VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[TheBeautifulGame]

Im absolutely getting the point You think VAR should work differently I got that in your first garbled ineloquent post that took 20 mins to understand as you have the keyboard equivalent of verbal diarrhea

Your attempts at characterizing my take on the situation in such a way is pointless. This is to discuss VAR incidents and our reaction and interpretation of them, and that's precisely what I'm doing. You are free to do as you wish but if you don't have something constructive to add to it better to move along then to come at my sideways like you are. In the past we've agreed plenty, so I would like to stay friends if we can. Cheers!

 

[richardtheref]

In the split second decision that the keeper made, he saw that the ball was about to be kicked forward, so he didn't have time to wait until he was fully back. Instincts kicked in at that moment and he swatted it out, he may well have realized that he would have been reaching over the line at that point, but he surely made every effort to get back into legal handling territory prior to swatting at it across the line. A clear handball, for sure, and consistent with the language of denying a goal scoring opportunity, there are understandably calls for a red card as well. But the language of preventing a goal scoring opportunity is misleading because preventing a goal scoring opportunity "legally" is allowed which he was on the border of doing. Theres an element that this is somewhat of a novel situation which is where the language that is used to apply to other situation doesn't necessarily apply here, even thought would appear as though it would. Despite what you're saying, which I understand and respect, I would still conclude that it woudl have been harsh to send the keeper off for that. It wasn't a malicious play by the keeper, he didn't cause an injury, he merely swatted it while reaching over the edge. A foul and a free kick? Of course. Perhaps a yellow card would have been more appropriate.

I suggest you read the laws of the game before you post such nonsense.
So you think red cards should only be given for instances where it is malicious. Perhaps Kovacic shouldn't have been sent off last night as it was only a slight pull

 

[Gordyola]

but due to the fact that he was at the edge of the box, his action was not (imho) worthy of a red card

He handled the ball outside the box FACT

YES it isn't worthy of a red card and hence why the punishment is, maximum yellow according to IFAB

He then committed a second offense of DOGSO, this is a red card

The fact that he was close to the end of the box is irrelevant

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

In the split second decision that the keeper made, he saw that the ball was about to be kicked forward, so he didn't have time to wait until he was fully back. Instincts kicked in at that moment and he swatted it out, he may well have realized that he would have been reaching over the line at that point, but he surely made every effort to get back into legal handling territory prior to swatting at it across the line. A clear handball, for sure, and consistent with the language of denying a goal scoring opportunity, there are understandably calls for a red card as well. But the language of preventing a goal scoring opportunity is misleading because preventing a goal scoring opportunity "legally" is allowed which he was on the border of doing. Theres an element that this is somewhat of a novel situation which is where the language that is used to apply to other situation doesn't necessarily apply here, even thought would appear as though it would. Despite what you're saying, which I understand and respect, I would still conclude that it woudl have been harsh to send the keeper off for that. It wasn't a malicious play by the keeper, he didn't cause an injury, he merely swatted it while reaching over the edge. A foul and a free kick? Of course. Perhaps a yellow card would have been more appropriate.

'On the border of' not committing a foul, but actually committing a foul is still committing a foul. Coupled with DGSO it ticks both boxes for it to be a red card.

It's almost like saying a driver shouldn't be sent to prison for causing death by dangerous driving because although they did indeed kill a pedestrian and they were driving dangerously, they nearly didn't hit them so you should just let them off with a fine instead.

 

[Gordyola]

Your attempts at characterizing my take on the situation in such a way is pointless. This is to discuss VAR incidents and our reaction and interpretation of them, and that's precisely what I'm doing. You are free to do as you wish but if you don't have something constructive to add to it better to move along then to come at my sideways like you are. In the past we've agreed plenty, so I would like to stay friends if we can. Cheers!

You told me I wasn't understanding your point I explained I did
No you intend more garbled nonsense about characterizing your take if you think your garbled nonsense is constructive your need to take heed of the replies for others

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

I used to be a teacher. I mainly taught A-level Mathematics, to both children and adults. I eventually chose to give it up to save my mental well-being as it's a very mentally draining job which severely tests your patience; hour after hour, day after day, week after week, year after year, explaining the exact same concepts to the exact same people ad nauseam.

"Why can't sinx + sinx = sin2x ? Why is it 2sinx ? Why aren't they the same? I think my answer is correct. I'm going to argue that my answer is correct. I'm right and my opinion matters. I don't care that the rules say I'm wrong, I have an opinion and I think I'm right and you just don't seem to understand that I'm right and you're wrong. ....etc..etc...etc"

The last few pages of this thread remind me that I made the correct decision.

