VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[TheBeautifulGame]

The law when I started playing in the 70s was…

You are judged as offside if you are in an offside position and interfering with play or an opponent, at the MOMENT THE BALL IS LAST PLAYED by a teammate.

But… If the ball touches an opponent AFTER THE PASS, everyone is then played onside.

It totally contradicted itself and they dropped the second bit at some point in the 80s I’m guessing.

What you described here played out early on in the weekend's match between Barcelona vs. Real Madrid. And I refuse to call it El Clásico any longer given how many decisions are being made through VAR. There's nothing "classic" about this way of doing things.

Anyway, if you watch these highlights, early on in the video, you'll see what you describe there in the 3rd minute.



Mbappe, who was certainly offsides when the ball was kicked, received the through ball and drew a penalty once inside the box by the keeper, a bad penalty at that, but not before the ball was played back "onside" by the Barcelona defender.

It is my understanding that the current rule is no longer that it is merely touched by the defender before the attacker receives an offside pass, but that it would need to be deemed to be "intentionally" touched by the defender to play it back onside, which would seem to be the change that you were referring to. However, in this case, it would seem that through either interpretation that would seem to have occurred here.

However that didn't stop the commentator Steve McManaman from claiming, not in real-time, but while watching the replay, that he was offsides.

"That's offside anyway, that's offside Ian"

I don't know if Steve missed the ball being "intercepted" by the defender and played back to Mbappe, or if he didn't think that such a touch would play him back on, but it certainly did, or it would seem, as following the VAR review the penalty was given. Steve seemed convinced for some reason that what he thought would be offside would cancel the goal.

This was just the beginning of the VAR theatrics throughout this match. There were a multitude of VAR interventions, and as usual many of the VAR interventions were subjective 50/50 decisions. And once again, there were a number of delayed offsides that were reviewed after the fact, which of course, results in subdued celebrations. Mbappe's second goal, for example, he appeared to be just onside, and the goal rightly stood.

The one in the 42nd minute (8:44 in the video) is another contentious one, in that we have another "possible" / "marginal" offside that was allowed to play-on (because VAR of course) in which Bellingham receieved a lob pass, dribbled down into the penalty area, passed it to Mbappe, who was then brought down in the box.

Upon review, Jude was deemed to be offside and the penalty was cancelled. Since it was offside, the referee did not make the decision here, he was simply told through the earpiece that it was offsides, which caused him to then cancel the penalty.

Looking at it, this is one of those that (it would seem) would be impossible to determine that he was actually offside. Maybe by an eyelash, with his head out front compared to the last defender, but he was pretty much in-line with him. Certainly with Wenger's "daylight" idea, Jude would have easily been on.

Now, once again, McManaman goes in about how there was offsides, which would negate the penalty. Remember, he's already bottled the early one, but in this one he has a better argument that it was a "possible" offside, while nowhere near "clear and obvious" but certainly arguable.

But then, after the referee cancels the penalty due to being told that there was an offside by the VAR team, Ian Darke tries to reduce the controversy by claiming that not only was there offsides (to which is impossible to be sure of) but that also according to him, both he and Steve are in agreement that there was no contact in the box either.

Ian Darke : "First it was offside, and then we don't think there was any contact either."

In fact, there was clear contact, Mbappe was definitely brought down upon receiving the pass from Bellingham, defender missed the ball, caught Mbappe on the leg, and brought him down.

Now I don't know what Ian or Steve were watching, but to claim that there wasn't any contact when it was abundantly clear that there was and that Mbappe was very clearly brought down, is maddening.

So VARcelona strikes again. Ruling out a perfectly good penalty on a possible / marginal / not clear or obvious offside in the build up that the VAR team determined without the on pitch referee being involved in that decision.

In the 8th minute of 1st half stoppage time (due to all the VAR reviews) Mbappe was clearly offside this time, but the linesmen kept his flag down to allow VAR to review, which allowed Mbappe to score a goal, only for offsides to be given from the linesman following the goal. The correct decision in the end, but annoyingly the linesman not being allowed to do his job properly and put the flag up right then and there before the goal was allowed to "temporarily" scored.

^^All this is just in the first half.

In the 2nd half, we have yet another delayed offsides decision in the 52nd minute, that led to an "exciting" (in the moment) run halfway down the pitch that led to a "goal" by Barcelona only to be ruled out posthumously. Yes I'm going to start referring to goals being chopped off after the fact due to delayed offsides in such a manner, because that's exactly what happened. The goal was allowed to be scored, fraudulently, only to be "killed" after the fact. Ian Darke in the moment gave the impression that there wasn't an offsides and that the goal could count, only to have it all undone after the fact, and then during the replay to be reminded by McManaman that "they have to play it out, of course". And in playing it out, we had yet another goal scored only to be ruled out posthumously.

And on we go in this match of endless VAR madness. It wasn't until the 79th minute that the handball inconsistency portion of the match begins. In the 79th minute, we have a direct strike from Torres inside the box bouncing off of the arm of the defender. The Barcelona players were apoplectic, but the arm was deemed to be in a natural position and a penalty was not given.

In the 2nd minute of 2nd half stoppage time, we have Real equalizing on a gorgeous header from a corner, in which Mbappe, while certainly in an offsides position, but appeared to do well to avoid touching the header as it bounced into the net.

As the replays are first shown, McManaman quite accurately (this time) points out what should be the decision making here as to whether the goal would be disallowed : "Lets see if Mbappe touches it or gets in the way of the goalkeeper".

Well, upon review, Mbappe appeared to avoid touching the ball and also seemed to avoid "getting in the way of the goalkeeper" as well. He certainly didn't block the goalkeeper's line of sight on to the ball, he didn't contact the goalkeeper either. So this one would be (yet again) quite subjective as to whether or not the VARs or the referee thought Mbappe "interfered".

We don't really have much clarity in situations like this. By the criteria McManaman outlined upon watching the review, which would seem to be consistent with the current iteration of the rule, the replays appeared to show that Mbappe did not interfered. While it could certainly be argued he did, or that he distracted the keeper, he didn't touched the ball, he didn't block the keeper's line of sight on the ball, and he didn't physically interfere with the keeper.

So on this one, while it's ceratinly tight, I would say that Mbappe did very well to avoid "interfering" and arguable the goal should ahve stood. But it didn't, VAR disallowed it with no explanation. However you view this, this is another example of VAR getting involved in a 50/50 subjection decision, that arguably was the wrong decision upon review.

But that's not all. We had yet another VAR controversy in the 5th minute of 2nd half stoppage time. This time on another handball VAR review in which Fermin Lopez made a brilliant run after the ball was kicked into his hand by the defender. And this time, the VAR decision was to disallow the goal arguing that it was a handball.

This may be the most controversial VAR decision of them all, and there were a ton of VAR decisions in this match, as Lopez had no possible way of reacting to that kick off his hand. But this is where the often, fraudulent "he made his body bigger" by having the arm somewhat outstretched, as it were. Because it's not a one size fits all.

