VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

It's a funny old thing how referee "rule speak" is used to flip-flop from one point of view into one ruling, to a totally counter-intuitive opposing view on the next. Just to support the decision made by the referee.

The classic case in example is Erling being DOGSO'd by an over-flappy goalkeeper.

Let's ignore the player. He's a red herring here thrown by the pigmol. Concentrate on the ball. That's the star of the show.
So, was the ball heading towards the CP goal. Here is where the interpretation fairies kick down the football rules door and make fairy dust up as they go along.
Generally, a ball played from one end of the park to the other is heading towards the opponents goal.
The balls' intended direction is away from City's goal. A player chasing that ball is heading away from his own goal. Therefore he is heading towards the opponents goal. As long as the momentum of play remains towards the opponents goal, the pattern of play is towards that goal. If the ball is then played in the opposite direction that phase of attack becomes void.

Rules in football are particularly expressed to be ambiguous to help defend erratic interpretations by referees. To be fair, they are human and can make mistakes in the moment, but the video assistants have no excuse. In this case there was a conscious attempt to not ruin the spectacle at the expense of the rules. But, it's OK, cos it's all subjective, and bad decisions can always be explained away in the fog of fairy dust.

A winger with the ball is generally heading towards the opponents goal as that is his intended destination. Even though he is hugging a touchline. If this winger is one-on-one with the full back, running down the line, is he heading towards goal, or not? If the last man full back hauls him down, even though at that point the player is still hugging the touchline, is that a DOGSO?
Let's get interpreting, shall we?

Is a player running in the general direction of the penalty area heading towards goal? Penalty area is big and the goal is wide. Just so much interpretation to play with here.

Generally, referees are shit because the rules they live by are so loose that there is never a wrong answer. They set themselves up to officiate in a way they interpret, not what the rules are.
If refs live by interpretation without challenge, they become reliant on this technique and lose their sharpness as officiators.
Referees are their own worst enemy. So fearful of being exposed, they ring fence their industry and let the shit refs drag them all down to a mediocre level.
Even with the get out of jail free card of VAR, they still can't drag themselves out of abject ineptitude and boys club back slapping.
 
burning blue soul said:
It's a funny old thing how referee "rule speak" is used to flip-flop from one point of view into one ruling, to a totally counter-intuitive opposing view on the next. Just to support the decision made by the referee.

The classic case in example is Erling being DOGSO'd by an over-flappy goalkeeper.

Let's ignore the player. He's a red herring here thrown by the pigmol. Concentrate on the ball. That's the star of the show.
So, was the ball heading towards the CP goal. Here is where the interpretation fairies kick down the football rules door and make fairy dust up as they go along.
Generally, a ball played from one end of the park to the other is heading towards the opponents goal.
The balls' intended direction is away from City's goal. A player chasing that ball is heading away from his own goal. Therefore he is heading towards the opponents goal. As long as the momentum of play remains towards the opponents goal, the pattern of play is towards that goal. If the ball is then played in the opposite direction that phase of attack becomes void.

Rules in football are particularly expressed to be ambiguous to help defend erratic interpretations by referees. To be fair, they are human and can make mistakes in the moment, but the video assistants have no excuse. In this case there was a conscious attempt to not ruin the spectacle at the expense of the rules. But, it's OK, cos it's all subjective, and bad decisions can always be explained away in the fog of fairy dust.

A winger with the ball is generally heading towards the opponents goal as that is his intended destination. Even though he is hugging a touchline. If this winger is one-on-one with the full back, running down the line, is he heading towards goal, or not? If the last man full back hauls him down, even though at that point the player is still hugging the touchline, is that a DOGSO?
Let's get interpreting, shall we?

Is a player running in the general direction of the penalty area heading towards goal? Penalty area is big and the goal is wide. Just so much interpretation to play with here.

