Var debate 2019/20

I agree and I think that's why most people are so unhappy with VAR, it was sold to us as a tool to stop referee mistakes (or corruption or bias depending on what you believe) from affecting the outcome of games but it hasn't worked that way so far.
I appreciate that you have a different view (that may change after you've played Liverpool though!) and in some ways I agree with you about VAR, it could have been a great tool to level the playing field for all teams, I'd have loved to have seen how well West Ham could do if they weren't on the end of so many bad decisions but that isn't how VAR is being used in this country.
All that seems to have happened is that they've added a new level of messing about with offsides which isn't particularly accurate and broken the handball rules. Both of these changes can be easily manipulated if desired to get a particular outcome if you go down the conspiracy route and both changes have moved the laws away from what they were originally intended to do (stop players from 'goal hanging' and deliberately handling the ball). Both changes in the law have made the game infinitely less enjoyable for the fans and arguably unfair to the players (see West Ham's recent disallowed goal for example)
VAR has been an utter shambles and has led to me watching hardly any games this year and I gave my season card away before Christmas because of it and that was mainly down to three games this season.
The first game was the Spurs one, our second game of the season. We not only had a winning goal chalked off using this new Premier League handball definition but were denied one of the most stonewall penalties I've seen for a long time. None of these decisions were anything particularly out of the ordinary for the referee that day (Michael Oliver, who we'll be revisiting later) as he's generally a coward and is afraid of giving game changing decisions but what did it for me about these decisions is the way they were explained away afterwards. We were told that Rodri dived to try and earn a penalty when he was dragged to the ground by the neck which is a preposterous explanation and that the winning goal was rightly ruled out due to handball. These explanations came from the head of VAR and were so at odds to the laws of the game it beggars belief, the handball decision was actually against IFABs Laws of the Game but now that decision has been made the rest of the league has had to deal with this 'interpretation' too. It also showed that the VAR team were willing to forensically dissect a goal to see if it could be disallowed instead of looking at it and using common sense to decide if it is legitimate or not. They could have perhaps taken into account that Rodri was pushed in the back which caused the ball to possibly brush his arm but then that's not something written in black and white in the VAR rulebook so it was ignored by Stockley Park.
The second game was the Liverpool one (surprise, surprise!). That was a ridiculously one sided refereeing performance but again it's nothing particularly unexpected when playing Liverpool at Anfield, especially with the particular referee involved (Michael Oliver, I told you we'd be revisiting this clown!). In a game that had a blatant handball ignored, the world's quickest marginal offside review, ignored penalty box pushes and the usual Liverpool diving, kicking and elbowing antics we were told after the game that all decisions were reviewed by VAR and were found to be correct! This is what pushed me over the edge, I expect to be on the poor end of decisions when playing Liverpool but to then be told that after the game (by the head of VAR no less!) was just a joke. Again, like the Spurs game, it wasn't the actual decisions that ruined the game it was that we were told that this technology (that has done nothing but disrupt games and stop people from celebrating goals) got everything right when it clearly didn't. If the people running it aren't willing to admit that they have made mistakes then how are they going to learn and improve the system? Or are they just lying with these explanations to cover their own backs? These statements don't help to play down the wild conspiracy theories especially when they contradict themselves a week later when a different team is playing.
The last game that killed off any interest in top level football was our game against Wolves. The first incident was when we were awarded a penalty when Mahrez had his foot stood on. That was a penalty but if he hadn't thrown himself over then it wouldn't have been awarded, this is where VAR should be used, the operator should have seen the ball ball go out of play and when the referee gave a goal kick they should have said in his ear 'it looks like the players foot was stood on so you my want to review this on the monitor' this didn't happen and so players are forced to drop to the floor to get a decision. Later on in the game Mendy was fouled by a Wolves player who then got the ball and created their equalising goal. Ignoring the rights or wrongs of Mendy's play in this instance the fact is that this was a foul but because he didn't flop to the floor the referee does nothing and VAR stays silent. You've asserted many times that VAR means that players aren't diving as much this season (although Leicester fans my disagree after having their points given to Liverpool after a blatant dive) I don't think it has, players now are just becoming better at initiating contact and then going down so diving has actually increased due to VAR. This is why I'm now uninterested in football, the game his become too 'European' for me with the teams that are the best at 'gamesmanship' getting all the advantages and I've got no time for football played that way.
In short, I don't think there is a vast conspiracy against City I just think the way VAR is set up rewards cheating rather than fair play and this isn't helped by referees being too scared to referee all teams to the same standards for whatever reason you want to believe (pressure from PGMOL, the Premier League, the press, a particularly militant and vocal fan base, betting syndicates, inherent bias, whatever).