Absolute madness! :)

 

[Paladin]

When we consider the full length of this discussion, and the way in which Dermy and the crew were discussing it, they were making the argument that this should have been a clear red card for the keeper to hand the ball out of there, completely misinterpreting the fact that he was only just over the edge of the box. It would be one thing if any of the other 10 players handed the ball like that, particularly inside the box, or if the GK was well outside the box and he handed it in such a way, neither of which occurred, and the calculus changes when you consider that the GK is allowed to hand the ball inside the box and on the fringes of the box as it were he could plausibly not be intending on committing a foul while reaching out there on the edge in an effort (failed or not) to close down the attacker and meet him befor ehe can get a shot off which is typical of these kinds of GK running out as the last line of defense against a breakaway scenario, whilst being mindful of trying stay within the parameters of the box and reaching the attacker before exiting the box, which he was attempting to do there. Now he was slightly over, only just, and he couldn't have known that as he was running over to close the space in time.

So for Dermy and company to not taking this into consideration and to be concluding that this should have been a hard red card following a review, well it shows that he has not interpreting the situation clearly and neither are his colleagues who also fail to mention this while arguing for a red card. Dermy states here that the VAR's reasoning in the decision was related to which way the ball deflected in following the handball. But no reflection of how close the keeper was to the edge of the box and how difficult it would have been to do that.

And to my point earlier, about how short of a red card, there would not have been grounds for VAR to intervene at all there. It would only have been to seemingly check for a red card, and the VAR team likely realized that would have been harsh to send the keeper off there. As I stated earlier, this whole view on the matter is very related to what VAR can and can't review as in my view Dermy and they are effectively arguging for it to be a red card simply because that's the only way (according to VAR's own rules) for them to take any action there. They're not even supposed to be able to review such a situation, and the only way they could justify a review at all would seemingly be to check for a red card, which they rightly decided against doing that. But the reason for why it wouldn't have been a red card is seemingly lost on them whilst discussing the correct action. Dermy fails to communicate that VAR is not supposed to be able to do anything other than assign a red card. Since it was outside the box, VAR is not supposed to be allowed to intervene or even through a VAR review decide to issue a foul there since it was not technically in the penalty area. And could not have result n a penalty. The failure for the VAR experts to disclose this in their discussions about this situation is seemingly all out of their own interest to not want to criticize VAR and the way in which it was designed, which is a condemnation of the entire structure of VAR as far as what it is and isn't allowed to review. And those limits were put in place for good reason, because they knew that it would cause a hideous amount of stoppages if such things were allowed to be reviewed.

I know I'm a day late, but I can't let this go without comment. Your thought process here is completely, utterly, absolutely, unadulterated rubbish.

You've built a hypothesis about why it wasn't a red card offence based on ifs, buts and maybes, and ignored what actually happened.

Henderson deliberately handled the ball outside the area. It doesn't matter where he thought he was, or that he was close to the edge of his area, or where his feet were. The fact remains that it was handball. The only question that needs answering is did he deny a goalscoring opportunity? Liverpool fan Gillett, Michael Salisbury from near Liverpool, and former Palace player Cann thought it wasn't. The rest of the footballing community thought it was.

This is the law: "It is an offence if a player deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball".

This is one of the reasons a player can be sent off under the same law (12): "denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence".

This appears to be your interpretation: "It is an offence if a player deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball, unless it is the goalkeeper and he is only just outside his penalty area. The referee should also take into consideration the goalkeeper's true intentions (the referee should ask the goalkeeper if he knew he was outside the area immediately after the event). The referee should also use his knowledge of the principles of mathematical calculus and take into consideration the effects of continuous change".

Unrelated to your drivel, but what exactly is an "obvious goalscoring opportunity"? I would suggest any footballer regardless of ability, with the ball at his feet and with only the goalkeeper to beat would quality. I say any footballer, because this has to be applied across all levels of football, with players of all abilities. One of the best strikers in the world in this situation is definitely a qualifier.

 

[blue by birth]

He did, but due to the fact that he was at the edge of the box, his action was not (imho) worthy of a red card. The GK is allowed to hand the ball within the box. It is reasonable for a keeper to attempt to punch the ball out within the box which he appeared to be attempting to do. If he misjudged his position within the boundary of the box in the attempt at punching it out, that is certainly worthy of a foul but not of a card. My view is that he should not have been carded, but handball should have been called and a free kick given. Unfortunately VAR prevents such a scenario from being correctable.