Generally, referees are shit because the rules they live by are so loose that there is never a wrong answer. They set themselves up to officiate in a way they interpret, not what the rules are.
If refs live by interpretation without challenge, they become reliant on this technique and lose their sharpness as officiators.
Referees are their own worst enemy. So fearful of being exposed, they ring fence their industry and let the shit refs drag them all down to a mediocre level.
Even with the get out of jail free card of VAR, they still can't drag themselves out of abject ineptitude and boys club back slapping.
Click to expand...
Well said. Not sure you can compare the Erling situation to a winger on the touch line other than in very broad terms but it is clear that Erling is chafing the ball towards the goal and was about to poke it past the goalie. He was not heading towards the corner flag.
The ball was heading that way because the goalie slapped it there.
I can’t understand why The Beautiful Game cannot see this
 
halfcenturyup said:
No deal, obviously. Fair enough.

As always, I will agree with you when you are imho right, and disagree with you when imho you talk bollocks. Like you did at the start of all this with no red card because the handball was marginal and no penalty because the defender got a slight touch on the ball.

Anyway, you be you. Your reputation, insofar as it was, on here has taken a hammering in the last ten days.
Click to expand...
Your deal is asking me to admit that I was "wrong" about accidental handball, as you say, and "about the sanction being dependent on if it was deliberate or not".

What you fail to realize is that I was merely giving my personal take on the situation and what should go into the decision. Similarly to how you decided that which way Haaland was moving or if he had control wasn't as important as other factors in determining whether or not it was a goal scoring opportunity, I objected to the criteria that was being used to make that assessment.

I expressed my discontent at the contradictory language in the laws, how they consider whether an infraction was deliberate inside the box but not outside. I thought that is illogical and I expressed that. I stated that all infractions should be judged in a similar manner regardless of if they are inside or outside of the box. I don't see how this is an unreasonable position that should cause anyone to get bent out of shape over.

I did acknowledge your point about how despite these contradictions, it does indicate that any DOGSO outside the box should be an automatic red card. While I disagree with this, I did acknowledge that it is written in this way. And at that point after making my position on this well known, I tried to move on to the more relevant part of the decision that is laid out in the laws about what went into determining an "obvious" denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

And in doing so, partly due to your point about discussing the law as it's written rather than debating over if they make sense, I tried to separate my personal view of the matter and tried to understand why they arrived at that decision. And through that discussion you did not appear to accept my very well rooted appreciation that it was arguably as not rising to the level of an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity.

I am very willing to do a deal with you, I'm happy to admit that while I happen to disagree with the inconsistencies and subjectivity to some of the wording in the laws, and believe that whether or not an infraction is deliberate or not is crucial to determining carding, that I also at the same time have taken steps to understand the laws as they are written in order to better understand how they arrived at their decision.

I would like to make amends with you and return to being friends and allies. And even those 3 chaps who are more upset at me, I would like to do anything I can to repair my reputation if that has been harmed. As I said before, I am not here to win a popularity contest but at the same time I am not trying to upset anyone either. I am sorry if any of my posts had that affect on anyone.

To cheeky, river and blue by birth, I would ask you to reconsider your view and understand that this place has been very beneficial to me, to have an outlet amongst blues to be able to express my view on such important matters and that none of it has in any way been an attempt to rile anyone up as I have been accused of. I am passionate about the beautiful game and I have become hugely frustrated by the state of football largely as a result of VAR and that is why I have taken the time to comment on these incidents. I hope we can indeed mend fences and move forward in a productive and friendly manner.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
Your deal is asking me to admit that I was "wrong" about accidental handball, as you say, and "about the sanction being dependent on if it was deliberate or not".

What you fail to realize is that I was merely giving my personal take on the situation and what should go into the decision. Similarly to how you decided that which way Haaland was moving or if he had control wasn't as important as other factors in determining whether or not it was a goal scoring opportunity, I objected to the criteria that was being used to make that assessment.

I expressed my discontent at the contradictory language in the laws, how they consider whether an infraction was deliberate inside the box but not outside. I thought that is illogical and I expressed that. I stated that all infractions should be judged in a similar manner regardless of if they are inside or outside of the box. I don't see how this is an unreasonable position that should cause anyone to get bent out of shape over.

