VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[TheBeautifulGame]

At the risk of committing a further ad hominem attack.

My counter argument is detailed below.

It was handball.
It was outside the penalty area.
It was deliberate.
It was a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity.
It was a red card offence.

All of which tangentially relates to City getting fucked over.

Laters r kid.

It's misleading to claim that a goalkeeper's handball is inherently deliberate if it occurs outside the box considering that he's fully allowed to handle the ball "deliberately" inside the box. For such a motion by the goalkeeper to be considered "deliberate" outside the box would depend primarily on how far outside the box he was when the handball occurred and the subjective analysis of the situation. Therefore, his steps preceding the incident and his position on the edge of the box are primarily relevant to determining if the handball was deliberate from the goalkeeper. As in the handball as a foul in this case, vs a legal "handball" by the goalkeeper where he is allowed to. You're trying to over simply it by using language that in the case of the goalkeeper could mean two separate things. Anotherwords, the handball was deliberate in the sense that he intended to handle it. But it wasn't deliberate in the sense of the goalkeeper not being sure exactly where he was after trying to get back into the area that he is allowed to handball it before swatting it away, along the very border of what would be considered a foul or not.

 

[RayCTID]

It was intentional from Henderson. There was a similar situation a couple of seasons back where he didn't and Haaland knocked past him and scored.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

It was intentional from Henderson. There was a similar situation a couple of seasons back where he didn't and Haaland knocked past him and scored.

So he learned from his past mistake, and took corrective action this time. Excellent storytelling.

 

[RayCTID]

So he learned from his past mistake, and took corrective action this time. Excellent storytelling.

No he should have been dismissed and shouldn't have had an opportunity to be a hero.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

No he should have been dismissed and shouldn't have had an opportunity to be a hero.

Dismissing him there for that would have been "harsh" considering his proximity to the edge of the box. City should have been given a free kick in prime position for the infraction instead of a throw-in.

 

[RayCTID]

Dismissing him there for that would have been "harsh" considering his proximity to the edge of the box. City should have been given a free kick in prime position for the infraction instead of a throw-in.

It was outside the box and it did geniunely stop a goal scoring opportunity. There was no objectivity about the incident. What compounded it was he moved early off his line during the penalty. Palace didn't beat City fairly and squarely. They would be the same if it CIty got away with it.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

What compounded it was he moved early off his line during the penalty.

This is the second time I've heard that he moved early off his line during the penalty. Your framing of this is curious in that it's as if you're trying to in any way suggest that the two situations were related, which they were not. The penalty was given later in the half and controversially to begin with, as it appeared to be a good slide tackle in which he got to the ball first, while others who don't consider the touch to be as important have also seen Silva "diving" prior to the contact.

In any case, the giving of the penalty following the review was quite fortunate for City, and despite your claims of him coming off his line early, if he did, it would have been too marginal to be grounds to correct. Here are two angles of the penalty. He appears to still have his left boot on the line at the moment of contact. It seems to me that Henderson timed his move perfectly and had one foot still on the line at the moment of contact. It was a brilliant save and he arguably deserved Man of the Match for his gritty and clutch performance.

Palace didn't beat City fairly and squarely. They would be the same if it CIty got away with it.

Well there were decisions that went against both Palace and City. City were denied an "obvious" free kick by VAR's inadequacies while Palace had to endure a penalty given against them for what seemed to be a good slide tackle and a possible dive.

As Fans Against VAR stated :



VAR got both key decisions wrong, one against City and one against Palace. But to say that Palace didn't beat City fairly and squarely, well, Palace weren't the ones who made the officiating errors and were unable to correct them. You can't blame a club for poor decisions by the referee. It was Palace's job to play and they played a great match. It was the referee's job to officiate and as usual they failed to officiate the match without controversy.

 

[RayCTID]

This is the second time I've heard that he moved early off his line during the penalty. Your framing of this is curious in that it's as if you're trying to in any way suggest that the two situations were related, which they were not. The penalty was given later in the half and controversially to begin with, as it appeared to be a good slide tackle in which he got to the ball first, while others you don't consider the touch to be important have also seen Silva diving prior to the contact.

In any case, the giving of the penalty following the review was quite fortunate for City, and despite your claims of him coming off his line early, if he did, it would have been too marginal to be grounds to correct. Here are two angles of the penalty. He appears to still have his left boot on the line at the moment of contact. It seems to me that Henderson timed his move perfectly and had one foot still on the line at the moment of contact.

