VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

TheBeautifulGame said:
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.
Click to expand...
But it should be for VAR, as it was brought in hoover up these mistakes.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
Context? He's either moving towards the goal or he's isn't. The direction that he was moving would have taken him to the sideline short of the corner flag, not towards the goal.

You continue to dig a deeper hole for yourself. Best to just concede that you are in denial about what happened. He's running towards the sideline, period. For you to continue to deny this any longer out of some desperate attempt to be right would be mad.

There's a reason why VAR made the decision that they made. We don't have to like it, we don't have to agree with it, but we can certainly understand it and not be in denial about why the decision was made.

If you continue to suggest that he was running towards the goal when it's patently clear that he was running wide toward the sidelines, you cannot be taken seriously. And for you to lecture me about not having a "feel" for the game when you can't even admit he was running wide is wild.
Click to expand...
Which direction was Tueart running in as he rounds the keeper for our 4th in this game? Towards the goal? Clearly not. Towards the sideline? Clearly yes. And yet, he scores.
 
Gazza said:
But it should be for VAR, as it was brought in hoover up these mistakes.
Click to expand...
Yes it should. In trying to redefine everything and change the laws to accommodate VAR they have made a mess of it. I would give anything to see football returned to normal so it didn't have these kind of needless controversies on an ongoing basis. If only Sepp were to be reinstated it could all be put back to normal. It is such a shame that he was so unceremoniously sacked due to nonsense fraud charges that were proven to be a rouse. Sepp had such a wonderful and traditional view of how football should be played and administered and his successor has done such immense harm it is hard to quantify.
 
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.

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...

Yes. The point in the LOTG about control is obviously that the referee has to assess the likelihood of maintaining control if he already has control, or gaining control if he doesn't. The misinterpretation is that the likelihood of gaining control of the ball is somehow diminished if the attacker doesn't initially have control of the ball, which is clearly nonsense.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
If you are not willing to mend fences that is on you. I have done what I can to try to patch things up. You can always come around if you choose to.
Click to expand...
Can you answer a question for me relating to the lotg?

If any player (outside of the goalkeepers handling area) deliberately handles the ball while in play, is that a red card offence?
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
Yes it should. In trying to redefine everything and change the laws to accommodate VAR they have made a mess of it. I would give anything to see football returned to normal so it didn't have these kind of needless controversies on an ongoing basis. If only Sepp were to be reinstated it could all be put back to normal. It is such a shame that he was so unceremoniously sacked due to nonsense fraud charges that were proven to be a rouse. Sepp had such a wonderful and traditional view of how football should be played and administered and his successor has done such immense harm it is hard to quantify.
Click to expand...
The speed at which you write/reply makes me believe that you are an AI bot.
 
burning blue soul said:
Can you answer a question for me relating to the lotg?

If any player (outside of the goalkeepers handling area) deliberately handles the ball while in play, is that a red card offence?
Click to expand...
That is hard to say. There are various mitigating factors that would go into it. If it was in the opposing half for example, then possibly no. A stern warning at least or a yellow card would I think be warranted, if it was clearly deliberate. The closer to one's own box it gets, the more severe it should be treated. It is a pertinent question though, and one that is important to consider. What is your view on it?
 
BlueHammer85 said:
We live in a social media world where people can rage about one incident and you can write a book on it over and over - every controversial decision is heightened to ridiculous degrees nowadays - if you want to really see madness, completely get rid of VAR now and let’s see how happy everyone is knowing for so many major decisions a ref could of had a second look.
Click to expand...
Var is fine but we've stunted it. I see no reason for linesmen at all. They're about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Similarly the ref's job should now be much more passive. Basically blowing for fouls in non contentious areas. Implement these 2 simple fixes and let VAR be the ref. Simples.
 
Evidence of wumming.

"He didn't have control and it does matter. You should read the LOTG. But we've been over this before haven't we."

The Laws of the game (see the third clause below) clearly imply that a player does not need to have control of the ball, because DOGSO can also be applied if there is a likelihood of GAINING CONTROL of the ball.

The quote above is answered because I have read the LOTG, and quoted them here for the second time. So he is at least right in saying that we've been over this before. Does this prove the old adage that even a broken clock is right once a day.

Please do not reply to this, unless you can recognise your own error and wish to apologise for it.
bf9f429fee9f676cab03dc655c4060da.jpg
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
If you are not willing to mend fences that is on you. I have done what I can to try to patch things up. You can always come around if you choose to
Click to expand...
Not rising to it. I've put you on ignore instead so that I can still enjoy proper discussion on this thread. I suggest others do the same.
 
