VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

Xhavenjoe said:
If VAR wasn't available, the goal would have been disallowed as that is the way the referee saw it.
Click to expand...
That is my point. So what is the point of VAR. The goal should stand and it has no reason not to stand, other than the basis that VAR is not an entity.
 
SamTheGuru said:
That is my point. So what is the point of VAR. The goal should stand and it has no reason not to stand, other than the basis that VAR is not an entity.
Click to expand...
But it wouldn't have stood. Did you not realise the referee said called it.
The ref said it was no goal. He made the incorrect decision, not VAR.

The issue with VAR is that in the case of it not being able to determine a definite decision , it will go with the referees on field decision. This is what it did today. The initial call by the ref was wrong.
 
Xhavenjoe said:
But it wouldn't have stood. Did you not realise the referee said called it.
The ref said it was no goal. He made the incorrect decision, not VAR.
Click to expand...
Did you not realise that, that is exactly what I have said over the posts I have made, and that the whole point of VAR is to correct decisions that are clearly incorrect? Did you not realise it is better to read through a thread before randomly dumping a comment at something you read that you misunderstood?
 
Xhavenjoe said:
But it wouldn't have stood. Did you not realise the referee said called it.
The ref said it was no goal. He made the incorrect decision, not VAR.

The issue with VAR is that in the case of it not being able to determine a definite decision , it will go with the referees on field decision. This is what it did today. The initial call by the ref was wrong.
Click to expand...

Which is why 'clear and obvious' is just another layer, which although should make things fairer, is just as, if not more, open to manipulation. Just make sure that the team you want to get the 'favour', get the onfield decision. Look at the non-penalty v Madrid, we all know at the other end, the ref would have seen McAtee elbow Brahim Díaz in the box.
If that had been Salah tonight, what do we think the ref's onfield decision would have been ?
 
Last edited:
Phoenix900000 said:
I don't see what is wrong with saying come to the screen and make a decision to the ref to overturn his guessed decision
Click to expand...
That would have been my recommendation. After spending so much time looking at differing angles and unable to see clearly what happened they should have instructed the ref to have a look at the incident on the monitor viewing it from angles he didn't see in real time. Even if he didn't change his mind at least we can be comfortable that he at least checked his initial decision.
 
The maddest thing is when the game is stopped while VAR review it the Ref himself could be looking at the replays of different angles himself.

Instead he's just stood about listening to VAR discuss/describe an incident to him that he could actually be looking at with his own eyes in the moment.
 
Also I think the refs on-field decision of handball was influenced by VAR saying "HAALAND... POSSIBLE HANDBALL" down his ear and not what by what he actually saw and decided to do via his own view of it.

Spursy hands go up appealing for it and it's just a "mindset" at that late stage of the game that referees are in, be it drawing or 1 goal in it, just as Hooper stopped Grealish going through 1v1.

1000005740.jpg
 
Last edited:
Coljj said:
Also I think the refs on-field decision of handball was influenced by VAR saying "HAALAND... POSSIBLE HANDBALL" down his ear and not what by what he actually saw and decided to do with his own eyes.

Spursy hands go up appealing for it and it's just a "mindset" at that late stage of the game that referees are in, be it drawing or 1 goal in it, just as Hooper stopped Grealish going through 1v1.

View attachment 148094
Click to expand...

VAR should be there for correcting what is simply a wrong decision for anyone to see. If the ref gave handball he could never have seen that clearly, he must’ve been guessing. Never mind Haaland being tangled and the ball hitting arms and shoulders from their defenders.

No use for VAR to check it for 2 minutes. However they did, yet the referee wasn’t told to check his decision.
I’m better handing a refereeing mistake rather than VAR coming in and still not solve it.
Anyways it suits the lower league level of refereeing and VAR decisions in the PL.

Than again we should’ve been out of sight at halftime and none of this would matter.
 
Blue2112 said:
Im trying to give them the benefit of doubt, because maybe they thought the games almost over city have won lets just get on with it. I can't think of any other reason apart from it being corrupt.
Click to expand...
I’ve consistently said that I think VAR has been weaponised to allow them to influence games.. I saw nothing last night to change my opinion
 
In rugby union , the referee will ask “is there any reason i cannot award this try”.
They want to give the try and are only interested in a reason not to if it exists

In football they have got themselves all twisted up with the ‘clear and obvious error’ nonsense.