I just don't know how you disallow a brilliant goal like that based on a kick from the defender into his hand at close proximity. There's no time to react, there's no way that could be argued as an "intentional" handball. And the other one earlier, in the 79th minute could be argued in a similar fashion as well. That didn't appear to be "intentional" either, and sure in that case the arm was closer to the body, but he's also a defender in the box "defending" whereas Lopez was in the midst of possessing the ball in a jostle with the defender. And remember, one was in the box and ruled not a penalty, the other was outside of the box, resulted in a goal only for the goal to be disallowed.

The amount of VAR disturbances and controversies in this match is off the charts. It's utterly farcical for a match to be contested with so many interruptions and subjective decisions. I'm at a loss as to how this system as it is currently being utilized in La Liga is sustainable.

 

[halfcenturyup]

What you described here played out early on in the weekend's match between Barcelona vs. Real Madrid. And I refuse to call it El Clásico any longer given how many decisions are being made through VAR. There's nothing "classic" about this way of doing things.

Anyway, if you watch these highlights, early on in the video, you'll see what you describe there in the 3rd minute.



Mbappe, who was certainly offsides when the ball was kicked, received the through ball and drew a penalty once inside the box by the keeper, a bad penalty at that, but not before the ball was played back "onside" by the Barcelona defender.

It is my understanding that the current rule is no longer that it is merely touched by the defender before the attacker receives an offside pass, but that it would need to be deemed to be "intentionally" touched by the defender to play it back onside, which would seem to be the change that you were referring to. However, in this case, it would seem that through either interpretation that would seem to have occurred here.

However that didn't stop the commentator Steve McManaman from claiming, not in real-time, but while watching the replay, that he was offsides.

"That's offside anyway, that's offside Ian"

I don't know if Steve missed the ball being "intercepted" by the defender and played back to Mbappe, or if he didn't think that such a touch would play him back on, but it certainly did, or it would seem, as following the VAR review the penalty was given. Steve seemed convinced for some reason that what he thought would be offside would cancel the goal.

This was just the beginning of the VAR theatrics throughout this match. There were a multitude of VAR interventions, and as usual many of the VAR interventions were subjective 50/50 decisions. And once again, there were a number of delayed offsides that were reviewed after the fact, which of course, results in subdued celebrations. Mbappe's second goal, for example, he appeared to be just onside, and the goal rightly stood.

The one in the 42nd minute (8:44 in the video) is another contentious one, in that we have another "possible" / "marginal" offside that was allowed to play-on (because VAR of course) in which Bellingham receieved a lob pass, dribbled down into the penalty area, passed it to Mbappe, who was then brought down in the box.

Upon review, Jude was deemed to be offside and the penalty was cancelled. Since it was offside, the referee did not make the decision here, he was simply told through the earpiece that it was offsides, which caused him to then cancel the penalty.

Looking at it, this is one of those that (it would seem) would be impossible to determine that he was actually offside. Maybe by an eyelash, with his head out front compared to the last defender, but he was pretty much in-line with him. Certainly with Wenger's "daylight" idea, Jude would have easily been on.

Now, once again, McManaman goes in about how there was offsides, which would negate the penalty. Remember, he's already bottled the early one, but in this one he has a better argument that it was a "possible" offside, while nowhere near "clear and obvious" but certainly arguable.

But then, after the referee cancels the penalty due to being told that there was an offside by the VAR team, Ian Darke tries to reduce the controversy by claiming that not only was there offsides (to which is impossible to be sure of) but that also according to him, both he and Steve are in agreement that there was no contact in the box either.

Ian Darke : "First it was offside, and then we don't think there was any contact either."

In fact, there was clear contact, Mbappe was definitely brought down upon receiving the pass from Bellingham, defender missed the ball, caught Mbappe on the leg, and brought him down.

Now I don't know what Ian or Steve were watching, but to claim that there wasn't any contact when it was abundantly clear that there was and that Mbappe was very clearly brought down, is maddening.

So VARcelona strikes again. Ruling out a perfectly good penalty on a possible / marginal / not clear or obvious offside in the build up that the VAR team determined without the on pitch referee being involved in that decision.

In the 8th minute of 1st half stoppage time (due to all the VAR reviews) Mbappe was clearly offside this time, but the linesmen kept his flag down to allow VAR to review, which allowed Mbappe to score a goal, only for offsides to be given from the linesman following the goal. The correct decision in the end, but annoyingly the linesman not being allowed to do his job properly and put the flag up right then and there before the goal was allowed to "temporarily" scored.

^^All this is just in the first half.

In the 2nd half, we have yet another delayed offsides decision in the 52nd minute, that led to an "exciting" (in the moment) run halfway down the pitch that led to a "goal" by Barcelona only to be ruled out posthumously. Yes I'm going to start referring to goals being chopped off after the fact due to delayed offsides in such a manner, because that's exactly what happened. The goal was allowed to be scored, fraudulently, only to be "killed" after the fact. Ian Darke in the moment gave the impression that there wasn't an offsides and that the goal could count, only to have it all undone after the fact, and then during the replay to be reminded by McManaman that "they have to play it out, of course". And in playing it out, we had yet another goal scored only to be ruled out posthumously.

And on we go in this match of endless VAR madness. It wasn't until the 79th minute that the handball inconsistency portion of the match begins. In the 79th minute, we have a direct strike from Torres inside the box bouncing off of the arm of the defender. The Barcelona players were apoplectic, but the arm was deemed to be in a natural position and a penalty was not given.

In the 2nd minute of 2nd half stoppage time, we have Real equalizing on a gorgeous header from a corner, in which Mbappe, while certainly in an offsides position, but appeared to do well to avoid touching the header as it bounced into the net.

As the replays are first shown, McManaman quite accurately (this time) points out what should be the decision making here as to whether the goal would be disallowed : "Lets see if Mbappe touches it or gets in the way of the goalkeeper".

Well, upon review, Mbappe appeared to avoid touching the ball and also seemed to avoid "getting in the way of the goalkeeper" as well. He certainly didn't block the goalkeeper's line of sight on to the ball, he didn't contact the goalkeeper either. So this one would be (yet again) quite subjective as to whether or not the VARs or the referee thought Mbappe "interfered".

We don't really have much clarity in situations like this. By the criteria McManaman outlined upon watching the review, which would seem to be consistent with the current iteration of the rule, the replays appeared to show that Mbappe did not interfered. While it could certainly be argued he did, or that he distracted the keeper, he didn't touched the ball, he didn't block the keeper's line of sight on the ball, and he didn't physically interfere with the keeper.

So on this one, while it's ceratinly tight, I would say that Mbappe did very well to avoid "interfering" and arguable the goal should ahve stood. But it didn't, VAR disallowed it with no explanation. However you view this, this is another example of VAR getting involved in a 50/50 subjection decision, that arguably was the wrong decision upon review.

But that's not all. We had yet another VAR controversy in the 5th minute of 2nd half stoppage time. This time on another handball VAR review in which Fermin Lopez made a brilliant run after the ball was kicked into his hand by the defender. And this time, the VAR decision was to disallow the goal arguing that it was a handball.

