VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[TheBeautifulGame]

I disagree, the whole reason the whole world has VAR is because the constant wrong decisions from the officials, I can't blame them - how tight the margins are at times, the pace of the game, the constant cheating, the crowd biase etc, it's a very tough job.
We had a few weekends without VAR this season in the cup and the officials missed big howlers.

One of the problems with VAR is that the standard of officiating has gone down the tubes. The VAR "training" of officials has actually compromised their ability to referee normally in real-time. So when you see a howler in a VAR-less match, that doesn't mean the same howler would occur before VAR was brought in or if VAR was completely scrapped

That's not to say that there wouldn't be contentious decisions or the occasional missed offside, but you can't use decisions that are occurring these days with all this VAR going on (even in matches without VAR) to suggest that the same decision would have occurred way back when.

That's not to say that you wouldn't have some problems if VAR was scrapped, but compared to all the problems that we currently have, well it's no comparison really. And as it pertains to offside, the problem that exists presently is that linos are keeping their flags down and letting play continue which is unsatisfactory even if they end up with the correct decision. The handball rule has been changed and tweaked so many times since VAR was introduced that we don't even have a clear understanding of what it is anymore. So when you say :

"they couldn't spot the hand ball or saturday or Palace being offside"

was it that they couldn't actually spot the handball or was it that they were unsure if the GK was out of the box or not when he handed it? That was quite "marginal" as far as if he was outside the box or not. Something that presumably would be a perfect thing for VAR to see and correct, yet they couldn't or didn't due to presumably (ironically) not being the type of decision that VAR could intervene on. It's quite a rare kind of situation for a GK to be handing it that close to the edge of the box. But it wasn't for a lack of the officials actually seeing the handball I don't think, and since it was out of the penalty area, it wouldn't have resulted in a PK, but merely a free kick just outside the box, which could result in a goal, but is far less likely to result in a goal than from a PK.

Remember VAR was supposedly brought in to catch something that the ref completely missed on the pitch, or at least that was the idea sold to the public about what it was brought in for. So it wasn't necessarily that they didn't see the handball in real-time, but it was more likely that they didn't see that the outstretched hand of the keeper was marginally outside the box. Something that VAR could and should have corrected if it was designed properly or functioned properly.

But when you talk about hyperbole, there's hyperbole as it pertains to this situation in the sense that many people are suggesting that he should have been red carded for that. Due to the marginality of being on the edge of the box, while handball should have been called, it wouldn't be deserving of a red card, or even a yellow card in my view since it was so close to the edge of the box. It did prevent a clear goal scoring opportunity, but the keeper could not be sure he was outside the box or not with it being that close. So it was the wrong decision, both on the pitch and with VAR's non-intervention, that hurt City unfairly, but it wasn't a malicious play by the keeper that in my view would be deserving of a card. And in no scenario would that have resulted in a penalty due to it being the keeper handing it slightly outside the box. I believe that is what limited VARs possible intervention there, since it wasn't in the box, it wasn't a penalty / no penalty situation. And it's a slippery slope in that this limitation is there to prevent VAR from intervening more and disrupting the match more, like for throw-in decision errors, or handballs in the middle of the pitch that don't lead to goal scoring opportunities.

That was sort of a rare one in that the foul (handball) occurred just outside the box and that it did prevent a goal scoring opportunity, but that enforcement of the foul should have led to a free kick and not a penalty. So it was the wrong decision to not call the handball there, but a free kick on the edge of the box is the best that could have occurred for City there, not the penalty or the goal scoring chance that could have otherwise occurred had the keeper not put his hand out there. So that's a tricky one in its very nature, but the frustration is that it wasn't looked at even with VAR.

There's also no indication that with a different on-pitch referee or in a match without VAR that the referee, or the linesman wouldn't have seen that he handed it just outside the box and called the handball right then and there.

In my view, and you may disagree, but the lack of a decision there to call the handball on the pitch could well have been due to VAR's very nature, in that the ref wasn't willing to call the handball, despite seeing it, precisely because it was marginal (as far as being on the edge of the box) and that he's so used to not making decisions and letting VAR seemingly handle anything marginal that he simply didn't make a decision on it under the impression (falsely) that VAR could correct it if needed. But VAR couldn't correct it because it wasn't a pen / no pen, because it didn't directly lead to a goal (even though it very well could have) which again highlights how dysfunctional VAR is and how it only handles certain types of errors lets say while not being able to handle other types of errors.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

The lino doesn't even need to be in line with the 18-yard box to see the handball. Henderson's foot is half over the line and his hand is way out in front of him. The fucking ref should have given it himself but he's refereeing the game differently because he knows he's go the 'safety net' of VAR to bail him out (or not in this case).

I find the whataboutery and gaslighting around this decision from the media and certain posters on here truly baffling.

