Var debate 2019/20

[manchester blue]

I said in the pub, and I stick by it now, that if United’s goal had been disallowed by var I would have given up watching football.

Atkinson was 10 yards away from the incident with Origi, and had an uninterrupted view, so regardless of whether it was a foul or not I have no understanding of why that decision went to var to look at? Complete and utter nonsense.

Literally said the same had Mané’s goal had stood. That it didn’t restored a little faith in a system that could have helped them yet again.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Mane's disallowed goal is a textbook example of a correctly disallowed goal under the new laws. I

Jiminez goal for Wolves disallowed by VAR was very similar to Mane's. The main difference was that the ref then gave the Wolves player a yellow card for an accidental handball!!!

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Jiminez goal for Wolves disallowed by VAR was very similar to Mane's. The main difference was that the ref then gave the Wolves player a yellow card for an accidental handball!!!

The linesman disallowed the Raul goal, in fact he flagged for handball before the ball hit the net.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I think cricket is not a good example as a comparison with football. In cricket, the technology can detect the actual outcome of the event that is being judged. It can tell if the ball was going to hit the stumps or miss. It can freeze the frame at the point the ball hits the wicket. It shows the bat or foot in relation to the crease. It detects the slightest touch of the ball on the bat etc. Football decisions remain subjective, apart from goal line technology, which is flawless.

Disagree. There's lots of subjectivity in cricket decisions for example in judging whether the ball was going to miss the stumps or not in an LBW decusion.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Disagree. There's lots of subjectivity in cricket decisions for example in judging whether the ball was going to miss the stumps or not in an LBW decusion.

Yes that’s why they have the Umpire’s Call rule.

 

[cleavers]

I saw Klopp ranting like a deranged idiot after the handball goal had been ruled out, why ?

He was still ranting about the "foul" (origi diving twat "foul") apparantly, not the handball which he agreed with.

 

[cleavers]

it's not good for the product to have the rags in 14th position

No much better in 13th ;-)

 

[cleavers]

Your still missing the point, the REF awarded both goals, so therefore var overturned his decision on the Liverpool goal but backed him on the United goal so var went against Liverpool

You seem to badly missing the point that both var decisions were correct, origi was "touched" then dived, like a diving c**t, the ref played on because he thought he was a diving c**t, var didn't over rule because it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake (ref and var decided he was probably a diving c**t - moral here don't be a diving c**t).

On the other, under current rules (which I don't necessarily agree with), mane handled it accidentally, but as a result "controlled" it, and then scored, and it was disallowed according to current ref guidance, just as we (and others) have had disallowed, so a bit of consistency for a change.

 

[cleavers]

If Origi hadn’t dived he could have won the ball back in a tackle of McTominay

...and gone on to score or setup a scoring opportunity, diving c**t.

 

[the talisman]

So VAR gets it right between the 2 history clubs and it somehow means that it isn’t an agenda against City after all?
Not for me, if Origi goes down like that against City it’s probably given as a foul. And I’m not sure that Mané goal would be disallowed against us either.
Nope, conspiracy theory alive and well here thank you.