This may be the most controversial VAR decision of them all, and there were a ton of VAR decisions in this match, as Lopez had no possible way of reacting to that kick off his hand. But this is where the often, fraudulent "he made his body bigger" by having the arm somewhat outstretched, as it were. Because it's not a one size fits all.

I just don't know how you disallow a brilliant goal like that based on a kick from the defender into his hand at close proximity. There's no time to react, there's no way that could be argued as an "intentional" handball. And the other one earlier, in the 79th minute could be argued in a similar fashion as well. That didn't appear to be "intentional" either, and sure in that case the arm was closer to the body, but he's also a defender in the box "defending" whereas Lopez was in the midst of possessing the ball in a jostle with the defender. And remember, one was in the box and ruled not a penalty, the other was outside of the box, resulted in a goal only for the goal to be disallowed.

The amount of VAR disturbances and controversies in this match is off the charts. It's utterly farcical for a match to be contested with so many interruptions and subjective decisions. I'm at a loss as to how this system as it is currently being utilized in La Liga is sustainable.

It's good TV.

Fucking awful to watch in the stadium, though.

 

[Ithryn Luin]

The Palace goal overruled for offside yesterday as 2mm of the shoulder of a Palace player was in the opposition half whilst the rest of his body was in his own half. Great team move ruled out by rule obsessed officials looking for every opportunity to rule out goals!

Mind I guess if the same happened on Saturday they would never rule it out as it was against us!

 

[stonerblue]

It's good TV.

Fucking awful to watch in the stadium, though.

Watching La Ligue yesterday and they split the screen when a var check happens. Half the screen is a replay of the incident, a quarter shows us the var room with 4 people watching the replay and the other quarter shows the ref watching the pitchside telly. Great eh....

 

[stonerblue]

What you described here played out early on in the weekend's match between Barcelona vs. Real Madrid. And I refuse to call it El Clásico any longer given how many decisions are being made through VAR. There's nothing "classic" about this way of doing things.

Anyway, if you watch these highlights, early on in the video, you'll see what you describe there in the 3rd minute.



Mbappe, who was certainly offsides when the ball was kicked, received the through ball and drew a penalty once inside the box by the keeper, a bad penalty at that, but not before the ball was played back "onside" by the Barcelona defender.

It is my understanding that the current rule is no longer that it is merely touched by the defender before the attacker receives an offside pass, but that it would need to be deemed to be "intentionally" touched by the defender to play it back onside, which would seem to be the change that you were referring to. However, in this case, it would seem that through either interpretation that would seem to have occurred here.

However that didn't stop the commentator Steve McManaman from claiming, not in real-time, but while watching the replay, that he was offsides.

"That's offside anyway, that's offside Ian"

I don't know if Steve missed the ball being "intercepted" by the defender and played back to Mbappe, or if he didn't think that such a touch would play him back on, but it certainly did, or it would seem, as following the VAR review the penalty was given. Steve seemed convinced for some reason that what he thought would be offside would cancel the goal.

This was just the beginning of the VAR theatrics throughout this match. There were a multitude of VAR interventions, and as usual many of the VAR interventions were subjective 50/50 decisions. And once again, there were a number of delayed offsides that were reviewed after the fact, which of course, results in subdued celebrations. Mbappe's second goal, for example, he appeared to be just onside, and the goal rightly stood.

The one in the 42nd minute (8:44 in the video) is another contentious one, in that we have another "possible" / "marginal" offside that was allowed to play-on (because VAR of course) in which Bellingham receieved a lob pass, dribbled down into the penalty area, passed it to Mbappe, who was then brought down in the box.

Upon review, Jude was deemed to be offside and the penalty was cancelled. Since it was offside, the referee did not make the decision here, he was simply told through the earpiece that it was offsides, which caused him to then cancel the penalty.

Looking at it, this is one of those that (it would seem) would be impossible to determine that he was actually offside. Maybe by an eyelash, with his head out front compared to the last defender, but he was pretty much in-line with him. Certainly with Wenger's "daylight" idea, Jude would have easily been on.

Now, once again, McManaman goes in about how there was offsides, which would negate the penalty. Remember, he's already bottled the early one, but in this one he has a better argument that it was a "possible" offside, while nowhere near "clear and obvious" but certainly arguable.

But then, after the referee cancels the penalty due to being told that there was an offside by the VAR team, Ian Darke tries to reduce the controversy by claiming that not only was there offsides (to which is impossible to be sure of) but that also according to him, both he and Steve are in agreement that there was no contact in the box either.

Ian Darke : "First it was offside, and then we don't think there was any contact either."

In fact, there was clear contact, Mbappe was definitely brought down upon receiving the pass from Bellingham, defender missed the ball, caught Mbappe on the leg, and brought him down.

Now I don't know what Ian or Steve were watching, but to claim that there wasn't any contact when it was abundantly clear that there was and that Mbappe was very clearly brought down, is maddening.

So VARcelona strikes again. Ruling out a perfectly good penalty on a possible / marginal / not clear or obvious offside in the build up that the VAR team determined without the on pitch referee being involved in that decision.

In the 8th minute of 1st half stoppage time (due to all the VAR reviews) Mbappe was clearly offside this time, but the linesmen kept his flag down to allow VAR to review, which allowed Mbappe to score a goal, only for offsides to be given from the linesman following the goal. The correct decision in the end, but annoyingly the linesman not being allowed to do his job properly and put the flag up right then and there before the goal was allowed to "temporarily" scored.

^^All this is just in the first half.

In the 2nd half, we have yet another delayed offsides decision in the 52nd minute, that led to an "exciting" (in the moment) run halfway down the pitch that led to a "goal" by Barcelona only to be ruled out posthumously. Yes I'm going to start referring to goals being chopped off after the fact due to delayed offsides in such a manner, because that's exactly what happened. The goal was allowed to be scored, fraudulently, only to be "killed" after the fact. Ian Darke in the moment gave the impression that there wasn't an offsides and that the goal could count, only to have it all undone after the fact, and then during the replay to be reminded by McManaman that "they have to play it out, of course". And in playing it out, we had yet another goal scored only to be ruled out posthumously.

And on we go in this match of endless VAR madness. It wasn't until the 79th minute that the handball inconsistency portion of the match begins. In the 79th minute, we have a direct strike from Torres inside the box bouncing off of the arm of the defender. The Barcelona players were apoplectic, but the arm was deemed to be in a natural position and a penalty was not given.

In the 2nd minute of 2nd half stoppage time, we have Real equalizing on a gorgeous header from a corner, in which Mbappe, while certainly in an offsides position, but appeared to do well to avoid touching the header as it bounced into the net.

As the replays are first shown, McManaman quite accurately (this time) points out what should be the decision making here as to whether the goal would be disallowed : "Lets see if Mbappe touches it or gets in the way of the goalkeeper".

Well, upon review, Mbappe appeared to avoid touching the ball and also seemed to avoid "getting in the way of the goalkeeper" as well. He certainly didn't block the goalkeeper's line of sight on to the ball, he didn't contact the goalkeeper either. So this one would be (yet again) quite subjective as to whether or not the VARs or the referee thought Mbappe "interfered".

