VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[TheBeautifulGame]

Kovacic committed a non-dangerous foul on Tuesday and saw red.

It seems to me that you have your own version of the rule book, and it's littered with sliding scales and pleas of mitigation.

While I wouldn't characterize the foul by Kova as dangerous, it was certainly "more" dangerous than a GK swatting a ball away on the edge of the box without contacting the attacker. The Kova incident was clearly a "deliberate" foul in that he saw that he was beat and decided to grab onto the man and bring him down.

To even attempt to equate the Kova red card to the Henderson handball in terms of severity is quite a stretch. The Kova incident was not borderline and was not marginal. It was a blatant intentional act of preventing a clear GSO. The Henderson handball was far less severe both in its nature and in its intent given the proximity to the box. The two situations are not remotely comparable.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

FYI I answered the "exam questions". My answers were Yes / No. But he did not accept my "No" for was it deliberate. So I explained why.

You can profer as many hypotheses as you like as to why you think it wasn't deliberate. The simple fact is that it wasn't an involuntary reaction, therfore it has to be deemed a deliberate action which resulted in him committing a handball offence due to his position on the pitch.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

You can profer as many hypotheses as you like as to why you think it wasn't deliberate. The simple fact is that it wasn't an involuntary reaction, therfore it has to be deemed a deliberate action which resulted in him committing a handball offence due to his position on the pitch.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think we'll ever hear the VAR audio on this and do you think we'll get a clarification on how GK handballs outside the box should be carded? Given the apparent subjectivity or lack of clarity on how they determine what is a denial of a GSO, it seems to me that they could merely use whatever criteria they believe is relevant in any given situation and then cite that they didn't consider it a denial of a GSO and they wouldn't have to elaborate further.

Like with the Martinez red carding in the Villa match, for example. Since the red card was given straight away on the pitch, when it then went to VAR, it would have been difficult for the VARs to overrule him. However if they went through the denial of a GSO criteria, it would have seemingly failed much of not all of the criteria but yet it was still confirmed as a red card. So it wouldn't have presumably even needed to be considered denial of a GSO there to uphold the red card, or would it?

And I'm not claiming that it shouldn't have been a red card, but by their own criteria it would seem to be less of an "obvious" denial of GSO than the Henderson handball. But the difference was there was a hard collision and the red card was given on the pitch.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Let me ask you a question. Do you think we'll ever hear the VAR audio on this and do you think we'll get a clarification on how GK handballs outside the box should be carded? Given the apparent subjectivity or lack of clarity on how they determine what is a denial of a GSO, it seems to me that they could merely use whatever criteria they believe is relevant in any given situation and then cite that they didn't consider it a denial of a GSO and they wouldn't have to elaborate further.

Like with the Martinez red carding in the Villa match, for example. Since the red card was given straight away on the pitch, when it then went to VAR, it would have been difficult for the VARs to overrule him. However if they went through the denial of a GSO criteria, it would have seemingly failed much of not all of the criteria but yet it was still confirmed as a red card. So it wouldn't have presumably even needed to be considered denial of a GSO there to uphold the red card, or would it?

And I'm not claiming that it shouldn't have been a red card, but by their own criteria it would seem to be less of an "obvious" denial of GSO than the Henderson handball. But the difference was there was a hard collision and the red card was given on the pitch.

Be honest, you’ve never played a game of football, have you.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Be honest, you’ve never played a game of football, have you.

Yes I certainly have.

 

[meltonblue]

I have my doubts that the VAR would have intervened even if the referee had let the Villa player put the ball in the net before he gave a foul.

It’s extremely close. Forget this bullshit you hear about needing two hands on the ball. If the ‘keeper even has one finger on the ball when the Villa player first kicks it, it’s a foul.

I’ve only seen a couple of brief replays and I’m not sure. It’s very close. I suspect the VAR would have just stuck with the on-field call anyway, even if the referee had held his whistle a couple of seconds.

I agree to an extent, there’s two questions really - should the ref have allowed play to carry on and then should it have been given as a goal.