Excellent post yet again from you.

feel absolutely the same.
 
I'm sorry, but that is so hypocritical (bolded bits). That is what happened to Mane vs Leicester, yet Mane's is a clear dive, and Mahrez's isn't? Both of them had their foot stood on.

It is double standards like this that reduce the credibility of City fans' argument.


It is not unusual for a Liverpool fan to be complaining about " double standards " which confirms the hypocrisy in their argument.
 
I agree and I think that's why most people are so unhappy with VAR, it was sold to us as a tool to stop referee mistakes (or corruption or bias depending on what you believe) from affecting the outcome of games but it hasn't worked that way so far.
I appreciate that you have a different view (that may change after you've played Liverpool though!) and in some ways I agree with you about VAR, it could have been a great tool to level the playing field for all teams, I'd have loved to have seen how well West Ham could do if they weren't on the end of so many bad decisions but that isn't how VAR is being used in this country.
All that seems to have happened is that they've added a new level of messing about with offsides which isn't particularly accurate and broken the handball rules. Both of these changes can be easily manipulated if desired to get a particular outcome if you go down the conspiracy route and both changes have moved the laws away from what they were originally intended to do (stop players from 'goal hanging' and deliberately handling the ball). Both changes in the law have made the game infinitely less enjoyable for the fans and arguably unfair to the players (see West Ham's recent disallowed goal for example)
VAR has been an utter shambles and has led to me watching hardly any games this year and I gave my season card away before Christmas because of it and that was mainly down to three games this season.
The first game was the Spurs one, our second game of the season. We not only had a winning goal chalked off using this new Premier League handball definition but were denied one of the most stonewall penalties I've seen for a long time. None of these decisions were anything particularly out of the ordinary for the referee that day (Michael Oliver, who we'll be revisiting later) as he's generally a coward and is afraid of giving game changing decisions but what did it for me about these decisions is the way they were explained away afterwards. We were told that Rodri dived to try and earn a penalty when he was dragged to the ground by the neck which is a preposterous explanation and that the winning goal was rightly ruled out due to handball. These explanations came from the head of VAR and were so at odds to the laws of the game it beggars belief, the handball decision was actually against IFABs Laws of the Game but now that decision has been made the rest of the league has had to deal with this 'interpretation' too. It also showed that the VAR team were willing to forensically dissect a goal to see if it could be disallowed instead of looking at it and using common sense to decide if it is legitimate or not. They could have perhaps taken into account that Rodri was pushed in the back which caused the ball to possibly brush his arm but then that's not something written in black and white in the VAR rulebook so it was ignored by Stockley Park.
The second game was the Liverpool one (surprise, surprise!). That was a ridiculously one sided refereeing performance but again it's nothing particularly unexpected when playing Liverpool at Anfield, especially with the particular referee involved (Michael Oliver, I told you we'd be revisiting this clown!). In a game that had a blatant handball ignored, the world's quickest marginal offside review, ignored penalty box pushes and the usual Liverpool diving, kicking and elbowing antics we were told after the game that all decisions were reviewed by VAR and were found to be correct! This is what pushed me over the edge, I expect to be on the poor end of decisions when playing Liverpool but to then be told that after the game (by the head of VAR no less!) was just a joke. Again, like the Spurs game, it wasn't the actual decisions that ruined the game it was that we were told that this technology (that has done nothing but disrupt games and stop people from celebrating goals) got everything right when it clearly didn't. If the people running it aren't willing to admit that they have made mistakes then how are they going to learn and improve the system? Or are they just lying with these explanations to cover their own backs? These statements don't help to play down the wild conspiracy theories especially when they contradict themselves a week later when a different team is playing.
The last game that killed off any interest in top level football was our game against Wolves. The first incident was when we were awarded a penalty when Mahrez had his foot stood on. That was a penalty but if he hadn't thrown himself over then it wouldn't have been awarded, this is where VAR should be used, the operator should have seen the ball ball go out of play and when the referee gave a goal kick they should have said in his ear 'it looks like the players foot was stood on so you my want to review this on the monitor' this didn't happen and so players are forced to drop to the floor to get a decision. Later on in the game Mendy was fouled by a Wolves player who then got the ball and created their equalising goal. Ignoring the rights or wrongs of Mendy's play in this instance the fact is that this was a foul but because he didn't flop to the floor the referee does nothing and VAR stays silent. You've asserted many times that VAR means that players aren't diving as much this season (although Leicester fans my disagree after having their points given to Liverpool after a blatant dive) I don't think it has, players now are just becoming better at initiating contact and then going down so diving has actually increased due to VAR. This is why I'm now uninterested in football, the game his become too 'European' for me with the teams that are the best at 'gamesmanship' getting all the advantages and I've got no time for football played that way.
In short, I don't think there is a vast conspiracy against City I just think the way VAR is set up rewards cheating rather than fair play and this isn't helped by referees being too scared to referee all teams to the same standards for whatever reason you want to believe (pressure from PGMOL, the Premier League, the press, a particularly militant and vocal fan base, betting syndicates, inherent bias, whatever).