I did acknowledge your point about how despite these contradictions, it does indicate that any DOGSO outside the box should be an automatic red card. While I disagree with this, I did acknowledge that it is written in this way. And at that point after making my position on this well known, I tried to move on to the more relevant part of the decision that is laid out in the laws about what went into determining an "obvious" denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

And in doing so, partly due to your point about discussing the law as it's written rather than debating over if they make sense, I tried to separate my personal view of the matter and tried to understand why they arrived at that decision. And through that discussion you did not appear to accept my very well rooted appreciation that it was arguably as not rising to the level of an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity.

I am very willing to do a deal with you, I'm happy to admit that while I happen to disagree with the inconsistencies and subjectivity to some of the wording in the laws, and believe that whether or not an infraction is deliberate or not is crucial to determining carding, that I also at the same time have taken steps to understand the laws as they are written in order to better understand how they arrived at their decision.

I would like to make amends with you and return to being friends and allies. And even those 3 chaps who are more upset at me, I would like to do anything I can to repair my reputation if that has been harmed. As I said before, I am not here to win a popularity contest but at the same time I am not trying to upset anyone either. I am sorry if any of my posts had that affect on anyone.

To cheeky, river and blue by birth, I would ask you to reconsider your view and understand that this place has been very beneficial to me, to have an outlet amongst blues to be able to express my view on such important matters and that none of it has in any way been an attempt to rile anyone up as I have been accused of. I am passionate about the beautiful game and I have become hugely frustrated by the state of football largely as a result of VAR and that is why I have taken the time to comment on these incidents. I hope we can indeed mend fences and move forward in a productive and friendly manner.
Click to expand...

So you admit you were wrong then?

(Sorry everyone, I couldn't resist).
 
Stiff Little Wingers said:
Well said. Not sure you can compare the Erling situation to a winger on the touch line other than in very broad terms but it is clear that Erling is chafing the ball towards the goal and was about to poke it past the goalie. He was not heading towards the corner flag.
The ball was heading that way because the goalie slapped it there.
I can’t understand why The Beautiful Game cannot see this
Click to expand...
My friend, please take another look at the situation and look at the direction Erling is moving in just prior to the touch. I have looked at it every which way and it is very apparent that he is moving diagonally in the direction of the sideline / corner flag area. Even halfcentury agreed he was "slightly" moving away from goal. That is all I have ever said. That he wasn't moving towards the goal but "somewhat" away from it lets say. Not completely away but "away enough" lets say so that he wouldn't be going towards it. And that is apparently what largely led to the decision because they need it to be not just possible or even probable but "obviously" going towards goal. In my mind however that is not as important as whether or not the handball was deliberate, not deliberate in the sense of the swatting motion itself but in terms of where he was on the border of which is allowed. But I do get that this would be presumably not of relevance to the decision-makers. However I would like to hear the VAR audio to see if that was a consideration as I personally think it should be and may well have been. But we'd never know now would we until we hear the audio and get further clarification from the rule makers.

I would advise IFAB to in this offseason amend the rules to treat incidents outside the box the same way as they do inside the box, at least in terms of carding. With having the choice to assign either a yellow card or a red card. That way such an basic error would be allowed to be corrected without needing to rise to the level of a sending off which in my view would be quite harsh for such an incident.
 
halfcenturyup said:
So you admit you were wrong then?

(Sorry everyone, I couldn't resist).
Click to expand...
Wrong about what? I still consider it an "obvious" non-deliberate handball, in terms of the foul itself being on the border. I would be compromising my integrity if I were to admit to being wrong about that. I did acknowledge that presumably the laws are worded in such a way to deny such a consideration due to being outside the box which has been shown to be hugely problematic in this case. I can only advise them for a rethink in that respect to allow consideration of either a yellow card or a red card, or even no card at all in that situation, consistent with how such infractions are judged in the box while also allowing the basic error for a free kick to be given.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
What timing. And there he is!!