Neither of them are as easy to answer as some are making it out to be.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I agree to an extent, there’s two questions really - should the ref have allowed play to carry on and then should it have been given as a goal.

Neither of them are as easy to answer as some are making it out to be.

Surely the first one is easy?

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Yes I certainly have.

Well then, you’re off your tits if you believe half the shit you spout.

Have a nice night.

 

[meltonblue]

Surely the first one is easy?

I don’t think so, there’s plenty of times where refs blow up for a foul off a corner for example that could easily subsequently lead to a goal.

I do feel for refs, it really isn’t easy at all and in some ways more so than before VAR.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I agree to an extent, there’s two questions really - should the ref have allowed play to carry on and then should it have been given as a goal.

Neither of them are as easy to answer as some are making it out to be.

The general takeaway was that the ball was still loose and in the process of being secured by the keeper when it was kicked. It's hard to imagine that the VAR wouldn't have seen it that way upon review. The left glove of the keeper did appear to be touching the ball at the moment that it was kicked. Would the left glove grazing the ball make the kick a foul or would it still be considered loose? Stephen would suggest that this may have been enough to warrant the foul being called. Though I think most everyone who viewed it would consider the ball still loose and not secured by the keeper at that point.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I don’t think so, there’s plenty of times where refs blow up for a foul off a corner for example that could easily subsequently lead to a goal.

I do feel for refs, it really isn’t easy at all and in some ways more so than before VAR.

It's gotten much harder to be a referee with VAR than before. Even Collina said as much, he also said referees receive more abuse now than ever before. And it's no wonder with all the increased scrutiny on referee decisions. It's a damning indictment of VAR for the 2nd in command of the system to admit that it hasn't accomplished what it set out to do. Yet it persists.

 

[meltonblue]

The general takeaway was that the ball was still loose and in the process of being secured by the keeper when it was kicked. It's hard to imagine that the VAR wouldn't have seen it that way upon review. The left glove of the keeper did appear to be touching the ball at the moment that it was kicked. Would the left glove grazing the ball make the kick a foul or would it still be considered loose? Stephen would suggest that this may have been enough to warrant the foul being called. Though I think most everyone who viewed it would consider the ball still loose and not secured by the keeper at that point.

I’d agree with Stephen’s view too, and also understand others that wouldn’t. That’s why it’s so hard, people apply binary thoughts into what is a subjective decision. It doesn’t make either wrong.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Let me ask you a question. Do you think we'll ever hear the VAR audio on this and do you think we'll get a clarification on how GK handballs outside the box should be carded? Given the apparent subjectivity or lack of clarity on how they determine what is a denial of a GSO, it seems to me that they could merely use whatever criteria they believe is relevant in any given situation and then cite that they didn't consider it a denial of a GSO and they wouldn't have to elaborate further.

Like with the Martinez red carding in the Villa match, for example. Since the red card was given straight away on the pitch, when it then went to VAR, it would have been difficult for the VARs to overrule him. However if they went through the denial of a GSO criteria, it would have seemingly failed much of not all of the criteria but yet it was still confirmed as a red card. So it wouldn't have presumably even needed to be considered denial of a GSO there to uphold the red card, or would it?

And I'm not claiming that it shouldn't have been a red card, but by their own criteria it would seem to be less of an "obvious" denial of GSO than the Henderson handball. But the difference was there was a hard collision and the red card was given on the pitch.

We will 100% not hear the conversation between the on field ref and VAR for the Henderson handball incident, and that tells you everything you need to know.

It wasn't just a 'goalkeeper handball'; that is undeniable. It was the interpretation of DGSO, which they got 'wrong'.

I would not be surprised if the reason for VAR not stepping in at the Swamp today was the classic 'not a clear and obvious error by the referee' bullshit excuse.

 

[halfcenturyup]

So, what's wrong with that? Why am I not allowed to have my own opinion on that? I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the keeper in a borderline situation, that yes he committed a handball but that because it was borderline that he didn't deserve to be sent off.

I must be a masochist.

What is wrong with it is this:

It is absolutely clear in the LOTG it was a handball offence. There is no provision in the LOTG for giving the benefit of the doubt to the keeper.

