VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[ChicagoBlue]

Spot on - Henderson was lucky to survive a clear attempt on his life

You’re Baconface and I claim my £5!!

 

[meltonblue]

No need to exaggerate, but it does explain the action of Henderson, to keep his body and head away from the high boot, to extend the arm without causing a collision.

He’s on his knee and extended his arm to play the ball hoping that he was still in his area, he even said that himself after the game.

It’s nothing to do with stopping a collision, it was simply getting to the ball first.

Your other points have slightly more merit, this is a really bad one and wouldn’t have factored into VARs thoughts at all.

 

[BlueHammer85]

For those who say they can just accept refs cocking it up without VAR how can you conclude to the uproar for Villas goal ? The ref blew for a foul so regardless of VAR being there or not that’s what Refs would continue to do - and look at the absolute outrage from Villa and social media/forums, ex players on radio going mad etc.

Rather have some tech help to reduce these sort of errors whilst acknowledging they will still happen.

 

[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?

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

It's a complete mystery.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I said it was arguably a dangerous high boot, given that it was about at the height of Henderson's head on a knee, and Henderson was on the retreat back towards the box. A moment earlier, had Henderson not been moving backward, that boot could have taken Henderson's head clean off.

There's a reason why Henderson kept his body and head away from Haaland. There's a reason why he extended the arm. Had he not retreated back into the box and extended the arm it could well have been a dangerous collision.

The only reason Henderson extended his arm (a deliberate movement towards the ball by the way, which you've finally admitted he did) is to swat the ball away and deny a goal scoring opportunity.

The rest of you post is shite, and I can't be arsed anymore.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

The only reason Henderson extended his arm (a deliberate movement towards the ball by the way, which you've finally admitted he did) is to swat the ball away and deny a goal scoring opportunity.

The rest of you post is shite, and I can't be arsed anymore.

You're sounding quite dense. I've never denied that the "movement" was deliberate. My argument was that it wasn't a deliberate infraction because he was on the very border of it being allowed or not. Why is this so hard to understand?

As for why he extended his arm, of course it was to sway the ball away, but in terms of avoiding Haaland and the high boot, I was referring to how he got his body back into the box and out of the way of Haaland before extending the arm as a means to avoid a possible collision with Haaland.

And this is relevant because some have suggested that Henderson should have done something else like try to head the ball out instead of committing the handball. If he stayed where he was and tried to head it that could have put his head and/or his body into the direct line of Haaland's high boot. What I was getting at was that he got his body back and out of the way, then extended the arm with his body out of the way of Haaland rather than putting himself in the path of Haaland which could have caused a dangerous collision.

 

[halfcenturyup]

No need to exaggerate, but it does explain the action of Henderson, to keep his body and head away from the high boot, to extend the arm without causing a collision.

I'm sorry. I have tried for a week to engage on all this nonsense but seriously ....

 

[halfcenturyup]

For those who say they can just accept refs cocking it up without VAR how can you conclude to the uproar for Villas goal ? The ref blew for a foul so regardless of VAR being there or not that’s what Refs would continue to do - and look at the absolute outrage from Villa and social media/forums, ex players on radio going mad etc.

Rather have some tech help to reduce these sort of errors whilst acknowledging they will still happen.

And the incident the week before in the Cup final with VAR?

Once again, the only question is whether VAR benefits the game more than it damages it. You think yes. An increasing number of people think no.

And, by the way, Villa's outrage is pathetic. It's nothing to do with the integrity of the sport. It's because, quite wrongly, they are blaming that one incident on them losing a substantial amount of money.

Here is a question. Do you think the reaction to the Villa incident would have been so strong if VAR wasn't there? If it was just a subjective refereeing mistake about controlling the ball?

There is a belief that VAR is supposed to get everything right. It never will. It's not possible. No-one ever expected referees to get everything right on their own. It was annoying as hell at times, but there was an acceptance of how difficult it was. Now there isn't that acceptance. VAR was sold on the idea of correcting errors, and there are no excuses for not doing. Especially when it is disrupting the game so much.
...

 

[halfcenturyup]

You're sounding quite dense. I've never denied that the "movement" was deliberate. My argument was that it wasn't a deliberate infraction because he was on the very border of it being allowed or not. Why is this so hard to understand?

Firstly because, as you have been told by everyone on here, you are completely wrong about that and secondly, for the last time, it makes fuck all difference whether the handball outside the area was deliberate or not because if it leads to a DOGSO. It's a red card.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Firstly because, as you have been told by everyone on here, you are completely wrong about that and secondly, for the last time, it makes fuck all difference whether the handball outside the area was deliberate or not because if it leads to a DOGSO. It's a red card.

Rather then rehash the deliberate or not aspect, what is your response to the points I made earlier about the the reasons why it wouldn't have been considered a DOGSO? i.e. the fact that Haaland was running diagonally towards the sideline, and not directly towards goal. And the fact that he had not ever established control of the ball, he was chasing the ball, not possessing it any point prior to the incident. And given the direction he was running in, had he gotten the boot onto it without Henderson swatting it, it would have been kicked wide towards the sidelines.