We don't really have much clarity in situations like this. By the criteria McManaman outlined upon watching the review, which would seem to be consistent with the current iteration of the rule, the replays appeared to show that Mbappe did not interfered. While it could certainly be argued he did, or that he distracted the keeper, he didn't touched the ball, he didn't block the keeper's line of sight on the ball, and he didn't physically interfere with the keeper.

So on this one, while it's ceratinly tight, I would say that Mbappe did very well to avoid "interfering" and arguable the goal should ahve stood. But it didn't, VAR disallowed it with no explanation. However you view this, this is another example of VAR getting involved in a 50/50 subjection decision, that arguably was the wrong decision upon review.

But that's not all. We had yet another VAR controversy in the 5th minute of 2nd half stoppage time. This time on another handball VAR review in which Fermin Lopez made a brilliant run after the ball was kicked into his hand by the defender. And this time, the VAR decision was to disallow the goal arguing that it was a handball.

This may be the most controversial VAR decision of them all, and there were a ton of VAR decisions in this match, as Lopez had no possible way of reacting to that kick off his hand. But this is where the often, fraudulent "he made his body bigger" by having the arm somewhat outstretched, as it were. Because it's not a one size fits all.

I just don't know how you disallow a brilliant goal like that based on a kick from the defender into his hand at close proximity. There's no time to react, there's no way that could be argued as an "intentional" handball. And the other one earlier, in the 79th minute could be argued in a similar fashion as well. That didn't appear to be "intentional" either, and sure in that case the arm was closer to the body, but he's also a defender in the box "defending" whereas Lopez was in the midst of possessing the ball in a jostle with the defender. And remember, one was in the box and ruled not a penalty, the other was outside of the box, resulted in a goal only for the goal to be disallowed.

The amount of VAR disturbances and controversies in this match is off the charts. It's utterly farcical for a match to be contested with so many interruptions and subjective decisions. I'm at a loss as to how this system as it is currently being utilized in La Liga is sustainable.

Fantastic goal ruled out for fuck all.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Watching La Ligue yesterday and they split the screen when a var check happens. Half the screen is a replay of the incident, a quarter shows us the var room with 4 people watching the replay and the other quarter shows the ref watching the pitchside telly. Great eh....

It was never supposed to be like this. They have made a full on mockery of our great sport. I don't know what the record is for most VAR interventions in a match but that Barcelona Real Madrid one has gotta be up there.

In that match at least, it was as if every subjective 50/50 decision was getting reviewed. It was as if the match constantly needs to be stopped for minutes on end to review any time there's something that could be argued one way or the other. It's total insanity. One thing we've learned is that once you open the pandora's box of allowing a 3rd party to interfere with the match, it's impossible to control it or reign it in. And it seems that each league has their own barometer for how often they intervene. And what's worse it would seem that in big matches like FCB vs Real Madrid they feel a need to intervene even more.

The amount of VAR checks and interventions in that FCB vs Real Madrid were way too much, let alone the subjectivity of the decisions. This was sold to the public as something that would essentially only be used to catch something that the ref didn't see and make him aware of it. Like the Henry handball. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And what gets me is how widely unpopular and disliked VAR is. Never has something so unpopular and ridiculed been allowed to continue to exist at the expense of the fans. Everyone just continues to go along with it despite heavy criticism on an ongoing basis. It's a wonder that such a thing hasn't been forced out of football by now. But on we go with this charade.

I think it was said best here by Tony Pulis, when he said "the referees have made an industry of it" and "they've complicated the situation".



It's that they've made an industry of VAR intervening and being "needed" in their minds. But all they've done is make the story about officiating instead of the match. VAR has become an addiction, and obsession to those involved in the sport to continue to perpetuate this blight on the beautiful game as if they're doing some kind of public service that deserves praise from the public. They are so out of touch with the fans, it's as if they exist in their own universe.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

VAR in the Premier League: A failed experiment undermining football’s essence

Why VAR, despite its good intentions, is failing the Premier League by undermining the essence of football.

www.footballocracy.com

The spirit of football: An art, not a science

Football has always been a game of passion, unpredictability and human error. It’s a sport where moments of brilliance and mistakes coexist, creating the drama that fans cherish. The essence of football lies in its fluidity and the spontaneous joy it brings.

Introducing a system that aims for scientific precision disrupts this natural flow. The game is not an exact science; it’s an art form where “stolen centimetres” and marginal calls add to its charm and debate.

The paradox of “clear and obvious” errors

VAR was introduced to rectify “clear and obvious” mistakes and that is how people were sold on it. Yet, the frequent need for referees to consult pitch-side monitors for extended periods contradicts this mandate.

If an error is truly clear and obvious, it shouldn’t require minutes of scrutiny to identify. This prolonged decision-making process disrupts the game’s rhythm and diminishes the on-field referee’s authority.

It's also going against the game. The game is subjective. It's written in the rules.

The human element: Football’s core

Football’s beauty lies in its human element—the players, the managers’ tactics, and yes, the referees’ decisions, right or wrong. While technology has its place, over-reliance on it risks stripping the game of its soul.

The debates, the controversies, and the discussions over contentious decisions are integral to football’s allure. VAR’s attempt to sanitise the game of errors is not only futile but also detrimental.

It feels to this blogger that there must be another reason for VAR. If someone truly loved the game, they'd not be supporting the use of VAR, not now, not after all this time.

Conclusion: Time to reevaluate VAR’s place

VAR was a well-intentioned experiment aimed at enhancing fairness in football. However, its implementation has revealed significant flaws that undermine the game’s essence.

Football is not about forensic analysis and technological interventions; it’s about passion, unpredictability and the human experience. It’s time for the Premier League to acknowledge that VAR, in its current form, is a failed experiment.

The focus should return to empowering on-field referees and embracing the imperfections that make football the beloved sport it is. Goal line technology is good, but when a decision goes from one referee to another referee somewhere else, watching the TV and taking instructions from someone else, it's not fair and it's not right.

Sorry, did I just suggest that the VAR is listening to someone else? Surely not!

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Palace fans brand VAR 'failed experiment' and promise more protests

Crystal Palace’s Holmesdale Fanatics supporter group have called on the Premier League to end VAR, branding its introduction a “failed experiment”.

www.standard.co.uk

^^11 January 2020

Fans Are Waging War on VAR. Can the Tech Survive the Backlash?

Video assistant referees were meant to make on-field decisions fairer, but fans say they've failed—and want them gone.

frontofficesports.com

Delays are long—and getting longer. In March, a VAR call denied the English Premier League’s West Ham a late winning goal versus Aston Villa—a decision that paused the game more than five and a half-minutes.

These interminable delays are particularly jarring in soccer, argues Tom Webb, associate professor at the Centre for Business and Society at Coventry University, U.K. “Football is different to other sports because there are not the same natural breaks in play that you have in rugby or tennis,” he says. “It is a fast game.”

^^And this is why those who introduced VAR and those who are in support of it or who administer it are essentially admitting that they are football "noobs". That they essentially have no understanding about how the sport works, to think that something like this could work in football, because (in their minds) it worked in other sports. There's a fundamental disconnect here. Football is not Rugby, Tennis, or the American NFL. The application of technology in those "start-stop" sports is fundamentally different than in football.

