VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

Cassandra said:
You sort of wonder why they bother painting these lines on the pitch.
Click to expand...
I'd like to avoid any infighting between Blues if it can be avoided. When it comes to VAR decisions, or decisions in general, we have an obligation to be objective. OK, of course it can be seen clear as day that it was a handball given that he handed it just outside the boundary and it should have been a free kick.

The problem that we should be concerned with here is that VAR was incapable of correcting that without issuing a red card, which would be harsh under any reasonable standard.
 
RiversideBlue said:
Yes, but not by handling the ball two feet outside your box
Click to expand...
The keeper had no idea where the boundary line was, as his eyes were fixated on the attacker and the ball as they would be. Both feet (well besides one toe on the line) and the rest of his body was within the box.


Yes he of course swatted at it extending the arm beyond the boundary, whilst trying to get back in in time. Because it was a race to get to the ball first. Instincts kicked in there with what was a slightly permature swat before he was fully back into the box, but the intent was certainly to back back in time and hand the ball legally. To conclude that was deserving of a red card is a bit much. I mean I understand the frustration and seeing City wronged there in not being awarded a FK. That I get, but then the VAR nonsense starts kicking in, because it needs to be a red card in order for VAR to correct it, so that becomes the rallying cry. But rather than come at me for having a disagreement over a card debate, we should be more focused on the fact that it was VAR that needed it to be a red card in order for a FK to be given, which we should all agree is complete bollocks!
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
I'd like to avoid any infighting between Blues if it can be avoided. When it comes to VAR decisions, or decisions in general, we have an obligation to be objective. OK, of course it can be seen clear as day that it was a handball given that he handed it just outside the boundary and it should have been a free kick.

The problem that we should be concerned with here is that VAR was incapable of correcting that without issuing a red card, which would be harsh under any reasonable standard.
Click to expand...
Are you American by any chance?
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
It also needs to be said that the penalty that was given to City on the slide tackle shouldn't have been a penalty at all. Another VAR blunder, and a massive one at that. I know ya'll don't want to hear it but we need to be objective here.

I could understand the penalty being given on the pitch in real-time, but the VAR replays made it very clear that the slide tackle was a good tackle. He clearly got his foot to the ball before bringing his man down. Just nicked the ball, but he definitely got to it first, clear as day seen from the replays.

And this highlights just how fraudulent VAR is. Apparently the VAR team watched those replays that we can all see clear as day he got to the ball first, avoided contact prior to getting to the ball, but yet the blind VAR team concluded that there was no touch on the ball. And the commentators had the gall to conclude that he "clearly" wasn't playing the ball, whilst it is clearly visible from the replays that he was not only playing the ball but got to the ball first before bringing him down.

I'm sorry but for that to go to review only for VAR to confirm a penalty is bollocks. It could be seen clear as day from the replay that he played the ball, got to the ball first, before any contact. It was a brilliant slide tackle, and never should have been a penalty. Fortunately for Palace the PK was saved.
Click to expand...
someone clearly doesn't know the rules
 
BerkshireBlue said:
someone clearly doesn't know the rules
Click to expand...
What rules would those be? Traditional football rules or VAR-induced re-refereeing re-interpreted bollocks?

So you're telling me that was a penalty? Funny how the blind VARs saw no touch whatsoever, which apparently according to the commentators was what caused it to be confirmed as a penalty. Clearly that was an error. Clearly it was seen on the replays that there was a touch on the ball before ANY other contact was made. Are we arguing that it's a penatly because it was a supposed dangerous challenge, never mind that he got to the ball first?

The blind commentators saw no playing of the ball, the blind VARs saw no touching of the ball. Yet clearly he nicked the ball before any contact. There's no way that should have been given a penalty following a VAR review. I could accept it in real-time, but with those replays, for VAR to confirm that as a penalty is actually mad.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
I'd like to avoid any infighting between Blues if it can be avoided. When it comes to VAR decisions, or decisions in general, we have an obligation to be objective. OK, of course it can be seen clear as day that it was a handball given that he handed it just outside the boundary and it should have been a free kick.