View attachment 157664

View attachment 157665


Well they were decisions that went against both Palace and City. City were denied an "obvious" free kick by VAR's inadequacies while Palace had to endure a penalty given against them for what seemed to be a good slide tackle.

As Fans Against VAR stated :



VAR got both key decisions wrong, one against City and one against Palace. But to say that place didn't beat City fairly and squarely, well, Palace weren't the ones who made those errors. You can't blame a club for poor decisions by the referee. It was Palace's job to play and they played a great match. It was the referee's job to officiate and as usual they failed to officiate the match without controversy.

They did'n't and Henderson was the difference to Palace's outcome. If they did beat us without that then fair enough both Wigan and utd did without the match officals helping matters. The fact is he shouldn't have been on the pitch. I am sorry but that is a huge slight on their result.

 

[danielwood5]

Well there were decisions that went against both Palace and City. City were denied an "obvious" free kick by VAR's inadequacies while Palace had to endure a penalty given against them for what seemed to be a good slide tackle and a possible dive.

As Fans Against VAR stated :



VAR got both key decisions wrong, one against City and one against Palace. But to say that place didn't beat City fairly and squarely, well, Palace weren't the ones who made those errors. You can't blame a club for poor decisions by the referee. It was Palace's job to play and they played a great match. It was the referee's job to officiate and as usual they failed to officiate the match without controversy.

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. Not an example from 7 years ago or a post from your Twitter account, the current rules as are written.

 

[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. Not an example from 7 years ago or a post from your Twitter account, the current rules as are written.

Haha that's not my twitter account. I don't run Fans Against VAR but I am one lol.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

They did'n't and Henderson was the difference to Palace's outcome. If they did beat us without that then fair enough both Wigan and utd did without the match officals helping matters. The fact is he shouldn't have been on the pitch. I am sorry but that is a huge slight on their result.

I agree that it was a controversial win due to VAR. But controversial both for and against City. The problem is that VAR was brought in to end controversy and I think we can all agree that is only has increased the amount of controversy instead of reducing it!

 

[danielwood5]

Haha that's not my twitter account. I don't run Fans Against VAR but I am one lol.

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. Not an example from 7 years ago or from a random Twitter account written by someone who also doesn't understand the Laws of the Game, the current rules as they are written and used in the English game.

 

[RayCTID]

I agree that it was a controversial win due to VAR. But controversial both for and against City. The problem is that VAR was brought in to end controversy and I think we can all agree that is only has increased the amount of controversy instead of reducing it!

In other sports it is a lot more smoother and seems impartial as well so it could work in football.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

In other sports it is a lot more smoother and seems impartial as well so it could work in football.

Football isn't a start stop sport though, and in other sports where video review works smoother there's more things to miss which is primarily what it is used for.

 

[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. Not an example from 7 years ago or from a random Twitter account written by someone who also doesn't understand the Laws of the Game, the current rules as they are written and used in the English game.

I'll address that if you will admit that my position of a non-deliberate handball (as in the foul) by the goalkeeper on the edge of the box is fully reasonable given the situation and that I was unfairly maligned by those who didn't comprehend the rule set as it pertains to such a situation.

 

[danielwood5]

I'll address that if you will admit that my position of a non-deliberate handball (as in the foul) by the goalkeeper on the edge of the box is fully reasonable given the situation and that I was unfairly maligned by those who didn't comprehend the rule set as it pertains to such a situation.

I cannot admit that the blatantly wrong is right.
However, I understand your reasoning for your opinion in the same way I understand the reasoning cranks use to believe the earth is flat, it's just twisting words and holding only a surface level understanding of the subject being discussed.
Having said that, you have asserted numerous times that a defender can take out a player as long as he brushes against the ball without causing any change in the balls direction or speed.
So I ask once again;
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. Not an example from 7 years ago or from a random Twitter account written by someone who also doesn't understand the Laws of the Game, the current rules as they are written and used in the English game.

 

[Dodge]

I'll address that if you will admit that my position of a non-deliberate handball (as in the foul) by the goalkeeper on the edge of the box is fully reasonable given the situation and that I was unfairly maligned by those who didn't comprehend the rule set as it pertains to such a situation.