Exactly, as I alluded to towards the end of the post above, the lack of him making a decision there, and then VAR having no ability to intervene because of it not being a pen / no pen would seem to be a product of VAR itself more than the referee's decision-making.

The referees VAR training and years and years of working under VAR would have seemed to cause the indecision on that play. Because he wasn't (perhaps) 100% sure the GK was outside the box, he's (through VAR) predisposed to not making a decision on anything marginal (the ref or the lino) and waiting to see if VAR would alert him to bring him to the monitor. Only problem is that kind of rare situation is out of VAR's purview as far as when they can intervene. And the best City would get there is a free kick outside the box.

And the whole "the GK should have been red carded for that" is also largely a product of VAR, because that argument is essentially a way to try to fit the situation into a reviewable decision, by claiming that VAR could have got involved if they believed the keeper handballing it there was deserving of a red card. The idea there was that if he could have been red carded, then they could presumably have intervened. While it certainly was a foul and should have resulted in a free kick just outside the box, the idea that he should have been red carded for it is hyperbolic in my view and is only being argued due to the rules surrounding VAR as a means to suggest that VAR should or could have intervened. This situation highlights how useless and poorly designed VAR is.

Since being introduced, VAR has been used primarily (essentially) to decide on 50/50 subjective decision inside the box, that are not clear or obvious, but with something like that one, something actually "factual" they aren't even allowed to intervene since it's outside the box. VAR did not envision a situation like that being important enough to review, despite being purely factual, and if they open the door to allow something like that to be reviewed, then it would end up opening pandora's box even further and causing more delays, i.e. situations not leading to goal scoring opportunities and then soon we'd be getting all kinds of pointless delays for situations outside the box, i.e. non-goal scoring decisions. This is why VAR is so problematic. It can't make up its mind as far as what it is meant to review, but that situation highlights the fact that a 100% factual error couldn't be reviewed or corrected while subjective decisions that could be argued one way or the other often get reviewed, which is not what VAR was said to be brought in far. It's just a mess all around, and that situation with the GK handballing it just outside the box and VAR not intervening highlights the inadequacy of VAR better than any of us could possibly describe ourselves.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

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

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

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

 

[cyan]

completely misinterpreting the fact that he was only just over the edge of the box.

I see you keep hammering this point - but you are wrong. His feet were on the edge of the box and he reaches forward a full arms length and handles the ball. It is deliberate and it stops Haaland getting the ball.

Your argument might have validity if Haaland gets to the ball first, flicks it up to try and go over Henderson's head and in throwing his arm up to stop it he is slightly over the line. But that is not what happens Henderson leans forward and pushed the ball away - he knows where he is and he knows what he is doing -it's a natural instant reaction and then his heart in his mouth hoping he has got away with it.

So it is a clear deliberate handball - the only things that needs to be considered is "Was it an obvious goalscoring opportunity?" VAR said it was not - most of the rest of the footballing world said it was.

As to the difference without VAR. I agree that referees work differently and rely too much on VAR. In this case Atwell's position means he is struggling - he is caught in our half by the long ball and is on the halfway line when the incident happens and Haaland's position probably means he can't see the ball - but the linesman has done well to track the play backwards and should have a clear unobstructed view. But for whatever reason he does not see it - or if he does see it - doesn't make the call. In the past I think they relied on an instinct that would say something is wrong - give the free kick, then they could err on the side of caution and give a yellow card and not a red card. VAR means they are more likely not to give that decision as they wait to see if something did happen - but if VAR calls it back the consequences for Henderson are more severe.

 

[Blue Maverick]

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

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

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

So how do VAR get involved in a handball situation outside the box that ultimately a striker benefits from a scores? By this logic they can’t do anything they shouldn’t even be looking at it, but they do. The keeper outside the box benefitted by punch the ball away, let’s say Haaland had used his hand outside the box knock it past the keeper and score di you think the goal would’ve stood, would it fuck. It’s either corruption or incompetence either way they should be sacked.

 

[normskih]

Still no apology from PGMOL regarding Saturday’s decision? I guess we’ll be waiting until the cows come home then?

 

[Cassandra]

Still no apology from PGMOL regarding Saturday’s decision? I guess we’ll be waiting until the cows come home then?

Mr Webb's silence speaks volumes.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Still no apology from PGMOL regarding Saturday’s decision? I guess we’ll be waiting until the cows come home then?

There won't be one.
They'd released their "reasoning" (excuse for making a corrupt decision) by half-time.
It's done and dusted.
Nothing to see here, move on.

So when dick'eds rabbit on about "they get more right than wrong" this now categorically falls into the "got it correct" box and won't even show up as an error because they've "justified" their decision and they stand by it.