The lack of those involved with VAR to understand this, to understand football's nature, is their failure and their de facto "admission" that they are clueless about how football works.

The fact that they've tried to force this down our throats for years and years and due to ego or hubris or whatever term you would describe those too invested in the agenda to see the forest from the trees, lets be very clear, well-intentioned or not, they are the antagonists of football here and deserve to be publicly condemned for continuing with this.

I don't care how hopeless getting VAR out of football would seem given the so-called "power" of the VAR agenda to stay in place. But as long as the problem persists, it's impossible to ignore the warts of the thing. As much as those running it are so desperate for it to succeed, I'm afraid that despite their best efforts, that it is literally doomed to be a failure, and they just can't accept that their idea won't work. It will never be embraced, and to continue with something so hostile to the sport's very nature despite unyielding criticism and condemnation is truly wild. And they're so fully invested in it that they refuse to see the harm in what they've done. It's just an awful situation and I pray that one day soon the powers that be will come together and realize that they need to put a stop to this for the betterment of the future.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

VAR - Why isn't it working?

VAR (Video Assistant Referee) was introduced to top-tier football to help referees make correct decisions in vital moments, particularly offside calls and penalty decisions. That has not happened and thus far is a failed experiment and flawed system. VAR has had its moments where it has provided the

sportsbyte.sunderland.ac.uk

^^4+ Years ago

Other instances where VAR has hurt football is when it let play go on for a while before pulling it back.

Forum | VAR has failed - time for post match reviews by saint901

I may have this wrong but I thought VAR was there to be used to "correct" any "clear and obvious" mistakes by officials. Perhaps the rules have changed but it now seems to be

www.fansnetwork.co.uk

VAR has obviously failed.

It's very simple: it has removed the spontaneity for every single game and it gets as many decisions wrong as it was meant to correct.

A complete disaster.

Yet it persists. How can this be allowed to stay? It is so wildly unpopular and at odds with the sports nature. It's a bizarre phenomenon.

Gasperini: 'VAR has failed' - Football Italia

Atalanta coach Gian Piero Gasperini joined the debate over VAR, claiming the technology “has totally failed and ended up creating even more doubts than

football-italia.net

^^Over 5 years ago.

“It’s not nice to talk about these things, but there have been a lot of really quite evident incidents,” Gasp told La Gazzetta dello Sport magazine Sportweek.

“It’s not just about Atalanta, but in general there have been too many errors, creating even more doubts than before on the use of VAR.

“In my view, the technology has totally failed. The objective was to provide justice in incidents of clear and obvious error, but instead it is doing the contrary. VAR ended up creating even bigger doubts."

“When you are faced with footage that is so obvious and still make a mistake, that turns into a very dangerous boomerang. The incident with Inter and Rafael Toloi was bad, but the worst for me remains the Coppa Italia Final. We’ve practically become accustomed to it now.”

You have managers throughout the world speaking out against it, and have been since it's inception, so very clearly, and against their own self interest. This isn't "toe in the water" not sure if they're for or against it. They're very clearly against it. And the fact that only a small % of managers speak out isn't indicative of how the overwhelming majority of managers feel about it. In taking a stand against VAR, they are putting themselves out there in a way that could bring them negative consequences (due to the VAR agenda being pushed so hard) and yet they do it anyway. That's how bad it is.

Five reasons why VAR is doomed to failure

In this opinion piece, Mads Skauge convincingly argues that VAR, the video assistant referee, goes across the inherent nature and beauty of football (The Beautiful Game! ), He lists five main paradoxes of VAR, and concludes that VAR technology is sucking the life out of football. He fears that...

idrottsforum.org

^^October 4, 2019

Advocates of VAR (Video Assistant Referee) want us to believe that everything in football is black and white, wholly right or completely wrong. But it is not like that at all. The introduction of VAR highlights several paradoxes which have made VAR a predictable tragedy.

A "predictable tragedy" indeed. The failures were easily predicted by anyone who knows anything about football. While I admire those who admitted that they thought it would be different, that they thought VAR would work and have been shocked at how bad it's been, like Mr. Pulis, that was always wishful thinking. From the beginning, it was not hard to predict that this would be a big problem.

In many ways, VAR is in conflict with the essential nature of football and with that which makes us love the world’s most popular game. As a result, VAR is condemned to fail. Here, I present and discuss five main paradoxes of VAR.

It's an important article written 5 and a half years ago that remains very relevant to this day.

VAR is based on a wholly unreasonable logic. The paradoxical nature of VAR meant that it was expected to fail. It was bound to. So, I am not surprised, only angry, sad and worried about the future of ‘the beautiful game’.

A lost battle?
Now, the question is whether the battle against VAR has already been lost. I fear it has. It looks as though FIFA and UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) support VAR. Why they do so is a matter for speculation. Anyway, these powerful football authorities usually get what they want. Even so, I believe that this is a fight worth fighting because, for me, VAR is spoiling ‘the beautiful game’ which I have spent a great part of my life admiring.

How far is football willing to go in the name of correct decision-making and fairness? I think I know the answer and the answer worries me.

Several paradoxes are condemning VAR to failure. When the use of VAR is out of step with common sense, football has got itself in a ‘clear and obvious’ offside position. Only VAR can save it – by VAR being scrapped.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Barcelona plan action as referees explain VAR comments

Barcelona intend to take action after the officiating during El Clasico, but two ex-referees have explained the VAR audio.

www.football-espana.net

If there was a sour point to Barcelona’s celebrations following El Clasico, it was the enormous frustration emanating from the Blaugrana over the officiating. There were four major calls that Barcelona questioned during the match, and the release of the VAR audio did not calm that reaction.

The irony of this statement is that it is Barcelona, the club that has factually most benefitted from VAR throughout the La Liga season, that have come out of the match in which they won against their rival, with "enormous frustration". If that isn't a damning indictment of VAR I don't know what is.

Now granted, from the 5th goal being disallowed on the handball, as well as the arm ball block of their shot on goal not resulting in a penalty, they have grounds to be upset. But on the other hand, Real Madrid had a late equalizer disallowed and had a penalty disallowed due to marginal / subjective offsides decisions.

The reality is that both sides had multiple controversial decisions go against them in this match. And then there's the troubling statements in the VAR audio that were released. Remember for all those years it was said that we need to hear the VAR audio to understand their decision-making. But ever since this sort of thing has become commonplace, it has only made it more apparent how troubling and bizarre the decision-making process that goes into these decisions are.

These are the people deciding the match on the VAR audio sounding stressed out, confused, and in the case of this match, almost relieved to see a replay of the ball hitting the hand, as if they finally didn't have to (seemingly, though wrongly as it were) make a subjective decision for once in their life, being so stressed out at struggling over reaching decisions, and having something (in their minds) concrete to point to in which to base their decision around. Rather than the usual subjectivity that surrounds the vast majority of their decisions. But, as we know, or thought we know, the ball hitting the hand isn't the be all end all of what causes a handball to be given. Of course in the early VAR days they changed the handball rule to try to make it factual, only to see that whole idea spectacularly backfire.

