VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[daztrueblue91]

I'm not talking nonsense. I'm making very salient points it's just that you see it differently. We agree that his arm was outside the area and it should have been a free kick. No argument there. It's a matter of whether it would be deserving of a red card. The VARs didn't think so apparently for whatever reason. If their reasoning was that they didn't think it was a DOAGSO then that logic is problematic because I do agree with ya'll that it clearly was. And I know what that is supposed to mean. All I'm saying is that I can sympathize with the keeper being so close to the edge of the box. I don't think his well thought out "intent" was to commit a handball. He was trying to get back into the box before swatting it and in that moment instincts kicked in.

So I can't conclude that it was a "deliberate" handball due to the fact that he did well enough to get his body back into the box before swatting it. Still a foul, still should have been a free kick, maybe even a card. I'm not just comfortable sending him off like that. But that's just me. That's just my interpretation of it giving the benefit of the doubt to the keeper. As far as a defender making a tackle being a natural thing to do, yeah sure, but in order for a tackle to not to be a foul, he can't contact the defender. He needs to be "playing the ball" in order to avoid committing a foul let alone being booked. So trying to equate tackling to a keeper swatting a ball is a but much. Both can be natural acts but there are ways in which you can do it legally and ways in which you can't. In the keeper's case, it was simply where he was whilst doing what he did, vs a tackle which he could only be red carded if he completely misses the ball and actually takes his guy out.

That is why you are not making a salient point. Everything else you point out is irrelevant.

For a keeper to legally swat the ball away it needs to be inside the box. It really is as simple as that.

What you’re actually arguing is that you’d have sympathy for the keeper if he’d have been sent off, as he got his bearings wrong rather than a malicious act. That still does not mean the VAR made the correct decision.

 

[richardtheref]

You're mischaracterizing what I said. No one said "innocent" only that it would have been in my view "harsh" to send him off for something borderline like that. Even if it was a DOGSO it's not the same as other DOGSO situations in that it was a natural swatting motion of a keeper, something he's allowed to do in the box and most of his body was in the box when it happened. It shouldn't rise to the level of being on par with dangerous play, like elbowing someone in the back of the head on a header, or going studs up and causing injury.

One of the negative aspects about VAR is that's caused changes to the laws and changes to interpretations that attempt to make everything black and white, but what we're finding out is that there's far more nuance then the football powers that be would have you believe. I'm sorry but a keeper swatting a ball on the edge of the penalty area should not be penalized the same as dangerous aggressively play.

However, this law has not been changed recently.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

The penalty on Silva was a penalty..he didn't touch the ball..he made contact on Silva so it's a penalty.

You're wrong. He very clearly touched the ball before contacting Silva. The VARs missed it, the commentators initially missed it to because you really have to look closely. And that's what these kinds of reviews are for. That's what VAR is supposed to be there for. To catch slight touches like that on situations that are hard to see in real-time. But the blind as bats VAR failed to catch the touch and issued the penalty anyway, rending the whole review useless and pointless if they aren't looking for what they should be looking at.

It reminded me of the Mane situation in the 2018 WC against Colombia. Overturned because it was revealed upon review that he got to the ball first. But they either didn't see the touch or didn't think it was important, and decided it was a penalty anyway. Completely bent in my view. The evidence is there that he got to the ball first. Just a slight nick but that's all you need. If you "understand football" that is to use a line that some have used against me.

I think you are just deliberately trying to wind people up and I really have better things to do with my time than rehash this over and over..
Time for you to be honest and reveal who you support because I'm pretty sure you aren't a City fan..I would hazard a guess at either a rag or a dipper..either way I'm through trying to engage with you.
Redcafe or Rawk eagerly await your input

I resent that you think I'm deliberately trying to wind people up. I'm giving my honest take on the situation. You don't have to agree but to conclude that I'm deliberately trying to wind people up is as bent as VAR.