VAR is a colossal bag of shit and so are all the right/wrong decision statistics that are attached to it; it's just clear that some people are happy wearing horses' blinkers, obviously like being spoon fed their opinions and have acquired a taste for bullshit. Whether they know these fact or not is of no concern to me; they're either clinical morons, WUMs, or both.

This thread has just served to remind me why I had a couple of posters on ignore up until a few days ago. Back on ignore they both go.

 

[northendenton]

Still no apology from PGMOL regarding Saturday’s decision? I guess we’ll be waiting until the cows come home then?

You may have to wait on any mooovement as they will milk the situation chattering the usual load of bullshit

 

[halfcenturyup]

No mate, I can’t prove that something didn’t happen. That would be impossible.

What I can do is consider the likelihood that it happened.

It is an absolute fundamental FIFA instruction that there must be no outside interference in the VAR booth.

To routinely have English VARs ignoring that rule would take a conspiracy involving pretty much everybody in the upper echelons of power within the various organisations of English football. The hundreds, if not thousands of people who are aware of it going on, would be sworn to secrecy. One person breaking ranks would risk every one of their livelihoods and probably their chance of them ever working in football again.

But they’re all prepared to take that risk because they are so desperate for the VARs to hear Gary Neville’s take on an incident before they make a decision?

I’d say the chances of that are so slim, it’s as close to zero as you can get.

Commentators can hear the VAR discussions, is that right?

So they can attempt to look smart by relaying the discussions as their own opinion. Shearer, for example, could have heard Gillett discussing direction of travel and relayed that.

Doesn't mean communication happens the other way, although it makes it appear that way?

 

[Gordyola]

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

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

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

VAR looked at the incident and cleared it
"Dermy & company" looked at the incident and said because the GK handed the ball outside his area taking it away from Erling then VAR should have recommended a review for the on-field ref
In their view the on-field ref should then send the GK off and award a FK to City

Your first long paragraph is utter nonsense Its doesn't matter if its mm or meters his hand contact with the ball was outside his area regardless of intention The fact that it was >2ft and intentional, he battled the ball away

Your second paragraph What was they suppose to take into consideration?
They very clearly analyzed the incident it wasn't difficult, see above
PGMOL explained that the VAR viewed the Haaland was going away from goal

Your third paragraph more nonsense It is not in VAR's remit to determine the harshness of a card
VAR would look at the situation because they spotted he handled the ball outside his area this is an offense and because it lead to the possibility that he denied a goal scoring opportunity, entirely in their remit

VAR doesn't award or sign anything its purpose is to support the on-field ref, check for offside and if they see an incident that is clear and obvious having been missed after a through check they advise the on-field ref to review
They did critique VAR as they said it should have been a red card
What has a penalty got to do with it

So if I get you right
Wasn't a red card, wrong
VAR shouldn't have looked, wrong
Dermy and crew were defending VAR, wrong
It shouldn't have been a penalty, well you got that bit right

 

[Gordyola]

So that's a tricky one in its very nature, but the frustration is that it wasn't looked at even with VAR.

It was looked at they stop the game and PGMOL said
"The direction in which Erling Haaland was going made it possible, but not an obvious goal scoring opportunity,"

But VAR couldn't correct it because it wasn't a pen / no pen, because it didn't directly lead to a goal

What has a penalty got to do with it it was handball outside the box denying a DOGSO he battered the ball away the idiots in VAR missed this entirely

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

It was looked at they stop the game and PGMOL said
"The direction in which Erling Haaland was going made it possible, but not an obvious goal scoring opportunity,"

What has a penalty got to do with it it was handball outside the box denying a DOGSO he battered the ball away the idiots in VAR missed this entirely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Your second paragraph What was they suppose to take into consideration?
They very clearly analyzed the incident it wasn't difficult, see above
PGMOL explained that the VAR viewed the Haaland was going away from goal

My friend, VAR is limited by their own constraints. There's a reason why that couldn't be corrected. Because it wasn't in the box. Simple as that. The only time a handball outside the box can be seen and corrected is if actually leads to a goal or a penalty. That didn't happen here, so they couldn't correct that error. I know, it's stupid. VAR is stupid. I get that you and many others are saying that it prevented a goal scoring opportunity so it should have been corrected, but unfortunately that is not what VAR allows. Whether or not it prevented a goal scoring opportunity is subjective and impossible for them to factually know for sure. Since the handball occurred outside the box, it was not considered in their minds a goal scoring opportunity. I know, it's stupid, but they have created these stupid guidelines which limits what they can do in situations like this.

Should they have simply given the free kick following a VAR review? Of course, that would be factual, simply and logical. But their own criteria and self-confusion about what they're allowed to do prevented them from doing that. Don't you get it? VAR is bent, it can't get out of its own way.

Had they given a red card, then it would have been a free kick outside the box. That's the only way that could have resulted in a free kick, at least according to their own criteria!