You pulled rank on me. But really on all of us. After all I'm just another supporter. You're the supposed expert. And if you're such a rules expert, then care to explain why they didn't give Henderson a red card? This should be fun.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point. I cannot understand why a red wasn't issued. There only appears to be you who doesn't get it.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
Wrong about what? I still consider it an "obvious" non-deliberate handball, in terms of the foul itself being on the border. I would be compromising my integrity if I were to admit to being wrong about that. I did acknowledge that presumably the laws are worded in such a way to deny such a consideration due to being outside the box which has been shown to be hugely problematic in this case. I can only advise them for a rethink in that respect to allow consideration of either a yellow card or a red card, or even no card at all in that situation, consistent with how such infractions are judged in the box while also allowing the basic error for a free kick to be given.
Click to expand...

It was a joke. You really are very American, aren't you?
 
richardtheref said:
That's the whole point. I cannot understand why a red wasn't issued. There only appears to be you who doesn't get it.
Click to expand...
I was trying to help you and others understand why, don't you see? It was because of the direction Haaland was moving, and his lack of control. They have a high bar for what they need to see in order to determine that an "obvious" DOSGO has occurred. I thought you were the expert and would know this.
 
halfcenturyup said:
It was a joke. You really are very American, aren't you?
Click to expand...
Difficult to spot, perhaps, and it isn't about being American or not. I will have you know that I am very British but I do have some American influence I would say. For example my knowledge of sporting history is not limited to British sport, but also to American sport and even some Asian sport. Football is my passion though and that is where my primary focus is.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
You're like the Stockton Rush of the VAR thread.
Click to expand...
He's like my wife - always has to have the last word.

He's said again here that Haaland didn't even have control of the ball. How many times has he been told that this doesn't matter. I'm convinced he's just trolling.

He laughably said he was talking common sense. When literally everybody else holds the polar opposite view to you, it is clear that they hold the common opinion, whilst his minority opinion should only be described as uncommon sense, or maybe non sense.
 
burning blue soul said:
It's a funny old thing how referee "rule speak" is used to flip-flop from one point of view into one ruling, to a totally counter-intuitive opposing view on the next. Just to support the decision made by the referee.

The classic case in example is Erling being DOGSO'd by an over-flappy goalkeeper.

Let's ignore the player. He's a red herring here thrown by the pigmol. Concentrate on the ball. That's the star of the show.
So, was the ball heading towards the CP goal. Here is where the interpretation fairies kick down the football rules door and make fairy dust up as they go along.
Generally, a ball played from one end of the park to the other is heading towards the opponents goal.
The balls' intended direction is away from City's goal. A player chasing that ball is heading away from his own goal. Therefore he is heading towards the opponents goal. As long as the momentum of play remains towards the opponents goal, the pattern of play is towards that goal. If the ball is then played in the opposite direction that phase of attack becomes void.

Rules in football are particularly expressed to be ambiguous to help defend erratic interpretations by referees. To be fair, they are human and can make mistakes in the moment, but the video assistants have no excuse. In this case there was a conscious attempt to not ruin the spectacle at the expense of the rules. But, it's OK, cos it's all subjective, and bad decisions can always be explained away in the fog of fairy dust.

A winger with the ball is generally heading towards the opponents goal as that is his intended destination. Even though he is hugging a touchline. If this winger is one-on-one with the full back, running down the line, is he heading towards goal, or not? If the last man full back hauls him down, even though at that point the player is still hugging the touchline, is that a DOGSO?
Let's get interpreting, shall we?

Is a player running in the general direction of the penalty area heading towards goal? Penalty area is big and the goal is wide. Just so much interpretation to play with here.

Generally, referees are shit because the rules they live by are so loose that there is never a wrong answer. They set themselves up to officiate in a way they interpret, not what the rules are.
If refs live by interpretation without challenge, they become reliant on this technique and lose their sharpness as officiators.
Referees are their own worst enemy. So fearful of being exposed, they ring fence their industry and let the shit refs drag them all down to a mediocre level.
Even with the get out of jail free card of VAR, they still can't drag themselves out of abject ineptitude and boys club back slapping.
Click to expand...
You've only got to look at the City/Palace incident and compare it to the utd/Villa one, everything they claimed was not a DOGSO for City was emphasised in the utd decision except Hojlund was going even wider & further away from goal, so in reality the utd decision was a bigger stretch of the interpretation of the LOTG than the Haaland one.
 