You seem to be ignoring these aspects of it while imply that it was such a clear DOGSO. And you've also lectured me about how important it is to follow the rules and not to discuss if the rules make sense. OK then why don't you practice what you preach. These two elements are clearly part of the criteria that determines whether or not a DOGSO had occurred. Direction of play, and control of the ball. Clearly those two aspects of it were not consistent with what the VARs needed to consider it a DOGSO. So therefore it shouldn't have been considered a DOGSO, not according to the LOTG.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Rather then rehash the deliberate or not aspect, what is your response to the points I made earlier about the the reasons why it wouldn't have been considered a DOGSO? i.e. the fact that Haaland was running diagonally towards the sideline, and not directly towards goal. And the fact that he had not ever established control of the ball, he was chasing the ball, not possessing it any point prior to the incident. And given the direction he was running in, had he gotten the boot onto it without Henderson swatting it, it would have been kicked wide towards the sidelines.

You seem to be ignoring these aspects of it while imply that it was such a clear DOGSO. And you've also lectured me about how important it is to follow the rules and not to discuss if the rules make sense. OK then why don't you practice what you preach. These two elements are clearly part of the criteria that determines whether or not a DOGSO had occurred. Direction of play, and control of the ball. Clearly those two aspects of it were not consistent with what the VARs needed to consider it a DOGSO.

Subjective stuff. I really don't care. VAR thought one thing, everybody else on the planet thought something else. I go with everybody else.

I only got involved in all this bollocks to put you right on your arguments that Henderson didn't deliberately handball, and the fact the defender touched the ball before Silva were somehow relevant. You were wrong on both counts last week and still are.

As you are also wrong on your point about having control of the ball or touching it for a DOGSO. The law clearly says "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball" as a factor in determining DOGSO. I suppose it's possible Haaland may have mis-controlled the ball badly and lost the opportunity. But he has scored from that position many times. It's also possible the Great Green Arkleseizure appeared on the pitch and sneezed on the ball just as Haaland was going to touch it. But neither are particularly likely, imho.

 

[cheekybids]

Firstly because, as you have been told by everyone on here, you are completely wrong about that and secondly, for the last time, it makes fuck all difference whether the handball outside the area was deliberate or not because if it leads to a DOGSO. It's a red card.

I put this fukwit on ignore weeks ago. The only time in years of being in this forum & m not even tempted to see the nonsense he’s saying.

I highly recommend ignoring the knob cheese!

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Subjective stuff. I really don't care. VAR thought one thing, everybody else on the planet thought something else. I go with everybody else.

So you were just going along with the herd then, you weren't giving it critical thought. You're just trying to fit in with the popular crowd. It's a horrible affliction, and one that has been exacerbated by VAR.

The reaction to the situation was an understandable response to seeing a handball and being frustrated that VAR was unable or unwilling to do anything about it. But I'm afraid you and many others have glossed over the language in the LOTG about what went into the decision-making process, whilst ironically trying to lecture me on the decision-making process. You can't have it both ways. You've been carrying on about how it was such a clear red card because it was such an obvious DOGSO but yet now when faced with the cold hard facts about what goes into that decision, what actually determines DOGSO according to the LOTG you want no part of that discussion because it destroys your entire argument. I tried to extend an olive branch to you and others and point out that the way in which the LOTG are worded are hugely problematic, but you seem to only care about trying to ridicule me for my view of the situation.

Well now you find yourself in the same situation you accused me of : having a position that is inconsistent with the laws of the game. The difference is, I'm not running away from the discussion.

I only got involved in all this bollocks to put you right on your arguments that Henderson didn't deliberately handball, and the fact the defender touched the ball before Silva were somehow relevant. You were wrong on both counts last week and still are.

You were involved long before the discussion of this incident and up until this we agreed on most everything. You're now fully invested in proving me wrong but in the end it's about what the correct decision should have been. With the Silva situation we both agreed that it shouldn't have been a penalty. If I recall you claimed that it was because you saw Silva bringing himself down, while I pointed out that he got to the ball first. I think you know by now how much I object to "dive paranoia" as a means to deny a penalty being given. I know you've also mentioned the severity of contact, not necessarily getting to the ball first which is fine, but I have a different perspective on that. A perspective that may not be explicitly stated in the rules but one that I hold dear and I think is more important than anything else. You may not agree with me on that but you should be able to respect it.

I don't think it's your place to belittle my view of what is important when judging slide tackles in the box, or slide tackles in general. For me, getting to the ball first is paramount. But regardless, in the end, however we got there, as much as we both disagreed with one another's reasoning, we both arrived at the same decision - no penalty.

You may not realize it, but the same thing could happen here in regards to the Henderson handball not being a red card. I've explained my position about how it wasn't deliberate. And you can reject that all you want, but what you can't reject is what it says about a DOGSO in the LOTG.