Last edited:
Let's put this to bed with this goal against Ipswich earlier this season. Haaland clearly moving away from goal having knocked it past Muric then goes on to score from about seven yards from the by line and about 10 - 12 yards wide of the post. Anyone who still thinks that Henderson didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity is either a wind up merchant, a PGMOL employee, a rag or just plain stupid. There is a possibility that he / she could be all four of those options

1748504731263.png
 
Eds said:
Let's put this to bed with this goal against Ipswich earlier this season. Haaland clearly moving away from goal having knocked it past Muric then goes on to score from about seven yards from the by line and about 10 - 12 yards wide of the post. Anyone who still thinks that Henderson didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity is either a wind up merchant, a PGMOL employee, a rag or just plain stupid. There is a possibility that he / she could be all four of those options

View attachment 158183
Click to expand...
Please know that I did not conclude that he didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity. If you go back to my earliest comments on the incident, I made it abundantly clear that I personally saw it as a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

What I have since done however was put myself into the shoes of the VAR, a terrifiyng thought indeed, and tried to understand what went into their decision.

To be crystal clear on the subject :

was it in my personal view a "possible" denial of a goal scoring opportunity? Yes
was it in my personal view a "probable" denial of a goal scoring opportunity? Yes
was it in my personal view an "obvious" denial of a goal scoring opportunity? No

The latter of which is what is written in the law for them to determine. Do we all understand now, to where there can be no lack of understanding this distinction?

And your example is pertinent. Haaland is a spectacular player who can make often miraculous and thrilling moves from sometimes impossible angles. He can turn a difficult situation into a goal out of nowhere.

Please don't ever again accuse me of being a rag, a PGMOL agent or a stupid person. I don't know which is worse but they are all equally insulting! I am a blue tried and true and will always be.

It is my view that to what probability of a denial of a goal scoring opportunity shouldn't come into it, but it should be allowed to be corrected through any carding. And it is my personal view that the carding should be largely dependent on the severity of the foul and whether or not it is deliberate. Please consider my position and perhaps reevaluate your perspective on this.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
Please know that I did not conclude that he didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity. If you go back to my earliest comments on the incident, I made it abundantly clear that I personally saw it as a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

What I have since done however was put myself into the shoes of the VAR, a terrifiyng thought indeed, and tried to understand what went into their decision.

To be crystal clear on the subject :

was it in my personal view a "possible" denial of a goal scoring opportunity? Yes
was it in my personal view a "probable" denial of a goal scoring opportunity? Yes
was it in my personal view an "obvious" denial of a goal scoring opportunity? No

The latter of which is what is written in the law for them to determine. Do we all understand now, to where there can be no lack of understanding this distinction?

And your example is pertinent. Haaland is a spectacular player who can make often miraculous and thrilling moves from sometimes impossible angles. He can turn a difficult situation into a goal out of nowhere.

Please don't ever again accuse me of being a rag, a PGMOL agent or a stupid person. I don't know which is worse but they are all equally insulting! I am a blue tried and true and will always be.

It is my view that to what probability of a denial of a goal scoring opportunity shouldn't come into it, but it should be allowed to be corrected through any carding. And it is my personal view that the carding should be largely dependent on the severity of the foul and whether or not it is deliberate. Please consider my position and perhaps reevaluate your perspective on this.
Click to expand...

OK. Hmmm ...... no, still bollocks. Imho.
 
blue by birth said:
The guy is a prick..he's just trying to wind blues up..they should just ignore him..so much easier and saves time reading his monotonous dialogues.
If everyone just ignored him then he would get bored and fuck off back to rawk or redcafe..
Click to expand...
Agree, he's been up all night arguing with blues, what kind of City fan does this? What kind of person does this?
Ummmm?
I think he or it is in the wrong place!
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Agree, he's been up all night arguing with blues, what kind of City fan does this? What kind of person does this?
Ummmm?
I think he or it is in the wrong place!
Click to expand...
I'm in the exact right place. This is where I belong. Anywhere else would be foreign. As if all City fans must think alike. Can I have my own mind or no?
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
You're a hard headed one aren't you?
Click to expand...

Takes one to know one. Just that one of us knows what he is talking about. Hopefully :)

A little free advice for you.

One of my old mentors (yes, accountants have them too) told me that "people will forgive you for being wrong, but they won't forgive you for being right". Being right in a community isn't the most important thing. Knowing when to shut up is, though .....

And a little self-deprecation goes a long way on here. I suggest you (try to) use it wisely.
 
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