Paladin said:
He's like my wife - always has to have the last word.

He's said again here that Haaland didn't even have control of the ball. How many times has he been told that this doesn't matter. I'm convinced he's just trolling.
Click to expand...
He didn't have control and it does matter. You should read the LOTG. But we've been over this before haven't we.

Paladin said:
He laughably said he was talking common sense. When literally everybody else holds the polar opposite view to you, it is clear that they hold the common opinion, whilst his minority opinion should only be described as uncommon sense, or maybe non sense.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's an accurate assessment. Yes a number of posters have disagreed but that is only a tiny % of the overall amount of posters here.
 
Gazza said:
You've only got to look at the City/Palace incident and compare it to the utd/Villa one, everything they claimed was not a DOGSO for City was emphasised in the utd decision except Hojlund was going even wider & further away from goal, so in reality the utd decision was a bigger stretch of the interpretation of the LOTG than the Haaland one.
Click to expand...
Very true, however as I pointed out, that wasn't the only difference or consideration. It was a violent collision in the Villa incident and although I can sympathize with the Villa keeper to an extent, for where he was due to the backpass, I am also not convinced that he didn't run into the United player more than the United player ran into him. Yes the United player put it wide, wider than Haaland was going in indeed. But there was no collision in the case of Henderson, it was merely a handball on the border and he did well to get away from Haaland. And of course the ref saw it straight away in the Villa incident. There is a lot that goes into these decisions it is not as cut and dry as it would seem.
 
"Uncommon sense" that is an interesting one. Perhaps there is an element to that as well. Still I believe that it is really common sense but that VAR has largely taken that away from us.
 
halfcenturyup said:
It doesn't say that at all. General direction of the play (towards the offender's goal)" doesn't equate to "running directly towards the goal". Not in any sense.

You really have no feel at all for the game.
Click to expand...
Definition: The "overall direction of movement" refers to the general direction in which an object or system is moving, regardless of any minor deviations or fluctuations in its path. It's about the predominant direction of its journey.

It's really not worth engaging with him any more.
 
Paladin said:
Definition: The "overall direction of movement" refers to the general direction in which an object or system is moving, regardless of any minor deviations or fluctuations in its path. It's about the predominant direction of its journey.

It's really not worth engaging with him any more.
Click to expand...
You should not hang me out to dry like that. I am very reasonable if you can show a willingness to come to terms.
 
Stiff Little Wingers said:
Well said. Not sure you can compare the Erling situation to a winger on the touch line other than in very broad terms but it is clear that Erling is chafing the ball towards the goal and was about to poke it past the goalie. He was not heading towards the corner flag.
The ball was heading that way because the goalie slapped it there.
I can’t understand why The Beautiful Game cannot see this
Click to expand...
I was not attempting to compare Erling and the winger in the same situation, per se. I was demonstrating how interpretation has such a broad reach, that virtually any decision can be supported or rejected on interpretation alone.
The rules are not worth a wank without stringent enforcement and clarification.

Another example is josstling or pulling in the penalty area. How often do we hear "that would be a free kick anywhere else on the park"?
But in the box it is accepted as normal. Why are rules interpreted differently for different areas of the pitch?
That was rhetorical. I'll answer.
1. The spectacle. Punters like combat.
2. It's what we are used to. We don't fight against normal.
3. Referees apply rules across the pitch dependant on context and controversy.
4. Close proximity of players increases the likelihood of collisions and contact.
5. The rules must be presented so the referee is never in doubt.
6. Interpretation and intent.

Rules are manipulated all the time. It is hidden in plain sight.

And don't get started on goalkeepers wasting time compared to outfield players doing the same thing.
You know why refs don't go heavy on keepers? (Rhetorical, again) It's because the ref can take a bit of time to set himself in position and assess the field of play. A mini time-out for the ref. I'm not against that, but tell it like it is. We can handle the truth.
 
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