I gave you an opportunity to give your take on the penalty on Silva and you showed that, like VAR, you missed the touch, which shows that you're not paying attention to the small details to the extent I am, which is revealing!

You're also calling me not a City fan for being objective about it which I resent as well. Your claims about me are bent and shame on you for that. If you can't take the heat, then get out the kitchen. Run off then.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

That is why you are not making a salient point. Everything else you point out is irrelevant.

For a keeper to legally swat the ball away it needs to be inside the box. It really is as simple as that.

What you’re actually arguing is that you’d have sympathy for the keeper if he’d have been sent off, as he got his bearings wrong rather than a malicious act. That still does not mean the VAR made the correct decision.

I have no issue with what you said there. My view is that it would have been harsh to send him off, due to my view of his "intent". But I respect your view on it and am not claiming you're wrong.

 

[RiversideBlue]

Christ is he still on here

 

[danielwood5]

The evidence is there that he got to the ball first. Just a slight nick but that's all you need. If you "understand football" that is to use a line that some have used against me.

No, it's not. That statement is completely and utterly wrong and has always been wrong.

 

[blue by birth]

You're wrong. He very clearly touched the ball before contacting Silva. The VARs missed it, the commentators initially missed it to because you really have to look closely. And that's what these kinds of reviews are for. That's what VAR is supposed to be there for. To catch slight touches like that on situations that are hard to see in real-time. But the blind as bats VAR failed to catch the touch and issued the penalty anyway, rending the whole review useless and pointless if they aren't looking for what they should be looking at.

It reminded me of the Mane situation in the 2018 WC against Colombia. Overturned because it was revealed upon review that he got to the ball first. But they either didn't see the touch or didn't think it was important, and decided it was a penalty anyway. Completely bent in my view. The evidence is there that he got to the ball first. Just a slight nick but that's all you need. If you "understand football" that is to use a line that some have used against me.


I resent that you think I'm deliberately trying to wind people up. I'm giving my honest take on the situation. You don't have to agree but to conclude that I'm deliberately trying to wind people up is as bent as VAR.

I gave you an opportunity to give your take on the penalty on Silva and you showed that, like VAR, you missed the touch, which shows that you're not paying attention to the small details to the extent I am, which is revealing!

You're also calling me not a City fan for being objective about it which I resent as well. Your claims about me are bent and shame on you for that. If you can't take the heat, then get out the kitchen. Run off then.

You basically called me a liar when I said I wouldn't complain if it was Ortega being sent off in the same circumstances..I wouldn't complain as it's the rules
Telling me to stay out of the kitchen if I can't stand the heat..Fuck off you prick..I've tried being reasonable but I really can't be arsed with you...
You are definitely either a rag or a dipper and you are only the second person I've had to put on ignore..
Fucking wum

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

No, it's not. That statement is completely and utterly wrong and has always been wrong.

Oh really, then why was the penalty overturned by VAR in the Senegal Colombia 2018 WC match? Because he . . . (you say it).

Of course getting to the ball first isn't the be all end all of whether it's a penalty, but it's a big part of it. And the fact is that the VARs apparently missed the touch, blue by birth missed it too. If you can't see that he got a touch on to the ball then you're not paying attention. Now if your argument is, well sure he got the touch, but he also came from behind, as if that matters more, well that's subjective. There's also the argument that many other people have that Silva was diving, which would be another reason to not give the penalty. But I don't see perceived dives as all that significant or more important than the touch itself. But the point is, there's more than 1 reason to conclude taht shouldn't have been a penalty, yet the penalty was given anyway. What's the point of reviewing that if you're not looking at the contact, or if he got to the ball first? Now it's about if they think he's diving or not, or where the tackle started from? That's irrelevant to the contact itself.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

You basically called me a liar when I said I wouldn't complain if it was Ortega being sent off in the same circumstances..I wouldn't complain as it's the rules

Not at all. I said the opposite, that I bet you would make the same argument if it was Ortega. i was basically extending an olive branch to you there believing you that you would be objective if it happened to City. Yet here you are now saying I said the exact opposite.