Now all these years later, in La Liga at least, we find ourselves back in that whole quagmire once again, as if we (they) haven't learned anything in all these years of tinkering.

Barcelona intend to take action

That being the case, the same outlet explain that there was ‘monumental anger’ from Barcelona, with directors and executives ‘exploding’ at the decision not to give a penalty against Tchouameni. While there will be no formal complaint, the feeling is at Can Barca that ‘it cannot go on like this’. They intend to take action, and will ask explanations from the governing bodies, believing it to be a necessary step in order to ‘compete in equal conditions’ next season.

Earlier in this topic, we discussed the possibility that even Barcelona, the club that benefitted most from VAR throughout the campaign, despite being put at the top of the table due to VAR, would themselves also feel aggrieved. You wouldn't believe it if it wasn't so true.

Even the club that has been put into position to win La Liga by VAR, coming off a big victory in which their opponent had 2 controversial decisions go against them, that essentially took two goals off the board (one goal and one penalty), it is they that still feels aggrieved.

And that is just the effect that VAR has on football. Everyone who plays is destined to feel perpetually wronged by a system that is designed to bring controversy to the forefront and keep it there again and again.

VARcelona, who sit at the top, who's benefitted from VAR the most, even they were undone multiple times in that match. The irony of those who have most benefited from VAR crying "it cannot go on like this" cannot be understated and speaks volumes at the troubles that VAR continues to cause.

Further controversy between Real Madrid and Barcelona

The line from Real Madrid has been more or less the same, penning a letter earlier this season demanding that referees involved during the period that Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira was vice-president of the Referees Committee be sacked. Last season, Barcelona President Joan Laporta released a statement condemning the officiating, which he believed to be clearly biased.

And they have every right to be upset. Both VARcelona and Real Madrid. The one thing that they can agree on is that VAR is a nightmare! And that's why even though City has been said to benefit somewhat from VAR compared to the average PL club, it is no excuse to bury your head in the sand simply becuase you've been the beneficiary of some decisions. Don't you see, it's bad either way. Either you're being gifted wins or you're being screwed, over and over again, with no end in sight. Neither is satisfactory. What is satisfactory is winning a match on your own! Not needing "help" to get to where you got to. That's what it's all about! Any time a perfectly good goal is killed posthumously through a long painstaking process that not only annoys fans but also stops the natural momentum a match had, there's good reason to object to all that occurs under VAR.

Even when a decision goes for you through VAR, it remains unsatisfying, as the moment has already gone and you're left merely cheering or booing a referee decision and not the moment itself.

But the action that VARcelona needs to take is not one of tying to work with or improve a failed system. It is to remove the cancer fully, as there is no improving this monstrosity. That we've learned by now.

When will the football powers that be realize that VAR is never going to end this agony of matches perpetually and frustratingly interfered with in bizarre ways. Stop, go, stop, go. Enough! An Extraordinary Sacking is Needed!

VAR Audio "Look, we found a hand!"

I'll give you VARs a hand. A backhand!

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

The match between Atalanta and Roma was marred by a baffling decision by VAR to cancel a penalty given in the 63rd minute that could have put Roma ahead.

Roma equalized on a beautiful header and were on their way to extending their 19-match unbeaten streak, but VAR changed the direction of the match with this decision.

Ranieri was livid following the match and rightly so.

Ranieri on Controversial Penalty Decision: “VAR should not have intervened”

Roma’s 19-match unbeaten streak vanished in thin air thanks to a controversial VAR appeal in the second half. With their Champions League hopes on life support, Ranieri let it fly in his post-match press conference.

www.chiesaditotti.com

Roma's 19-match unbeaten streak vanished in thin air thanks to a controversial VAR appeal in the second half. With their Champions League hopes on life support, Ranieri let it fly in his post-match press conference.

The defender extended the leg, missed the ball, and through clear contact with the knee, brought the man down. Only through the corrupt VAR could such a decision be reversed.

“We knew Atalanta were the masters of intensity, that’s how they won the Europa League. What I wanted to know from your technical experts is, was that a penalty? Was it 60-40? We were told VAR only intervenes if there is a clear and obvious error,” ranted a visibly furious Ranieri.

“We saw that Pasalic mistimed the challenge, put his foot down and caught my player. So VAR should not have intervened. The referee awarded a penalty and it should’ve stayed a penalty. The rules change from one game to the next, we accept it, but it is disappointing to see that there is no consistency in this league.

“You can clearly see that Pasalic makes contact with Manu Kone. If the referee gave the penalty, the VAR should’ve stayed quiet. That is what we were told. After that, both teams had chances, Atalanta took them and we did not, so congratulations to Atalanta and congratulations to my players too.

“I am not asking if it was or was not a penalty. I am saying can VAR intervene when there is contact with the knee or ankle anyway? We accept it, but purely out of sporting justice, we want to know what the rules are. Have they changed? We would accept that, without understanding it, but at least let us know if the rules are changed.”



The title of the video should be change from "Sulemana Stunner Sinks Roma" to "VAR Stunner Sinks Roma".

 

[Bluekiwi]

I wonder if VAR would have survived if Baconface was still in charge at the rags. A couple of decisions not in his favour and he would have spat venom at the clowns who introduced the technology.

 

[stonerblue]

VAR in the Premier League: A failed experiment undermining football’s essence

Why VAR, despite its good intentions, is failing the Premier League by undermining the essence of football.

www.footballocracy.com

The spirit of football: An art, not a science

Football has always been a game of passion, unpredictability and human error. It’s a sport where moments of brilliance and mistakes coexist, creating the drama that fans cherish. The essence of football lies in its fluidity and the spontaneous joy it brings.

Introducing a system that aims for scientific precision disrupts this natural flow. The game is not an exact science; it’s an art form where “stolen centimetres” and marginal calls add to its charm and debate.

The paradox of “clear and obvious” errors

VAR was introduced to rectify “clear and obvious” mistakes and that is how people were sold on it. Yet, the frequent need for referees to consult pitch-side monitors for extended periods contradicts this mandate.

If an error is truly clear and obvious, it shouldn’t require minutes of scrutiny to identify. This prolonged decision-making process disrupts the game’s rhythm and diminishes the on-field referee’s authority.

It's also going against the game. The game is subjective. It's written in the rules.

The human element: Football’s core

Football’s beauty lies in its human element—the players, the managers’ tactics, and yes, the referees’ decisions, right or wrong. While technology has its place, over-reliance on it risks stripping the game of its soul.

The debates, the controversies, and the discussions over contentious decisions are integral to football’s allure. VAR’s attempt to sanitise the game of errors is not only futile but also detrimental.

It feels to this blogger that there must be another reason for VAR. If someone truly loved the game, they'd not be supporting the use of VAR, not now, not after all this time.

Conclusion: Time to reevaluate VAR’s place

VAR was a well-intentioned experiment aimed at enhancing fairness in football. However, its implementation has revealed significant flaws that undermine the game’s essence.

Football is not about forensic analysis and technological interventions; it’s about passion, unpredictability and the human experience. It’s time for the Premier League to acknowledge that VAR, in its current form, is a failed experiment.

