shouldn't have been a red card on Martinez but I can certainly understand why the referee gave it. Not only wasn't it a through pass from United, as it was a back pass that fell short from Villa, which would give the keeper reason to be where he was that far outside the box. And I also pointed out that the United player kicked it to the left and away of the goal as Martinez was approaching. Even wider than the angle that Haaland was taking against Henderson. It was as you pointed out far further away from the goal as well. In effect, that kick to the left as Martinez approached caused both players to converge on one another both trying to turn and run towards the ball. All this highlights that the criteria that VAR created for these kinds of situation is wholly unsatisfactory and further clarification is sorely needed.

Trevor Morley's Tache · 27 May 2025

So you are saying there is a lower bar for a goalkeeper committing a foul outside the area? Which is weird, because there seems to be a higher bar for an attacker committing a foul inside the penalty area than anywhere else on the pitch, especially holding offences.

Basically, the whole thing is a shitshow, and since Webb took over as head of the PGMOL it seems to have gone backwards and more of a closed shop with fans suffering as a result.

Gorton_Tubster · 27 May 2025

Look at all the fallout. I'm glad, they've brought this shit upon themselves.

Pre VAR...
Refs made a mistake and it was over human error, everyone moans, the ref gets some stick, we carry on.

VAR makes a mistake and apologies have to be issued. Pgmol have to explain the error. Rules have to be rewritten (which causes even more issues further down the line). Clubs threaten action. Fans don't understand why.

Pgmol can and will stew in the shite they created.

BlueHammer85 · 27 May 2025

Gorton_Tubster said:
Look at all the fallout. I'm glad, they've brought this shit upon themselves.

Pre VAR...
Refs made a mistake and it was over human error, everyone moans, the ref gets some stick, we carry on.

Ah yeh, just the odd moans and groans but all was fine.