After careful consideration of the nuances, and forensic examination of all the facts that pertain to this situation, I have come to the conclusion that you sir, are a complete and utter cock.

I'd tell you to your face but it seems to have disappeared up your arse.

Unfairly maligned...give me strength.

Peace out.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I cannot admit that the blatantly wrong is right.
However, I understand your reasoning for your opinion in the same way I understand the reasoning cranks use to believe the earth is flat, it's just twisting words and holding only a surface level understanding of the subject being discussed.
Having said that, you have asserted numerous times that a defender can take out a player as long as he brushes against the ball without causing any change in the balls direction or speed.

I'll ask it a different way. Is there any scenario in your mind in which a goalkeeper could handle the ball beyond the box and it wouldn't be considered a "deliberate" handball? You might say, oh well if he wasn't intentionally swatting at it. How about with the caveat that he was in fact intentionally swatting at it, but with his eyes fixated down pitch as was the case here? Of course a lot of this is interpretative. As much as you would like to mock it, my reasoning is sound in this case.

What I see as a twisting of words is using overly simplistic language like a goalkeeper "handball" which inherently has a double meaning, since they're allowed to handball it in the box, therefore a handball on the edge of the box with his body in the box and only his arm reaching over the border would be inherently "non-deliberate". In order for it to be deliberate, he would need to be well beyond the boundary knowing full well that he could not hand it from his position.

And my other point, which isn't a twisting of words but is a rather simple concept is that of football being played in real-time not in slow motion. And as we see often through the problematic VAR is that we are judging incidents in slow motion as if they happened in slow motion. These are very salient points that you may not agree with, but that you should be able to respect and understand without becoming hyperbolic about, in my honest and humble opinion.

So I ask once again;
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. Not an example from 7 years ago or from a random Twitter account written by someone who also doesn't understand the Laws of the Game, the current rules as they are written and used in the English game.

I have not framed it in the way that you have in order to attempt to discredit my view of it. As I've said previously, it's more about what happened "first" and it doesn't have to be spelled out as such in the laws to understand what the goal of a slide tackle is. It's very clearly to get to the ball and get to it first which is done by playing the ball, both of which definitively occurred on the play. To avoid contact before getting a touch onto the ball is the primary goal. A secondary goal would be to avoid contacting the attacker at all, which is easier said than done.

The issue I had is primarily with the decision-making process involved, the misleading statements by the commentators, that he wasn't playing the ball or that he didn't get a touch on to the ball which was apparently the VAR's conclusion after watching football of him clearly getting to the ball before contact.

While I wouldn't begrudge anyone of concluding that it was a dangerous challenge worthy of a penalty, I personally saw CIty as fortunate for being given a penalty there. I would say that was one of those that could be argued either way, but for me the first touch is important and I value that when making decisions. Short of that being explicitly stated in the rules as such, I would argue that there is no specific language being used to describe what precisely is or isn't a penalty in a situation like that. It is always a subjective decision. What troubles me is that since VAR has been introduced it seems that they are more concerned with if the attacking player is "diving" or bringing himself down prematurely rather than the contact itself, which is ironic because that (in addition to the first touch) also seemed to be occurred here as well.

 

[halfcenturyup]

You don't need to read the entire post to understand the law. I was just being thorough to make my position crystal clear so there can be no misinterpretation of it.

All you need to do is read this official PL summary of the current law :

Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity

www.premierleague.com

As it pertains to deliberate and non-deliberate handball.

No, you are failing to comprehend the rule set as it pertains to what constitutes a deliberate or a non-deliberate handball. For the GK to commit a deliberate handball would require him to be well beyond of the boundary and having no plausible deniability to him not knowing precisely where he is. The fact that not only is his body inside the box but the fact that he retreated back into it looking down pitch only furthers the point since from that perspective he wouldn't have even seen the line even in his peripheral vision.

It is VAR that has fenced us all in as it pertains to the situation not being able to be corrected, which was my point all along. Whether it was a denial of a GSO is subjective enough, then whether it would be considered a deliberate handball. Those are two levels of red tape "blocking" the correction of the incident. And I didn't hear anyone whilst making their arguments for a red card mention the term "deliberate" in their describing the handball. Only to then lecture me on the rule.