Telling me to stay out of the kitchen if I can't stand the heat..Fuck off you prick..I've tried being reasonable but I really can't be arsed with you...
You are definitely either a rag or a dipper and you are only the second person I've had to put on ignore..
Fucking wum

Reminder, you're the one who came at me, saying that I'm winding people up or that I'm not a City fan lol. And I say get out the kitchen now you're offended. My man, don't dish it if you can't take it back! Turnabout fair play.

I'm not definitely any of those things. You proved on the Silva penalty that you failed to see the touch. Pay more attention next time!

 

[daztrueblue91]

I have no issue with what you said there. My view is that it would have been harsh to send him off, due to my view of his "intent". But I respect your view on it and am not claiming you're wrong.

I get what you are saying about intent and there’s a clear difference between what Henderson did and Suarez in the World Cup.

However, the vast majority of dangerous tackles lack intent to deliberately hurt the player, they’re just mistimed.

Judging by how blatant Henderson’s use of his hand was and his close proximity to the box, it’s obvious he’s miscalculated his position.

That said, he has still gained an illegal advantage and denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. The fact VAR thought otherwise and attempted to justify their decision is worrying for the game.

 

[danielwood5]

Oh really, then why was the penalty overturned by VAR in the Senegal Colombia 2018 WC match? Because he . . . (you say it).

Of course getting to the ball first isn't the be all end all of whether it's a penalty, but it's a big part of it. And the fact is that the VARs apparently missed the touch, blue by birth missed it too. If you can't see that he got a touch on to the ball then you're not paying attention. Now if your argument is, well sure he got the touch, but he also came from behind, as if that matters more, well that's subjective. There's also the argument that many other people have that Silva was diving, which would be another reason to not give the penalty. But I don't see perceived dives as all that significant or more important than the touch itself. But the point is, there's more than 1 reason to conclude taht shouldn't have been a penalty, yet the penalty was given anyway. What's the point of reviewing that if you're not looking at the contact, or if he got to the ball first? Now it's about if they think he's diving or not, or where the tackle started from? That's irrelevant to the contact itself.

Show me the section in the Laws of the Game that states that a defender can brush against the ball and also take out the attacker.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I get what you are saying about intent and there’s a clear difference between what Henderson did and Suarez in the World Cup.

However, the vast majority of dangerous tackles lack intent to deliberately hurt the player, they’re just mistimed.

Fair point that.

Judging by how blatant Henderson’s use of his hand was and his close proximity to the box, it’s obvious he’s miscalculated his position.

That said, he has still gained an illegal advantage and denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. The fact VAR thought otherwise and attempted to justify their decision is worrying for the game.

Well to this point we don't fully know what the VARs reasoning was. We heard that it may have been that they did not believe that it wasn't a denial of a goal scoring opportunity which I think we'd all agree is problematic. I wonder if they'll release the audio.

 

[give it to gordon]

You're perfectly entitled to that view. And I can understand that. But I think the key word there is "opinion". In your "opinion" he knew exactly where he was. Anotherwords, in your mind, you've assigned a "motive" to the keeper that he was intentionally trying to cheat. This is where we differ. I see that as happening too quickly for even "thinking" to be a part of it. It was more "instincts". Anotherwords, he tried to get back, thought "maybe" he was "about" back and swiped at it as if he was fully in. I mean his body was in, but the disconnect here is that he didn't have the time in the moment to make a well thought out decision. It was just "instinct", doing something he typically does and not being 100% sure exactly where he was because his eyes were focused on the ball and the attacker. I mean he knew "generally' where he was but not precisely due to where his eyes were.