Then you are definitely wrong..it denied a goal scoring opportunity so was or should have been a red card..no ifs or buts

 

[blue by birth]

We're not talking about whether or not it was a foul lol. We're talking about whether or not it was deserving of a red card! His intent was to get back into the box and hand the ball legally. To suggest otherwise is being disingenuous. I'm a City fan but we got to be objective when discussing decisions.

He was in the box but came out of it to handle the ball..fuck me it's a red card..

 

[blue by birth]

The keeper had no idea where the boundary line was, as his eyes were fixated on the attacker and the ball as they would be. Both feet (well besides one toe on the line) and the rest of his body was within the box.

https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/attachments/handball-jpg.157013/

Yes he of course swatted at it extending the arm beyond the boundary, whilst trying to get back in in time. Because it was a race to get to the ball first. Instincts kicked in there with what was a slightly permature swat before he was fully back into the box, but the intent was certainly to back back in time and hand the ball legally. To conclude that was deserving of a red card is a bit much. I mean I understand the frustration and seeing City wronged there in not being awarded a FK. That I get, but then the VAR nonsense starts kicking in, because it needs to be a red card in order for VAR to correct it, so that becomes the rallying cry. But rather than come at me for having a disagreement over a card debate, we should be more focused on the fact that it was VAR that needed it to be a red card in order for a FK to be given, which we should all agree is complete bollocks!

So if I'm driving my car and have no idea where the pavement is because I'm concentrating on staying at 30 mph and mount pavement killing a few people then I'm innocent because I was intent on staying below 30 mph..

 

[Paladin]

It was looked at for a possible red card, then deemed for it to not be warranted. Without a red card being given, they were unable to correct the decision, because it wasn't in the box and couldn't be given as a pen. They could have theoretically argued that it may have led to a goal scoring opportunity. But that's not specifically part of any of the 4 scenarios in which they are supposed to be allowed to intervene. That's the point.

In my view, the idea that it should have been a red card is hyperbolic. I understand that many City fans are arguing this including yourself and I can respect that, because of how pivotal of an incident it was. I get the frustration and feeling hard done. We can agree to disagree on whether it should have been a red card, I don't see it as a red card because he was on the border of the box. You are trying to argue that it wasn't borderline, that he was clearly beyond the box, and I don't agree with that interpretation but to each his own. Perhaps that's due to looking at it through slow motion and not looking at it in real-time, where it was too close to the edge of the box from the keeper to be sure he was even over the line. I can tell we're not going to agree on the point about the red card, and that's OK. We can agree to disagree about whether or not it was deserving of a red card.

But aside from that, whether you think it should have been a red or not, the point I'm making is that short of a red card, they had no other avenue to correct the situation. As a reminder :

VAR can only intervene in four specific situations where a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ might have occurred. These reviewable incidents are:

Goals/no goals: This includes checking for offsides, encroachment during penalties and whether the ball crossed the line.
Penalty/no penalty: This includes checking if there was contact inside the box, if it was a simulation, or if the wrong foul was given.
Direct red cards (not second yellows): This includes reviewing if the foul was serious enough for a red card, if it was mistaken identity, or if the wrong player was sent off.
Mistaken identity: This is used to check if the referee sent off the wrong player.

None of the other 3 specific situations fit that situation, since it was outside the box. It wasn't a goal/no goal, pen/no pen, or mistaken identity. So according to their own criteria, unless a red was given, they didn't presumably have the ability to correct the error, which as I pointed out only reinforces how poorly designed VAR is.

So I'm in agreement with you that VAR is utter nonsense. You calling my post "utter nonsense" is missing the point, we both agree VAR is utter nonsense on how they operate it, I'm merely explaining to you the nonsensical criteria that they are limited to and how it limits what they can do in a situation like that.

And my other point was that the limitations on what they could do there also seems to be completely lost on Dermy and Company which only reinforces how clueless everyone involved with VAR and the process is.

The law is poorly written in any case. Clear and obvious mean the same thing, so one of these words is superfluous.

But of course they could ask the referee to review the incident because the referee and linesman had completely missed an obvious red card offence.

This is one of the criteria: "Direct red cards (not second yellows): This includes reviewing if the foul was serious enough for a red card".

The handball incident falls under this. You could (and probably would) argue that it says foul, not handball. I would counter that by pointing out that it says includes, and isn't restricted to fouls only. The law is written to prevent injustices. We are not meant to go looking for semantical loopholes to justify incorrect decisions.