The problem that we should be concerned with here is that VAR was incapable of correcting that without issuing a red card, which would be harsh under any reasonable standard.
Click to expand...
In the preamble to the Laws of the game it talks about the spirit of the game and how the laws cannot cover the detail of every incident and in those cases the officials should act in accordance with the spirit of the law. With intelligent officials it would have been possible for VAR to tell the referee we think it is probably a red card, but you need to look for yourself. The referee then has the option to come to whatever conclusion he thinks fit, including a free kick and a yellow card. I think that would have been the wrong decision, but it would have been better than we got and was a way that with a bit of imagination could have been achieved within the laws.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
the rules of the games according the to FA rule book
Click to expand...
Explain it to me oh wise one how that's a penalty. And to be clear, do you agree that he clearly did nick the ball first before making contact? Are we to presume that getting to the ball first on slide tackles does not matter anymore?
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
Explain it to me oh wise one how that's a penalty. And to be clear, do you agree that he clearly did nick the ball first before making contact? Are we to presume that getting to the ball first on slide tackles does not matter anymore?
Click to expand...
read the rules, do your own research as to why a nick on the ball doesn't imply it's not a penalty
 
Cassandra said:
In the preamble to the Laws of the game it talks about the spirit of the game and how the laws cannot cover the detail of every incident and in those cases the officials should act in accordance with the spirit of the law. With intelligent officials it would have been possible for VAR to tell the referee we think it is probably a red card, but you need to look for yourself.The referee then has the option to come to whatever conclusion he thinks fit, including a free kick and a yellow card. I think that would have been the wrong decision, but it would have been better than we got and was a way that with a bit of imagination could have been achieved within the laws.
Click to expand...
No no, you're trying to twist it to suggest that VAR is allowed to do something it can't. According to them, accoridng to their design of the system where they've very clearly laid out the 4 scenarios in which VAR can intervene.

Don't let VAR (as a system) off the hook. Of course they should have been able to quickly give a free kick without needing to send the keeper off. Of course that woudl be the logical thing, but the point is that VAR is not logically and that it very clearly does not allow that to occur.

And what's annoying is that everyone deep down knows this, but yet they are foolishly pretending that this bottleneck doesn't exist.

If you genuinely believe that the keeper should have been sent off for that, I disagree, but fair play to you. It's certainly an arguable position. But the largely point is that for one reason or another, and I think I've explained quite accurately why they were unable to correct that decision. They were unwilling to issue a red card for that due to as I so eloquently outlined, due to his close proximity to the edge of the box. Like many things with VAR, ther'es a tendency to ignore the elephant in the room. There should be a loophole needed to as you've outlined, to pretend to look into a red card offense to get in the VAR reviewing "door" so to speak and then be allowed to issue something less than a red if advisable. And I would agree that sounds logical, but as I pointed out, they are technically not allowed to do that, and for good reason. Because they did that for a reason, to maintain a high threshold on what can be reviewed and acted upon, otherwise we'd have a hideous amount of reviews for all kinds of things outside the box.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
read the rules, do your own research as to why a nick on the ball doesn't imply it's not a penalty
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. The point was that the commentator mentioned on the live telecast that the VARs were under the impression that there was "no touch" on the ball whatsoever, when they're clearly was, and it could be seen quite clearly from one of the replays. This shows that the VARs must literally be blind to not see that. And it wasn't only that he nicked the ball, but it was that he clearly nicked the ball first before any other contact occurred, meaning it was a good tackle. Meaning, he was clearly playing the ball as he not only was playing the ball but he succeeded in getting to the ball cleanly. And the commentators as the decision was being made claimed that he wasn't even playing the ball, showing that they are blind as well. And all this in favor of City no less which is more than curious but no less wrong. Clearly he was playing the ball as he nicked the ball before he contacted the attacker. The decision there and the incorrect interpreting of the replays were blatantly dysfunctional on many levels, even if you would still argue somehow that a nick on the ball first wouldn't stop it from being a penalty, which just so happens to be inconsistent with traditional football rules. If you get to the ball first, generally, it's not a foul or a penalty. Every situation is different of course but that's a general rule of thumb. But if in fact the VARs missed the touch on the ball altogether, that's highly suspect, regardless of the fact that City benefitted from it, we can still be objective.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
No no, you're trying to twist it to suggest that VAR is allowed to do something it can't. According to them, accoridng to their design of the system where they've very clearly laid out the 4 scenarios in which VAR can intervene.