And I bet you would take the same stance if it was Ortega. I just tend to look at intent more, I don't see footballers as robots who are perfect creatures. It in my mind is understandable for Henderson to make that "mistake", moreso than other "mistakes" like with Kova yesterday. I don't think every DOGSO is the same. I understand the language in the rules but I also think there's enough "problems" with the way the rules have been changed to not always agree with them. I mean, look at how many times they changed what a "handball" was since VAR was introduced and how many fans objected to the way they were changing the rules and re-refereeing the game.

All I'm saying was sending him off would have been in my view "harsh". But to your point, you are well within your right to argue that and you're definitely in the majority on that, as I recognize. And I don't particularly like being on the same side of a VAR decision, or in this case a non-decision, even though their explanation apparently is diferent than mine.

By the way, what is your view on the penalty given to City? Was it a good slide tackle? Was Silva "diving"?? Was that VAR's way of trying to "balance things out" after the missed handball earlier?

There is no opinion. If the keeper handles the ball outside his box it's a free kick. If the keeper in doing so stops a clear goal chance it's a red card.

It really doesn't matter if the keeper lost his bearings it's still a foul and a red card. We could argue that 90% of fouls aren't meant, so should those be ignored ?

 

[give it to gordon]

You basically called me a liar when I said I wouldn't complain if it was Ortega being sent off in the same circumstances..I wouldn't complain as it's the rules
Telling me to stay out of the kitchen if I can't stand the heat..Fuck off you prick..I've tried being reasonable but I really can't be arsed with you...
You are definitely either a rag or a dipper and you are only the second person I've had to put on ignore..
Fucking wum

I would be shocked if any City keeper wasn't sent off for this offence

 

[Barcon]

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Show me the section in the Laws of the Game that states that a defender can brush against the ball and also take out the attacker.

Whether or not he took out the defender is subjective. Whether he got to the ball first is factual. You could just as easily make the argument that Silva was going down himself before the contact. But I tend to focus on if he got to the ball first. It's stretch to claim that Silva was "taken out" there. "Taking someone out" generally occurs when the defender goes in recklessly, fails to get to the ball and takes out of the player short of getting to the ball.

The definition of a clean slide tackle is in fact getting to the ball first. The harder you contact the ball the easier it is to see and generally helps to avoid a foul. I'm not claiming that getting to the ball first is the be all end all, but that's a crucial element to whether or not a slide tackle is considered a foul or not.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

There is no opinion. If the keeper handles the ball outside his box it's a free kick. If the keeper in doing so stops a clear goal chance it's a red card.

It really doesn't matter if the keeper lost his bearings it's still a foul and a red card. We could argue that 90% of fouls aren't meant, so should those be ignored ?

Then why did the VARs or the referee not give a red card? Because it's . . . (you say it).

 

[danielwood5]

Whether or not he took out the defender is subjective. Whether he got to the ball first is factual. You could just as easily make the argument that Silva was going down himself before the contact. But I tend to focus on if he got to the ball first. It's stretch to claim that Silva was "taken out" there. "Taking someone out" generally occurs when the defender goes in recklessly, fails to get to the ball and takes out of the player short of getting to the ball.

The definition of a clean slide tackle is in fact getting to the ball first. The harder you contact the ball the easier it is to see and generally helps to avoid a foul. I'm not claiming that getting to the ball first is the be all end all, but that's a crucial element to whether or not a slide tackle is considered a foul or not.

No, it's not.
Show me the section in the Laws of the Game that states that a defender can brush against the ball and also take out the attacker.

 

[give it to gordon]

Then why did the VARs or the referee not give a red card? Because it's . . . (you say it).

You tell me why var didn't follow the rules

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

No, it's not.
Show me the section in the Laws of the Game that states that a defender can brush against the ball and also take out the attacker.

It's more about what happens first. Does the slider tackle contact the attacker first, or is he playing the ball and getting to the ball first before contacting any part of the attacker? In this case he did not contact Silva before getting to the ball first.

Why do you think that penalty in the 2018 World Cup between Senegal and Colombia was overturned? For the exact reason that you're trying to deny is important. He got to the ball first.