Once that has been determined, you look at the DOGSO rules to determine the sanction. There is no provision in the LOTG for giving the benefit of the doubt to the keeper. The sanction for a handball offence outside the area by any player, deliberate or not, that leads to a DOGSO is a red card.

By all means say you think it would be harsh. By all means say the LOTG should be changed for this situation. But whether you think that or not is irrelevant. There is no justification in the LOTG as they are currently written for your position. Just as there wasn't for that first touch nonsense.

 

[VOOMER]

It's gotten much harder to be a referee with VAR than before. Even Collina said as much, he also said referees receive more abuse now than ever before. And it's no wonder with all the increased scrutiny on referee decisions. It's a damning indictment of VAR for the 2nd in command of the system to admit that it hasn't accomplished what it set out to do. Yet it persists.

Their arrogance and lack of accountability alienates people.

 

[VOOMER]

So, what's wrong with that? Why am I not allowed to have my own opinion on that? I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the keeper in a borderline situation, that yes he committed a handball but that because it was borderline that he didn't deserve to be sent off.

Doesn't mean that opinion is correct.

 

[halfcenturyup]

What is the corrective action of the referee wrongly stops the game?

Last week in that game, the referee didn't blow the whistle (for whatever reason - I have my suspicions) and VAR got involved and then cleared it (for whatever reason - Again, I have my suspicions).

Today, the referee wrongly stopped the game, and by VAR's own rules they can't intervene.

As a system, it's ripe for manipulation of outcomes - AKA cheating.

IFAB have to decide what they want.

Either a review of every goal/incident by VAR, in which case you would apply the current offside flag down to every attacking phase until the phase is over (in which case, the game is effectively re-refereed and you run the added risk of unnecessary injuries) or just drop the whole VAR thing and let referees just referee the game.

This half/half situation just means there are now two sets of referees who can make mistakes.

Get rid of one of them, so only the other can make mistakes. I know which one I would choose .....

 

[halfcenturyup]

My credo and my ism is sado-masochism .....

On the other hand, it is unclear if that is applied to GK handballs outside the box.

There is no such thing as a goalkeeper handball outside the box. When the keeper handles the ball outside his area he is subject to the same rules as an outfield player. Do you not agree that that is in the LOTG? I don't care what you think is harsh or what you want. I am talking the LOTG as currently written.

But it begs the question, why would the carding of a handball (for outfield players) be more lenient inside the box than outside the box?

Double jeopardy.

And the double or triple jeopardy argument doesn't hold water

It clearly does. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Those are the LOTG at the moment whether you agree or not.

because conventional wisdom would have you believe that the punishment (carding) of an infraction shouldn't change by crossing the line, at least not for the outfield players.

Conventional wisdom? Whose?

The GK situation, on the other hand, is a unique one given that it's only a foul outside and not in, but that doesn't by definition apply it to the language which presumably is meant to be applied to handballs related to outfield players.

Of course it does. Handball applies anywhere on the pitch to any player except for the keeper in his area. It's one of the LOTG that have been around since the 1800s.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Do you think we'll ever hear the VAR audio on this and do you think we'll get a clarification on how GK handballs outside the box should be carded?

It is already absolutely clear in the LOTG.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’d agree with Stephen’s view too, and also understand others that wouldn’t. That’s why it’s so hard, people apply binary thoughts into what is a subjective decision. It doesn’t make either wrong.

The problem with all these discussions and club complaints boils down to the fact that football is now a business where the outcome of games can lead to the loss of way too much money.

Villa don't care about the integrity of the sport. They care about the money they will lose. The structure of the sport is fucked up by the CL and the CWC and the sport is unable to provide itself with a refereeing framework to deal with the consequences. Probably because it's impossible.

With VAR, clubs blame referees and VAR, without VAR clubs will blame referees. And all because it's impossible to referee the game accurately without the occasional mistake.

Maybe CL and CWC monies should be allocated to the underlying federations and then allocated to clubs (and the rest of the pyramid) on a fairer basis.

Just a thought.