So I'm afraid you're the one fenced in here by the fact that the handball, regardless of whether it denied a GSO or not, is quite surely non-deliberate due to its proximity to the edge of the box. Which is precisely why I deemed a red card there to be "harsh" which was met with considerable resistance, from the ignorant, from those that didn't do the calculus on it needing to be "deliberate" in order to rise to the level of a red card, even if it was in fact a denial of a GSO. And further, both the retreating of the GK to get back into the box and the proximity of the handball itself to the box speak directly to it being inherently non-deliberate since it was the keeper. We can keep going on and on all you like, but I would advise you to concede the point seeing that now it is very clear where we stand on the issue.

Come on, come clean. You are American, aren't you? You show all the symptoms.

The PL clarification you are referring to is clearly meant to explain in what circumstances outfield players get red or yellow cards if they handle the ball in the box or prevent a DOGSO by doing so. If not, how could the hypothetical player referred to get a penalty against him and a yellow card for a non-deliberate handball in the box?

Anyone who understands the actual LOTG or has any understanding of the spirit of the game knows that the incident was a red card for DOGSO. The clarification you refer to even says "An offence committed outside the penalty area that denies a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity will be a red card."

Give it up, man. Pretty much everybody else on the planet agrees with the red card, apart from the VAR who, even then, doesn't agree with your interpretation of non-deliberate.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Jesus. This is hard work.

I'll ask it a different way. Is there any scenario in your mind in which a goalkeeper could handle the ball beyond the box and it wouldn't be considered a "deliberate" handball? You might say, oh well if he wasn't intentionally swatting at it. How about with the caveat that he was in fact intentionally swatting at it, but with his eyes fixated down pitch as was the case here? Of course a lot of this is interpretative. As much as you would like to mock it, my reasoning is sound in this case.

When the ball is outside the box, he loses the right to use his hands. He effectively becomes an outfield player and is governed by the same rules for handball as an outfield player. So yes, there are scenarios.

What I see as a twisting of words is using overly simplistic language like a goalkeeper "handball" which inherently has a double meaning, since they're allowed to handball it in the box, therefore a handball on the edge of the box with his body in the box and only his arm reaching over the border would be inherently "non-deliberate". In order for it to be deliberate, he would need to be well beyond the boundary knowing full well that he could not hand it from his position.

And my other point, which isn't a twisting of words but is a rather simple concept is that of football being played in real-time not in slow motion. And as we see often through the problematic VAR is that we are judging incidents in slow motion as if they happened in slow motion. These are very salient points that you may not agree with, but that you should be able to respect and understand without becoming hyperbolic about, in my honest and humble opinion.

It doesn't matter where his feet or body are, the only thing that matters is if the ball is outside the box or not (see above).

I have not framed it in the way that you have in order to attempt to discredit my view of it. As I've said previously, it's more about what happened "first" and it doesn't have to be spelled out as such in the laws to understand what the goal of a slide tackle is. It's very clearly to get to the ball and get to it first which is done by playing the ball, both of which definitively occurred on the play. To avoid contact before getting a touch onto the ball is the primary goal. A secondary goal would be to avoid contacting the attacker at all, which is easier said than done.

First isn't the important bit. It's the degree of touch and whether what happens next warrants that touch. A significant touch followed by breaking someone's ankle may be a penalty. A slight touch followed by a touching of thighs (oo..errrr..missus) may not be. These days it largely depends how the referee interpreted it in real time.

The issue I had is primarily with the decision-making process involved, the misleading statements by the commentators, that he wasn't playing the ball or that he didn't get a touch on to the ball which was apparently the VAR's conclusion after watching football of him clearly getting to the ball before contact.

That's just mistake, nonsense and speculation. In that order.

While I wouldn't begrudge anyone of concluding that it was a dangerous challenge worthy of a penalty, I personally saw CIty as fortunate for being given a penalty there. I would say that was one of those that could be argued either way, but for me the first touch is important and I value that when making decisions. Short of that being explicitly stated in the rules as such, I would argue that there is no specific language being used to describe what precisely is or isn't a penalty in a situation like that. It is always a subjective decision. What troubles me is that since VAR has been introduced it seems that they are more concerned with if the attacking player is "diving" or bringing himself down prematurely rather than the contact itself, which is ironic because that (in addition to the first touch) also seemed to be occurred here as well.

I may agree with you on VAR generally, but don't bring VAR into this issue. Your point that a touch on the ball first determines the outcome is just wrong.