I mean , what does that even mean? Its another layer of confusion.

Ref; i gave handball is that right?
Var; err no we cannot see any conclusive handball ball by haaland
Red; oh right so shall i give the goal then?
Var; errrr well no because although there is literally no evidence of handball its errrr not a clear and obvious error on your part so errrr yeah, stick with your decision.

I mean, when you think about it … what the fuck????
 
Xhavenjoe said:
But it wouldn't have stood. Did you not realise the referee said called it.
The ref said it was no goal. He made the incorrect decision, not VAR.

The issue with VAR is that in the case of it not being able to determine a definite decision , it will go with the referees on field decision. This is what it did today. The initial call by the ref was wrong.
Click to expand...

Shocking refereeing as he didn’t see a hand ball. I just think the VAR was equally as bad.

PGMOL will say nothing as it’s not gonna make any noise. If it was the other way we’d be hearing they’d all just got back from refereeing in the UAE.
 
Bluesince1979 said:
In rugby union , the referee will ask “is there any reason i cannot award this try”.
They want to give the try and are only interested in a reason not to if it exists

In football they have got themselves all twisted up with the ‘clear and obvious error’ nonsense.

I mean , what does that even mean? Its another layer of confusion.

Ref; i gave handball is that right?
Var; err no we cannot see any conclusive handball ball by haaland
Red; oh right so shall i give the goal then?
Var; errrr well no because although there is literally no evidence of handball its errrr not a clear and obvious error on your part so errrr yeah, stick with your decision.

I mean, when you think about it … what the fuck????
Click to expand...

Exactly!!!!!
 
Coljj said:
The maddest thing is when the game is stopped while VAR review it the Ref himself could be looking at the replays of different angles himself.

Instead he's just stood about listening to VAR discuss/describe an incident to him that he could actually be looking at with his own eyes in the moment.
Click to expand...
Which is what they do in rugby union, on the big screen, for all to see
 
Isn't this same/similar to Rodri @ Everton?

Then on field ref call was no penalty. VAR check
no conclusive proof he handled it, so onfield decision stands eg no penalty.

Last night on field ref call is penalty [that's for another discussion]. VAR check no conclusive
proof he didn't handball, so onfield decision stands eg goal disallowed.
 
gingerprince said:
Isn't this same/similar to Rodri @ Everton?

Then on field ref call was no penalty. VAR check
no conclusive proof he handled it, so onfield decision stands eg no penalty.

Last night on field ref call is penalty [that's for another discussion]. VAR check no conclusive
proof he didn't handball, so onfield decision stands eg goal disallowed.
Click to expand...

Slightly different

Rodri - no conclusive evidence of handball - not handball.
Haaland - no conclusive evidence of handball - handball.
 
Xhavenjoe said:
If VAR wasn't available, the goal would have been disallowed as that is the way the referee saw it.
Click to expand...
Fine. At least the players aren't stood around for 4 minutes risking injury and fans aren't sure what is happening, especially those in the ground.
If we are to have Var there should be a time limit. 30 seconds. If they can't decide after that the decision stands.
 
Blue Mist said:
Fine. At least the players aren't stood around for 4 minutes risking injury and fans aren't sure what is happening, especially those in the ground.
If we are to have Var there should be a time limit. 30 seconds. If they can't decide after that the decision stands.
Click to expand...
Var should just be for right-wrong decisions.

Was the foul inside or outside the area - for example
 
gingerprince said:
Isn't this same/similar to Rodri @ Everton?

Then on field ref call was no penalty. VAR check
no conclusive proof he handled it, so onfield decision stands eg no penalty.

Last night on field ref call is penalty [that's for another discussion]. VAR check no conclusive
proof he didn't handball, so onfield decision stands eg goal disallowed.
Click to expand...
How long is this dipper lie going to continue.
The Everton player was offside. Then there was a debate about handball.
Var stated it was offside and therefore nothing else needed looking at.
Just because the dipper fans believe they lost the title because Rodri handballed it, doesn't make it true.
 
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