VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[RiversideBlue]

Not sure if correct.....but there is a 'clip' from TNT? On Facebook showing that VAR did look at it ?

I think they stopped looking once they realised the ref had blown the whistle. Might be wrong though

 

[southamptonblue]

I think they stopped looking once they realised the ref had blown the whistle. Might be wrong though

The clip shows the incident being replayed multiple times? .....I think it was 'manipulated' to back the ref.

 

[RiversideBlue]

The clip shows the incident being replayed multiple times? .....I think it was 'manipulated' to back the ref.

Probably trying to work out this week's excuse

 

[standupifyouhatemanu]

There is only one conclusion to the 2 keeper situations and that is we are reffed differently.

Last week Henderson would have walked against a red shirt team, this week Martinez would have only been booked against City.

It’s happening too often to be any other conclusion.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if Andy Madeley got a message in his ear yesterday saying don’t give a pen to Fulham, every now and again give us something at a point in the game where it doesn’t matter.

 

[RiversideBlue]

There is only one conclusion to the 2 keeper situations and that is we are reffed differently.

Last week Henderson would have walked against a red shirt team, this week Martinez would have only been booked against City.

It’s happening too often to be any other conclusion.

And I would be surprised if Andy Madeley got a messagen his ear yesterday saying don’t give a pen to Fulham, every now and again give us something at a point in the game where it doesn’t matter.

I disagree that theyre biased against City. Talk to other sets of fans and they think that we get all the decisions going for us and everything is against them. I think its just that they are so incompetent and out of their depth. It would almost be better to let a few random fans make the VAR decisions using a bit of common sense. Every footie fan I talk to, including a lot if dippers and rags, admit Henderson should have been off in the final. I think they sometimes get lost in what they xan and can't review, was he going towards goal, is he offisde affecting play rather than making common sense decisions.

 

[Paladin]

Not sure if correct.....but there is a 'clip' from TNT? On Facebook showing that VAR did look at it ?

Probably to see if the Villa player could be sent off for any reason.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

It’s a damning indictment of our society, permanent anger and rage at officials more so with the rise of social media, VAR in the main is correcting some of the most blatant offsides/onsides and fouls etc, dread to think how these decisions would be taken on a far more regular basis without VAR. Refs have no chance.

Transparency and honesty would go a long way in improving VAR.

Instead, they just keep fucking it up spectacularly and with monotonous regularity and then hide behind a wall of secrecy.

Perhaps if they stopped being shit we may be more accepting?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Transparency and honesty would go a long way in improving VAR.

Instead, they just keep fucking it up spectacularly and with monotonous regularity and then hide behind a wall of secrecy.

Perhaps if they stopped being shit we may be more accepting?

Spot on. Is there another VAR in another sport that acts this way?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Spot on. Is there another VAR in another sport that acts this way?

I don't believe so.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I don't believe so.

That tells you all you need to know, they are either hiding their incompetence or corruption. No other reason is there?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

That tells you all you need to know, they are either hiding their incompetence or corruption. No other reason is there?

Or both?

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Transparency and honesty would go a long way in improving VAR.

Instead, they just keep fucking it up spectacularly and with monotonous regularity and then hide behind a wall of secrecy.

Perhaps if they stopped being shit we may be more accepting?

It’s getting to the stage that they are cocking more things up than they are resolving. We obvs had our incident in the cup final then sheff utd had a perfectly good goal disallowed in theirs, in a league with no VAR.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

The Villa goal?

It was over the moment the referee blew for a foul, and VAR couldn't intervene.

It's not just VAR who are fuckwits.

How come united got a penalty after the ref had blown for full time VAR could intervene?

 

[heslops barnet]

There is only one conclusion to the 2 keeper situations and that is we are reffed differently.

Last week Henderson would have walked against a red shirt team, this week Martinez would have only been booked against City.

It’s happening too often to be any other conclusion.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if Andy Madeley got a message in his ear yesterday saying don’t give a pen to Fulham, every now and again give us something at a point in the game where it doesn’t matter.

Might be my memory but it seems to me we usually only get contentious decisions when we don’t need them……

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

The point is - it doesn't matter if the handball was deliberate or non-deliberate. If the action was outside the box and met the criteria for a handball offence then the only question is what the sanction should have been, which depends on whether it was a DOGSO or not. If it was, it was a red card. The rules for a DOGSO are similarly clearly set out.

What constitutes a DOGSO is definitely not "clearly set out". They list 4 "aspects" to it in the official wording, but in the end what actually determines it is patently unknown given the kinds of decisions they have made. It appears to be hugely subjective and open ended as it pertains to what causes them to determine if a DOGSO has occurred.

This is all set out absolutely clearly in the LOTG.

Whether those rules make sense or not is not the debate we are having.

I don't accept that, and I understand the line in the LOTG that gives you reason to say that. But it is in direct contradiction with the language surrounding how it is handled inside the box. As you've alluded to, it doesn't make sense for the punishment (the carding) to be harsher for the exact same thing outside the box than inside. So right there we have a consistency problem.