Good post bud and respectful - couple points, hate to agree with Copper .. that was a foul on Mahrez and correct to award a penalty but had this been for another team then many would shout corruption as how easy he went down.

secondly, agree with the official laws for handball and offside - i get they made them for simplicity but it's made it worse and more fans angry, they will correct this for next season - VAR is new, it has to be trial and error and laws of the game has always changed - if they changed the laws on accidental handballs and adjusted the offside law so that an armpit doesn't count as offside, then VAR would be far less controversial
 
I'm sorry, but that is so hypocritical (bolded bit). That is what happened to Mane vs Leicester, yet Mane's is a clear dive, and Mahrez's isn't? Both of them had their foot stood on.

It is double standards like this that reduce the credibility of City fans' argument.
I thought Mane had his knee touched from behind, took a couple of steps then crumpled to the floor? I thought it was at least 'soft' at the time as it didnt impede his forward movement and that set the precedent for the rest of the season, hence Mahrez going over. I only say it was a clear penalty as earlier in the season we had a penalty disallowed against Brighton when Silva had his foot stood on by a defender at the side of him while running through the box (not turning with a defender behind him like Mane) and the head of VAR said this was one of four mistakes that VAR got wrong at the start of the season. I think Mahrez dived here too btw, the stamp wasn't enough to make him go over but as the pundits are fond of saying to explain away your players behaviour over the last decade 'he's felt contact so he's entitled to go down'.
 
Good post bud and respectful - couple points, hate to agree with Copper .. that was a foul on Mahrez and correct to award a penalty but had this been for another team then many would shout corruption as how easy he went down.

secondly, agree with the official laws for handball and offside - i get they made them for simplicity but it's made it worse and more fans angry, they will correct this for next season - VAR is new, it has to be trial and error and laws of the game has always changed - if they changed the laws on accidental handballs and adjusted the offside law so that an armpit doesn't count as offside, then VAR would be far less controversial

There certainly are opinions coloured with allegiance, a good comparison would be Mahrez (foot stood on, VAR gives pen) and Silva earlier in the season (foot stood on, VAR doesn't give penalty).

I'd suggest that the VAR interpretation of offside is the problem, not the offside law. The problem is the widespread belief that VAR can't be absolutely certain due to framerate, and maybe angle. I'd make VAR have a margin of error on offside (something like "within a foot is ok"), although that could be fudged as well.
 