 

[Paladin]

I used to be a teacher. I mainly taught A-level Mathematics, to both children and adults. I eventually chose to give it up to save my mental well-being as it's a very mentally draining job which severely tests your patience; hour after hour, day after day, week after week, year after year, explaining the exact same concepts to the exact same people ad nauseam.

"Why can't sinx + sinx = sin2x ? Why is it 2sinx ? Why aren't they the same? I think my answer is correct. I'm going to argue that my answer is correct. I'm right and my opinion matters. I don't care that the rules say I'm wrong, I have an opinion and I think I'm right and you just don't seem to understand that I'm right and you're wrong. ....etc..etc...etc"

The last few pages of this thread remind me that I made the correct decision.

Absolute madness! :)

Hahaha. I'll send this to my son. He's just embarking on a career teaching A level maths.

 

[jimharri]

... but had they sent off the keeper that would have been seen as hugely controversial as well....

Care to explain how it would have been seen as controversial, and by who? Just about every pundit and commentator, Dermot Gallagher (and even rational Palace fans) said that Henderson was very lucky to stay on the pitch.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Hahaha. I'll send this to my son. He's just embarking on a career teaching A level maths.

I wish him all the luck in the world, it's a great career choice, but it's very, very tiring. My brain just sort of "popped", but I did admittedly also have undiagnosed mental health issues to contend with.

You might also like to tell him that my favourite phrase that I shouted every August/September was...


"....IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT'S GROUNDHOG YEAR!"

Given a few years of doing the job he might learn to laugh at that one. :)

 

[give it to gordon]

So a keeper who is outside his box and uses his hands to knock the ball away from the striker, is not classed as stopping a goal scoring chance.
A play tugging a player back on the halfway line is classed as stopping a goal scoring chance.

Why is football so confusing to understand ?

 

[lust overlord]

So a keeper who is outside his box and uses his hands to knock the ball away from the striker, is not classed as stopping a goal scoring chance.
A play tugging a player back on the halfway line is classed as stopping a goal scoring chance.

Why is football so confusing to understand ?

Not sure it's any more confusing now than it used to be to be honest.
You certainly get the impression that some of the newer rulings are designed to be obfuscated,dependant on the circumstances though.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Not sure it's any more confusing now than it used to be to be honest.
You certainly get the impression that some of the newer rulings are designed to be obfuscated,dependant on the circumstances though.

100%

 

[RiversideBlue]

So a keeper who is outside his box and uses his hands to knock the ball away from the striker, is not classed as stopping a goal scoring chance.
A play tugging a player back on the halfway line is classed as stopping a goal scoring chance.

Why is football so confusing to understand ?

They're both blatant red cards. They got it wrong on saturday

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

It's almost like saying a driver shouldn't be sent to prison for causing death by dangerous driving because although they did indeed kill a pedestrian and they were driving dangerously, they nearly didn't hit them so you should just let them off with a fine instead.

That's quite the analogy there. I'm not sure how to respond to that. No one was killed here by the keeper swatting the ball out, or even hurt.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

So if I'm driving my car and have no idea where the pavement is because I'm concentrating on staying at 30 mph and mount pavement killing a few people then I'm innocent because I was intent on staying below 30 mph..

Car driving killing people analogies are a bit much. A better analogy would be driving 35 mph in a 30 zone to rush to hospital your wife in labour. Swatting a ball out in the way the keeper did is a natural thing that keepers do, it just so happened that he did it here while being slightly out of position to do it legally. It's not a serious foul in my opinion. It's not like bringing down someone in the box or taking someone out with an aggressive slide tackle, or elbowing a player on a header. It was of course deserving of a foul and a FK, and arguably could have been carded. (and i get the whole DOGSO language in there being a red card, so no need to lecture me on that again)

I'm simply saying that this isn't your typical DOGSO situation, a situation like this is not something we often see. Has there ever been something like this since VAR has been introduced that you can remember? Anotherwords, is there precedent for a keeper to be red carded for something like this via a VAR review? Has that ever actually happened before? I'm not referring to DOGSO situations generally to be clear, but specifically keeper swats just outside the box.

I think we'd all like to hear the VAR audio on this to understand exactly why they didn't think it rose to the level of a red card. If they didn't think it was a DOGSO for whatever reason, because of how the ball bounced, which is mad sounding to me, and you guys are positive it was a DOGSO then something's not adding up between what fans think constitutes a DOGSO vs what the officials think it is, at least in this case.