Don't let VAR (as a system) off the hook. Of course they should have been able to quickly give a free kick without needing to send the keeper off. Of course that woudl be the logical thing, but the point is that VAR is not logically and that it very clearly does not allow that to occur.

And what's annoying is that everyone deep down knows this, but yet they are foolishly pretending that this bottleneck doesn't exist.

If you genuinely believe that the keeper should have been sent off for that, I disagree, but fair play to you. It's certainly an arguable position. But the largely point is that for one reason or another, and I think I've explained quite accurately why they were unable to correct that decision. They were unwilling to issue a red card for that due to as I so eloquently outlined, due to his close proximity to the edge of the box. Like many things with VAR, ther'es a tendency to ignore the elephant in the room. There should be a loophole needed to as you've outlined, to pretend to look into a red card offense to get in the VAR reviewing "door" so to speak and then be allowed to issue something less than a red if advisable. And I would agree that sounds logical, but as I pointed out, they are technically not allowed to do that, and for good reason. Because they did that for a reason, to maintain a high threshold on what can be reviewed and acted upon, otherwise we'd have a hideous amount of reviews for all kinds of things outside the box.
Click to expand...
Yes they are, once the referee is sent to the monitor any outcome is available to the referee.
 
Cassandra said:
Yes they are, once the referee is sent to the monitor any outcome is available to the referee.
Click to expand...
OK so why wasn't a free kick given then? What is their official explanation? If what you're saying is true, then they would be giving a different explanation. From what I've been hearing all the focus is on why it should have been a red card, and I'm reading about how it wasn't given because they couldn't prove it was a goal scoring opportunity or something, because of how the ball deflected which sounds mad.

Why the hell are they focused on which way the ball bounced? Why is everyone so fixated on whether or not it's a red card, meanwhile the elephant in the room clear as day factual 100% handball outside the box is being ignored, which they (for some reason) refused to correct despite you arguing that they had the ability to correct (even without a red) it if only they would bring the ref to the monitor. What an absolute riot!
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
You're missing the point. The point was that the commentator mentioned on the live telecast that the VARs were under the impression that there was "no touch" on the ball whatsoever, when they're clearly was, and it could be seen quite clearly from one of the replays. This shows that the VARs must literally be blind to not see that. And it wasn't only that he nicked the ball, but it was that he clearly nicked the ball first before any other contact occurred, meaning it was a good tackle. Meaning, he was clearly playing the ball as he not only was playing the ball but he succeeded in getting to the ball cleanly. And the commentators as the decision was being made claimed that he wasn't even playing the ball, showing that they are blind as well. And all this in favor of City no less which is more than curious but no less wrong. Clearly he was playing the ball as he nicked the ball before he contacted the attacker. The decision there and the incorrect interpreting of the replays were blatantly dysfunctional on many levels, even if you would still argue somehow that a nick on the ball first wouldn't stop it from being a penalty, which just so happens to be inconsistent with traditional football rules. If you get to the ball first, generally, it's not a foul or a penalty. Every situation is different of course but that's a general rule of thumb. But if in fact the VARs missed the touch on the ball altogether, that's highly suspect, regardless of the fact that City benefitted from it, we can still be objective.
Click to expand...
they saw the touch and by the rules it's still a penalty. read the rules. I keep saying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top