I'm sorry, but that is so hypocritical (bolded bits). That is what happened to Mane vs Leicester, yet Mane's is a clear dive, and Mahrez's isn't? Both of them had their foot stood on.

It is double standards like this that reduce the credibility of City fans' argument.

I'm sorry, but that is just nonsense. Mane vs Leicester had nothing to do with his feet. He didn't have his foot stood on. He had a knee placed next to his calf. Watch the replay....



...he felt contact and theatrically threw his arms up and "bought one"
 
I thought Mane had his knee touched from behind, took a couple of steps then crumpled to the floor? I thought it was at least 'soft' at the time as it didnt impede his forward movement and that set the precedent for the rest of the season, hence Mahrez going over. I only say it was a clear penalty as earlier in the season we had a penalty disallowed against Brighton when Silva had his foot stood on by a defender at the side of him while running through the box (not turning with a defender behind him like Mane) and the head of VAR said this was one of four mistakes that VAR got wrong at the start of the season. I think Mahrez dived here too btw, the stamp wasn't enough to make him go over but as the pundits are fond of saying to explain away your players behaviour over the last decade 'he's felt contact so he's entitled to go down'.

Mane's foot was definitely stood on, you can see it in this image (ignore the silly red circle)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cDimfG0HHAo/maxresdefault.jpg

People were focusing on the kick to the back of the leg (like the red circle is pointing to), and missed the fact that his foot actually got stood on, which you can clearly see in the image.

Mane, like Mahrez, felt this contact and went down. I know you said you feel that both are technically dives, and technically, you are right, but it is a grey area, because unless you go down, the chances are you won't get it. In a competitive sport, where every point matters, there is no wonder that the majority of players go down once they feel they've been fouled in the box. Mane does it, Salah does it, Mahrez and Sterling do it, Rashford does it, virtually all forwards do it, to be honest. Kane is an expert at it. Having said that, I have to give credit to Aguero for being one of the only players who seems to never do it from what I can remember.

The Silva one was a joke and was definitely a penalty as well.
 
I'm sorry, but that is just nonsense. Mane vs Leicester had nothing to do with his feet. He didn't have his foot stood on. He had a knee placed next to his calf. Watch the replay....



...he felt contact and theatrically threw his arms up and "bought one"


I mean, you can literally see his foot being stood on in that video? I am not sure what I am supposed to say? It's quite clear in the video, lol... you can see Albrighton pull it away as soon as he's realised he's done it too.

Edit: I really don't understand how anyone can watch this video and say his foot wasn't stood on. It's pretty frustrating trying to have a debate with people who are purposely turning a blind eye to what is very easy to see.
 
An obvious bad decision that Liverpool have benefitted from this season (excluding the City match for simplicity) was van Dijk's charge in the back of Calvert-Lewin (I think), in the derby. That looked to be a clear foul, but wasn't given.

My recollection (which may be faulty) was it was inside the area (certainly close), and there was no attempt to play the ball which makes it a red card opportunity.
 
I'm sorry, but that is just nonsense. Mane vs Leicester had nothing to do with his feet. He didn't have his foot stood on. He had a knee placed next to his calf. Watch the replay....



...he felt contact and theatrically threw his arms up and "bought one"

That's how I remembered it, he felt a little contact from behind took a step then threw himself over. Can't see his foot being stood on there at all, just the normal jostling on the box that we used to get week in week out.
 
An obvious bad decision that Liverpool have benefitted from this season (excluding the City match for simplicity) was van Dijk's charge in the back of Calvert-Lewin (I think), in the derby. That looked to be a clear foul, but wasn't given.

My recollection (which may be faulty) was it was inside the area (certainly close), and there was no attempt to play the ball which makes it a red card opportunity.

I agree with this, I was very very surprised nothing was given for this one. That's definitely a decision that we benefited from. I feel Robertson could easily be sent off in that game as well, if I am remembering correctly.
 
I mean, you can literally see his foot being stood on in that video? I am not sure what I am supposed to say? It's quite clear in the video, lol... you can see Albrighton pull it away as soon as he's realised he's done it too.