In my view, the reason why so many people are claiming it should have been a red card, is due primarily to that being the only way for them to have given a free kick following a VAR review, which is bent beyond belief! But that's VAR for you. On the other hand, I get that you also genuinely believe that it was deserving of a red card, because it stopped a goal. but that is hugely open to interpretation and I disagree with that. IMHO it should have been a free kick, not a red card or a yellow in my view due to it being on the edge of the box. But they couldn't give it without giving a red card, which is bent.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Your third paragraph more nonsense It is not in VAR's remit to determine the harshness of a card
VAR would look at the situation because they spotted he handled the ball outside his area this is an offense and because it lead to the possibility that he denied a goal scoring opportunity, entirely in their remit

If what you're saying was true, and it was so easy for them to do that, and give a free kick short of a red card, then they would have done that. There's a reason why they didn't do that, and I'm trying to explain why. The fact is that what you are describing is not one of the 4 ways in which VAR can intervene. In VAR's utter bollock criteria, they would be required to send off the keeper in order to correct that error and award the free kick. Now you're gonna say, no it's in their remit. Then where does it say that in the 4 scenarios in which VAR can intervene? it doesn't. And if it was in their remit, then they would have known that they could easily give the free kick without sending the keeper off. They certainly did not conclude that the keeper's handball was deserving of a red card or they would have send him off. And in my view that is reasonable since he was only marginally outside the box and when he started his move to punch it out he was still in the box. They had ample clear factual evidence that the handball was outside the box and should have resulted in a free kick. But they didn't give it. And we know why, because they're not allowed to do that according to their own criteria short of deciding that the GK deserved to be shown a red card. That's how dysfunctional VAR is. And rather than the usual "it's not VAR it's the people using it" excuse of trying to understand why a free kick wasn't given, I'm reminding you that they were "officially" not able to correct the error without giving a red card. Handballs outside the box that don't directly result in a goal are not an option for VAR intervention. And don't be upset at me. The 4 ways VAR can intervene are quite clear and that situation isn't one of them :

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

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

So, to review, what happened was. The VAR had a look at it for a possible red card. They saw (rightly in my view, wrongly in many City fans view, and understandably so) how close he was to the edge of the box and realize that a red card would have been harsh. They would have been unable to give a yellow upon a VAR review even if they wanted to, since according to their criteria, it could only have been a sending off or nothing. Once they decided it wasn't a red, they had no way of correcting the error, since they are limited by what they can review, so they moved on. That's what happened. Don't argue with me about how stupid it is that they couldn't simply give a free kick. I'm in full agreement that they should have been able to do that without needing to give the red. It's merely that VAR does not allow that to occur unless a red is given in that scenario.

Conclusion : VAR is bent and needs scrapping. This situation only further reinforces how problematic and how generally useless the whole system is. On the other hand, if they make a change to VAR to allow something like this to be reviewed and corrected, then it opens the door to any handball or foul outside the box from being reviewed and corrected, which would lead to a hideous amount of reviews. As you can see, VAR is doomed to fail, due to its nature, which I've been banging on about for some time. And a situation like this is yet another example of how it can't get out of its own way, due to how poorly it was designed and how it was always inherently destined to fail.

 

[Gordyola]

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

In my view, the idea that it should have been a red card is hyperbolic. I understand that many City fans are arguing this including myself. We can agree to disagree on whether it should have been a red card, I don't see it as a red card because he was on the border of the box. You are trying to argue that it wasn't borderline, that he was clearly beyond the box, and that's due to looking at it through slow motion and not looking at it in real-time, where it was too close to the edge of the box from the keeper to be sure he was even over the line. I can tell we're not going to agree on this point, but that's oK. We can agree to disagree about it being deserving of a red card.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VAR can and DOES check for DOGSO if it comes under the remit of a direct red cards they should recommend an on field review
A GK handing the ball and taking off a opponent is DOGSO and a red card offence

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

VAR can and DOES check for DOGSO it comes under the remit of a direct red cards
A GK handing the ball and taking off a opponent is DOGSO

Under the "remit" of a direct red card? Are you under the impression that they could have given a free kick without giving a red card and sending the keeper off? This seems to be the crux of the issue.

 

[Gordyola]

Under the "remit" of a direct red card? Are you under the impression that they could have given a free kick without giving a red card and sending the keeper off? This seems to be the crux of the issue.

No VAR can’t get involve in yellow card offences If they had recommend a review the ref if he agreed would send the gk off and start with a fk to City
Saturday being an example of the two side they checked decided no DOGSO so no action taken on field

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

No VAR can’t get involve in yellow card offences If they had recommend a review the ref if he agreed would send the gk off and start with a fk to City

Right, that's my point. The only way that they could have given a FK was to send the keeper off in that scenario, which is why they didn't give the FK. They did not conclude that it was deserving of a red card, clearly. Whether you agree with it or not.