The focus should return to empowering on-field referees and embracing the imperfections that make football the beloved sport it is. Goal line technology is good, but when a decision goes from one referee to another referee somewhere else, watching the TV and taking instructions from someone else, it's not fair and it's not right.

Sorry, did I just suggest that the VAR is listening to someone else? Surely not!

Did you read the article from 'New Scientist' i posted a few months ago?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

I'm glad some people are recognising how much it is taking away from the game as it tries (and completely fails) to correct every mistake in the footballing universe.

 

[dadnlad]

I wonder if VAR would have survived if Baconface was still in charge at the rags. A couple of decisions not in his favour and he would have spat venom at the clowns who introduced the technology.

Howard say's Hi

 

[cleavers]

On the other side of stupid VAR rules, the Forest player Awoniyi that collided with the goal post at the weekend, and then an offside flag went up, it was quite obviously miles offside, has had to have urgent hospital treatment for an abdominal injury, thanks to the flag not going up, certainly not the first to get injured before a flag, I'm pretty sure we've had on, but can't remember who.

Time for this stupid rule to be rethought (like the whole offside rule for me).

 

[Cellarite]

On the other side of stupid VAR rules, the Forest player Awoniyi that collided with the goal post at the weekend, and then an offside flag went up, it was quite obviously miles offside, has had to have urgent hospital treatment for an abdominal injury, thanks to the flag not going up, certainly not the first to get injured before a flag, I'm pretty sure we've had on, but can't remember who.

Time for this stupid rule to be rethought (like the whole offside rule for me).

Was just about to post about this. I understand the marginal calls but this one was so blatantly offside that the flag should've gone up immediately.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

On the other side of stupid VAR rules, the Forest player Awoniyi that collided with the goal post at the weekend, and then an offside flag went up, it was quite obviously miles offside, has had to have urgent hospital treatment for an abdominal injury, thanks to the flag not going up, certainly not the first to get injured before a flag, I'm pretty sure we've had on, but can't remember who.

Time for this stupid rule to be rethought (like the whole offside rule for me).

But the alternative is that they put the flag up and stop play which leads to mistakes the other way... Goal chances being denied. In fact I think that's why we are where we are now with the rule.

Personally I think they need to get the auto offside sorted then it's a mute, moot point.

 

[Gordyola]

On the other side of stupid VAR rules, the Forest player Awoniyi that collided with the goal post at the weekend, and then an offside flag went up, it was quite obviously miles offside, has had to have urgent hospital treatment for an abdominal injury, thanks to the flag not going up, certainly not the first to get injured before a flag, I'm pretty sure we've had on, but can't remember who.

Time for this stupid rule to be rethought (like the whole offside rule for me).

Eddie suffered twice last season
Everyone agrees its ridiculous that a flag is delayed when its clearly offside, we've also see a Lino flag when the margins are close. It really boils down to what the purpose of the Lino is with respect to offside

 

[Andy TheCatalyst Morrison]

The VAR audio of the Jota incident is quite enlightening regardless of how you interpret the situation. Just in terms of how the so-called "AVAR" as it were had already made up his mind about what happened by the time the ref had been brought to the monitor and the referee like a very little boy offered zero resistance to the AVAR's interpretation of what happened.

Even if you think that it shouldn't have been a penalty and the VAR was right to reverse it, this clip should at the very least give you pause and put to rest the idea that the ref is the one making decisions at the monitor. Lets be very clear, the referee did not make that decision. He was told what happened and offered no resistance. He barely even had time to look at the images himself before he immediately sided with the VAR who was instructing him to reverse the decision. Or did he? I'm still trying to comprehend how the ref's statements at the monitor were in any way in support of what the AVAR was saying or in any way consistent with the eventual decision.

What I find quite curious there is what the referee actually said as he was "agreeing" with the AVAR who, in his mind, was describing what happened.

Lets just go through the whole sequence there from the on-pitch decision to the exchange at the monitor just to illustrate how bizarre the communication and rationale seems to be from the VARs behind the scenes as they make a decision.

First the ref says on the pitch "Just a penalty, just a careless foul."

Whether it was a foul or not is certainly up for debate, but it was certainly a "careless" slide tackle from Agbadou, no doubt about that. I mean he completely misses the ball, not anticipating the rightward move from Jota, and Agbadou was also "making himself bigger" with his left arm completely outstretched which could have easily taken Jota's eye out, narrowly missing his head/neck by mere millimetres.

As the VARs are discussing the incident, they say :

"AVAR" "He's not complaining about it."

VAR "There's no complaint on-field from the player."

So apparently, as it would seem, the amount of complaining would seem to be part of the VARs decision-making process. But as it were, it's unclear which player they would be referring to here. Presumably Agbadou, who wouldn't be complaining about the pen notwithstanding the fact that he was, according to the VARs, "kicked" by Jota, and was writhing in pain from it, but more on that later. That would at the very least suggest that surely there was in fact contact, and hard contact, to produce that much pain. But yet, we heard the VARs countless times initially claim that they saw no contact.

Then the so-called AVAR all of a sudden claims "I think he kicks him."

Ahh, the player who had been ran into on the through pass, who narrowly avoided a slide-tackling Agbadou, turning on a dime, is now not only not deserving of a penalty due to this unknown bloke coming to this conclusion, nor is he merely trying to draw contact by keeping the left foot out to catch the defender, in what would be a somewhat instinctive and split second movement even if it were true, but no, now Jota's said to have gone even farther and so-called "kicked" Agbadou. The guy who the ref saw recklessly challenge for the ball, at the very least, now he's the victim of a "kicking" incident.

"He actually dangles the left leg out."

Now he's dangling the left foot. The VARs could really use a thesaurus to think of all the ways they are trying to describe what that left foot is doing. Unbeknownst to them the fact that Agbadou's on the ground following a slide tackle in which he completely missed the ball, while making himself bigger with the outstretched left arm, etc. Notwithstanding the fact that Jota did incredibly well to avoid the man who was clearly out of position. But on we go.

Lets be clear about one thing here. The characterization of what Jota's left leg is doing there and why it is doing what it's doing is completely subjective and open to interpretation. And I get what it can look like in super slow motion and the fact that these VARs are tasked at trying to make sense of it and coming to a conclusion. But their conclusions particularly here are in no way scientific or provable as to what they are alleging occurred here.

They're just trying to piece it together and describe it in any way they can. But that's just this bloke's interpretation. Ya see, he's paid to find fault in the referee, he's paid to offer a different view of what happened, and to communicate that to the referee at the monitor, and for the referee to accept that straight away with no questions asked, with no input from his end.

Another interpretation of what cause Jota's left leg to do what it did and collide with the defender is that (perhaps) the momentum of the turning motion of Jota and the fact that he was trying so hard to plant that left foot before he was ready to plant it (to avoid stepping on Agbadou) would have caused the left leg to move out wider in the way that it did which ended up catching the backside of the defender that surely would have been enough to bring him down. Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't my official interpretation of what happened. I'm just speculating on another way in which this could be interpreted, to support the ref and his on-field decision, and guess what? The VARs are speculating here too as to what caused that left foot to move in that way, so that works both ways. I could see how they came to that conclusion, how they speculated that perhaps Jota dangled that left foot out a bit trying to gain contact. Fine, but that's unprovable from their perspective, and more importantly, that doesn't make the contact that did clearly occur any less significant.