Edit: I really don't understand how anyone can watch this video and say his foot wasn't stood on. It's pretty frustrating trying to have a debate with people who are purposely turning a blind eye to what is very easy to see.
Just looks like his foot is next to Mane's in that video, have you got another angle somewhere?
 
An obvious bad decision that Liverpool have benefitted from this season (excluding the City match for simplicity) was van Dijk's charge in the back of Calvert-Lewin (I think), in the derby. That looked to be a clear foul, but wasn't given.

My recollection (which may be faulty) was it was inside the area (certainly close), and there was no attempt to play the ball which makes it a red card opportunity.
That was the same in their game against Palace, after Palace had a goal disallowed for a Lovren dive Van Dyjk then went through the back of the Palace player and bundled the ball into the net.
 
That was the same in their game against Palace, after Palace had a goal disallowed for a Lovren dive Van Dyjk then went through the back of the Palace player and bundled the ball into the net.

Why is it always a dive when it is a Liverpool player? It's pretty clear that Lovren was pushed. I'm finding that it's impossible to have rational debates in this thread, so I'm out, lol.
 
I mean, you can literally see his foot being stood on in that video? I am not sure what I am supposed to say? It's quite clear in the video, lol... you can see Albrighton pull it away as soon as he's realised he's done it too.

Edit: I really don't understand how anyone can watch this video and say his foot wasn't stood on. It's pretty frustrating trying to have a debate with people who are purposely turning a blind eye to what is very easy to see.
WOW! Just errrrrrr...... WOW!

Your frustration isn't even close to what I'm feeling. I hadn't realised that the line from "live forever" was written about the viewpoint/perspective of Livarpool fans.

"CLEARLY" you say?

Just.... WOW!

Here endeth the dscussion
 
You can see quite clearly in the thumbnail that isn't the case.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cDimfG0HHAo/maxresdefault.jpg
I'm not too sure there, it looks like you can still see all of Mane's boot and the slight bit of contact is in the back of his shin. He may have had his foot stood on slightly but he then carried on before throwing himself over which is what my argument is, he could be should have carried on as he still had control of the ball but his first option is to go over unnecessarily. That was possibly a penalty and possibly a dive but VAR gives it as the player fell over, he didn't fall over because of the contact he fell over because he decided to, the same with Mahrez. That's where VAR isn't working, it's making sure that players have to go over to get a decision but if you play on, like Silva did then you won't get it. This disproportionately rewards teams who have made diving part of their playing style (like Liverpool have under your last two managers).
 
Why is it always a dive when it is a Liverpool player? It's pretty clear that Lovren was pushed. I'm finding that it's impossible to have rational debates in this thread, so I'm out, lol.
Because that kind of minimal contact happens at 99% of corners but only once have I seen a player crumple like that and then have a goal disallowed.
 
I agree with this, I was very very surprised nothing was given for this one. That's definitely a decision that we benefited from. I feel Robertson could easily be sent off in that game as well, if I am remembering correctly.

Yep, inexplicable as to how that's not given by anyone competent.
Robertson's was standing on someone or an elbow, wasn't it? I'd forgotten that, bar a general impression that Robertson's got away with some!

Not everything is VAR, some is just the basic reffing. The lack of transparency is astonishing, and feeds the doubt.
Oliver reffed the Liverpool-City match - it was reported that the club had complained; since then he's only featured for City as VAR vs Utd (when he couldn't see handball by Fred). 10 matches without reffing City, and add the two in the next week. That looks like persona non grata, which must be sanctioned by the ref appointment team - why would that happen if City's complaint had no basis? But Oliver has no sanction against himself. It can't really be both - either there was incompetence and a sanction should come, or he should have reffed City in that time.
 
Why is it always a dive when it is a Liverpool player? It's pretty clear that Lovren was pushed. I'm finding that it's impossible to have rational debates in this thread, so I'm out, lol.
Do you think Van Dyjk fouled the defender in the goal you scored there?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top