Throughout this topic we've discussed countless times whether the rules make sense or if they are being applied correctly. I would argue we have (apparently) an inconsistency here with how handballs are carded inside and outside the box and I'm not convinced that they are referring to marginal handballs by the keeper when referencing an "offence" outside the box. And I have good reason to explain why it is worded in such a way, in that for situations outside the box, VAR does not allow itself to review (or correct a decision) unless it rises to the level of a red card. So this is an example of the cart being put before the horse through their wording, that because VAR doesn't allow themself to review situations outside the box unless it rises to the level of a red card, that causes them to "back into that" overly simplistic language in the reverse way to suggest the opposite, than any offence outside the box must be a red card. This is hugely problematic for a multitude of reasons. I have made the argument since the beginning that since VAR's been introduced they have a habit of changing the LOTG in ways to coincide with what VAR allows. And they have made a mess of it, which has led to skewed interpretations of what decisions should be, based on VAR-induced changes to the laws and short sighted wording.

The debate that started last week (shakes head) was that the keeper shouldn't have been given a red card because the offence was somehow non-deliberate. The LOTG say clearly otherwise.

"somehow"? This is not some kind of murder mystery. He was distinctly on the border of what he did being allowed or not, making it inherently non-deliberate. The action of the hand swipe was deliberate as I've attested to, but being where he was is what makes it non-deliberate. Don't try to twist it or act like it's unreasonable to see that as non-deliberate. Regardless of the statement that any offence outside of the box is apparently automatically a red card, which is bollocks if true, that doesn't make it any less non-deliberate. It was inherently non-deliberate based on where he was at that moment and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out!

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

The real joke, is that the idiots at Stockley Park, agreed that it was handball (and indeed deliberate), however was only a "possible" rather than an "obvious" DOGSO, due to the direction of play / where the ball was going.
It was only going in that direction, because the bloody keeper deliberately, ilegaly, swatted it away, in that direction!

Although I agree that it was a DOGSO, the fact is that Haaland was moving in a diagonal direction (not straight towards the goal) before the ball was swatted away. Not only that but he didn't have "control" of the ball. In fact, Haaland never even possessed or touched the ball at any point prior to the swat, which is another part of their criteria, as it was a long pass that Haaland was chasing and was trying to get to it.

You and others are claiming that it was only going away from goal because the keeper swatted it. That's not accurate. Haaland's movement prior to the swatting of the ball was not in the direction of the goal, he was moving diagonally, which *may* (who knows) have caused them to conclude that it wasn't a DOGSO. Which in my view is bollocks, because it shouldn't matter whether you're moving directly towards the goal for it to be a DOGSO. But based on their supposed criteria, that is one thing that could have caused them to conclude it wasn't. And remember, the language pertains to an "obvious" DOGSO. Perhaps the VARs are under the impression that while it could be seen as a "possible" DOGSO that it wasn't an "obvious" DOGSO because Haaland wasn't moving directly towards the goal and because he didn't possess the ball.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Although I agree that it was a DOGSO, the fact is that Haaland was moving in a diagonal direction (not straight towards the goal) before the ball was swatted away. Not only that but he didn't have "control" of the ball. In fact, Haaland never even possessed or touched the ball at any point, which is another part of their criteria, as it was a long pass that Haaland was chasing and could never get to it.

You and others are claiming that it was only going away from goal because the keeper swatted it. That's not accurate. Haaland's movement prior to the swatting of the ball was not in the direction of the goal, he was moving diagonally, which *may* (who knows) have caused them to conclude that it wasn't a DOGSO. Which in my view is bollocks, because it shouldn't matter whether you're moving directly towards the goal for it to be a DOGSO. But based on their supposed criteria, that is one thing that could have caused them to conclude it wasn't. And remember, the language pertains to an "obvious" DOGSO. Perhaps the VARs are under the impression that while it could be seen as a "possible" DOGSO that it wasn't an "obvious" DOGSO because Haaland wasn't moving directly towards the goal and because he never possessed the ball.

I’m not sure about DOGSO, but I do know most of that is DOGSHIT!

It should have been a red card. The end.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I’m not sure about DOGSO, but I do know most of that is DOGSHIT!

I was waiting for someone to call it that!

It should have been a red card. The end.

I disagree but not for the reasons why the VARs *apparently* didn't.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I disagree but not for the reasons why the VARs *apparently* didn't.

You’re screaming into the abyss…at length… and the abyss doesn’t care.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

You’re screaming into the abyss…at length… and the abyss doesn’t care.

No I'm not. I'm trying to better understand why the decision was made, by pointing out why it may not have been considered a DOGSO (whether we agree with it or not) and to object to the criteria being used and to provide a more reasonable interpretation of what should have went into it that is consistent with logic and rooted in common sense.