But, to accuse Jota of "diving" that would suggest that there was no contact whatsoever which clearly wasn't the case. He was in the process of turning and trying to avoid a slide tackler. That much is clear. Whether he instigated that left foot hitting the body of Agbadou or whether it was his own turning momentum and the way he planted that left foot
prematurely to avoid Agbadou that caused the left foot to move wider, we'll never know. That can't be proven. That's 100% subjective and open to interpretation. But what's not subjective, what's factual is the fact that that was a "clear and obvious" reckless and missed slide tackle that produced contact with the left foot of the attacker.

Any contact however slight while turning at that angle could well cause you to go down, given the high rate of speed and the sharp turning movement that was occurring there OK. The defender recklessly missed his slide tackle, he put his body in between Jota and the goal, Jota does well to avoid him and turned at a very sharp angle only to have his left foot caught on the backside of Agbadou as he's turning and he quite reasonably goes down.

BUT "HE DOVE" "THAT CHEATING DIVER" NO NO "HE KICKED AGBADOU" "THE POOR INNOCENT AGBADOU MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS" "AND HE PLAYS FOR LIVARPOOL TOO MAKING IT WORSE".

This is what VAR does to football. It assigns motives and intent in situations that are happening too fast for anyone to reasonably make such conclusions. But my friends, these are the the kinds of conclusions that the VAR numpties come to, out of nowhere but their own mind.

And then he calls the ref over to the monitor as if they're gonna have a discussion about this. But there was no discussion. The ref was told what happened before he even had a chance to confirm it on the monitor he's already agreeing with the so-called AVAR it would seem. Or was he??

The statements that the referee makes at the monitor are quite curious. After he's told what the AVAR said happened, the ref says in response :

"Defender goes in, just looks like a stonewall decision and takes him out, from where I am."

^^ Now really think long and hard about that statement. It's as if he's disagreeing with the AVAR and wanting to uphold his decision. But you would never know by the tone of the exchange and the subsequent decision. What does a "stonewall" decision mean? We know what a stonewall "penalty" means. Now we have stonewall decisions it would seem, as if this was anything close to a "stonewall" anything which it clearly wasn't.

But this is part of the ref's statement as he's agreeing with the AVAR to reverse his decision. As the ref is (seemingly) describing (in direct conflict with that agreement) what he actually saw on the pitch, which is would be "Defender goes in, takes him out, from where I am".

As in, Agbadou went in, and took Jota out, which is precisely what he saw on the pitch. He said that as he's about to walk away from the monitor and reverse his decision.

Think about this for a moment. What he said there was in support of his on field decision. The ref even said before that he "didn't see that" (as in what the AVAR saw) yet that's all she wrote and we go to a drop ball to the keeper.

I don't want to ever hear again that the referee at the monitor is the one making the decision. If you didn't know any better, you would have thought that the referee right there at the monitor decided to stick with his on field decision and reject what the AVAR was saying. I mean that's what the ref's statement there at the monitor would have suggested. Yet the complete opposite happened, with no relevant response from the ref other than "I didn't see that", i.e. what the AVAR saw. This is a complete insanity from a communication and logic standpoint.

Now look guys, I'm not here to defend LIVARPOOL VAR decisions OK. I know full well how many times they've benefitted from VAR. And I'm not even really arguing that Jota deserved a penalty here. I'm admittedly a little conflicted over this one. But the idea that he "dove" "blatantly" is utter bollocks OK.

Now, did he "dangle" that left foot out a bit to get that contact and go down? ARGUABLY OK. ARGUABLY. But we can't know that, that's an entirely subjective idea, that that AVAR came up with entirely on his own, and the referee at the monitor didn't push back on that even one iota nor did he say anything that supported the reversal. In fact, everything the ref said at the monitor was in contrast to what the AVAR was saying. Yet the decision gets reversed anyway. But we're told the referee is who makes the decisions at the monitor? The referee there by his own statements had absolutely no clue what the AVAR was arguing, he didn't confirm it, even sort of denied it by what he said, but then he ends up going along with the AVAR anyway. This is dysfunctional. That exchange at the monitor between the AVAR and the referee and the decision that followed makes no logical sense whatsoever.

The referee went along with it while saying that he didn't see that. I mean, wow. If that isn't half-bent I don't know what is. And to be clear, I'm not even really referring to the decision itself, which I would say is certainly arguable as a no-pen, from what would seem to be only slight contact, and perhaps the idea that Jota put his foot out a little trying to draw contact.

That's arguable! I get that.

And then at the end of the video we hear from Howard Webb and he proceeds to go a step further to suggest that not only was the decision to reverse the penalty correct, which actually came from the guy standing next to him, but that according to Webb, Jota deserved to be yellow carded there!

A yellow card for Jota there? Really? Are you kidding me? We've gone from a stonewall penalty (from the referee's own mouth) and undoubtedly a reckless challenge by the defender, then to a no-pen decided by the AVAR despite contradictory statements from the referee at the monitor despite seemingly tacid acceptance of the AVAR's interpretation, to Howard Webb then claiming that, in his mind, that Jota should have been yellow carded for that?

As if he threw himself down on his own. As if he wasn't running at full speed after being shoved in the buildup by another defender, as if he didn't just turn on a dime to avoid a reckless slide tackling defender. Even if he dangled the foot about trying to catch some contact on the way through, so what? Does that make him a cheat? Does that make him worthy of a yellow card? Putting aside his so-called reputation of being a so-called diver, or embellishing as it were, or playing for LIVARPOOL even. Just looking at the situation objectively, there is no human being in their right mind that could argue that Jota left foot alleged dangle would be deserving of a yellow card, even if he did do that intentionally which is unprovable. He's been accused by the AVAR of "kicking" Agbadou simply for trying to create an opportunity on goal and skillfully avoiding the slide tackle.

As if the out of control slide tackling defender had nothing to do with it, as if Jota was the one who committed a foul there himself. I could publish a book on all the problems in that whole bollocks and endlessly subjective decision-making process that somehow led to that reversal, but this essay is enough. Even if you agree that it shouldn't have been a penalty, seeing that VAR audio clip exposes VAR as the dysfunctional system that it is. Everyone with a different opinion, everyone trying to jump to conclusions, assigning motives to players going down, being accused of allegedly dangling a left foot whilst turning at full speed while trying to create an opportunity in the box while moving and turning at high speed to avoid a slide tackle, after being shoved in the buildup, which according to Webb was not only not a penalty, but deserving of Jota receiving a yellow card (a wild statement). When it comes to VAR and how they arrived at this decision, as if the proverbial right hand had no idea as to what the left hand was doing, yet a decision ends up being reached somehow with a seemingly confused, conflicted and unsure referee as to what is even going on or how the decision was reached.

Stonewall "decision" my arse. Stonewall "anything" there my arse.

Ain’t nobody reading all of that mate