Now I've made it clear from the beginning that, like you, I also consider it a DOGSO. However, our criteria for what we consider a DOGSO is apparently different than what it says about it in the LOTG. And now what you're trying to do is to refuse to address the criteria because it is not consistent with your argument.

As you well know, regardless of what you think about the handball being deliberate or not, it still isn't an automatic red card if they don't determine it to be a DOGSO. They clearly didn't, and after having studied the criteria, I understand why. You on the other hand do not. All you care about is being right and because of that, you are trying to ignore the elephant in the room here as it pertains to what goes into a DOGSO from a LOTG and a VAR perspective.

As you are also wrong on your point about having control of the ball or touching it for a DOGSO. The law clearly says "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball" as a factor in determining DOGSO. I suppose it's possible Haaland may have mis-controlled the ball badly and lost the opportunity. But he has scored from that position many times. It's also possible the Great Green Arkleseizure appeared on the pitch and sneezed on the ball just as Haaland was going to touch it. But neither are particularly likely, imho.

Wrong wrong wrong, is all you care about. All you care about is being right, and refusing to address anything that will show that you're wrong. It's sad. You were a staunch ally of mine in the good fight against VAR up until this situation. And you still are to extent but this has strained our friendship. But I do not apologize for the way I have gone about it. Not only is all this entertaining but it's important. It's important that we do our due diligence to get to the bottom of a situation like this and that's what I've tried to do.

As to your point about keeping or gaining control of the ball, as I said to the other poster, "keeping" is out the window since he never had it. Gaining is speculative. And the wording in the LOTG refers to an "obvious" DOGSO, not a maybe, not a possibly, but an "obvious" one.

Him scoring from that position many times is immaterial to the incident in question. The fact is, whether you like it or not, whether it turns you from being right about everything to being patently wrong about what the decision should have been (and me right), the fact is that the direction he was running in was not directly towards the goal.

Even if he had been able to collect it if Henderson didn't swat at it, the kick from the high boot puts that ball bouncing towards the sideline nowhere near the goal, and certainly not in the box. And by the time he would have collected it, he's presumably looking to cross it in, rather than being directly on goal. There's just no getting around this, and I would appreciate it after all we've been through for you to man up on this and admit that it is not a DOGSO at least according to their criteria which is what you claimed to be all about. How the rules are written, not if they make sense.

I would also add, as I mentioned previously, that Haaland's boot was quite high and certainly high enough to be considered dangerous, particularly with the goalkeeper so close. Even if you don't consider it dangerous, it does speak to "control" of the ball as generally a high boot like that is not indicative of having control, it's more of a desperation maneuver to get a touch onto a ball that is not within your control and hope to chase it and collect it elsewhere.

Either way, it should not have been a red card and that is abundantly clear by now. But keep telling yourself that you're right and I'm wrong. It will do little good if another situation like this arises as they'll me more misunderstood outrage and an inability to make sense of it.

 

[Gray]

I am puzzled by this business of VAR not being able to intervene once the referee blows his whistle?

That is certainly not true for a lot of VAR interventions so why was it for the non Villa goal one?

 

[blue by birth]

I put this fukwit on ignore weeks ago. The only time in years of being in this forum & m not even tempted to see the nonsense he’s saying.

I highly recommend ignoring the knob cheese!
View attachment 157904

I put him on ignore ages ago..the guys a complete prick.. absolutely on here with the intention of winding blues up.
Seriously the mods should either ban him or everyone should just put the prick on ignore..it's definitely better not to give him any if our time.

 

[halfcenturyup]

So you were just going along with the herd then, you weren't giving it critical thought. You're just trying to fit in with the popular crowd. It's a horrible affliction, and one that has been exacerbated by VAR.

The reaction to the situation was an understandable response to seeing a handball and being frustrated that VAR was unable or unwilling to do anything about it. But I'm afraid you and many others have glossed over the language in the LOTG about what went into the decision-making process, whilst ironically trying to lecture me on the decision-making process. You can't have it both ways. You've been carrying on about how it was such a clear red card because it was such an obvious DOGSO but yet now when faced with the cold hard facts about what goes into that decision, what actually determines DOGSO according to the LOTG you want no part of that discussion because it destroys your entire argument. I tried to extend an olive branch to you and others and point out that the way in which the LOTG are worded are hugely problematic, but you seem to only care about trying to ridicule me for my view of the situation.

Well now you find yourself in the same situation you accused me of : having a position that is inconsistent with the laws of the game. The difference is, I'm not running away from the discussion.


You were involved long before the discussion of this incident and up until this we agreed on most everything. You're now fully invested in proving me wrong but in the end it's about what the correct decision should have been. With the Silva situation we both agreed that it shouldn't have been a penalty. If I recall you claimed that it was because you saw Silva bringing himself down, while I pointed out that he got to the ball first. I think you know by now how much I object to "dive paranoia" as a means to deny a penalty being given. I know you've also mentioned the severity of contact, not necessarily getting to the ball first which is fine, but I have a different perspective on that. A perspective that may not be explicitly stated in the rules but one that I hold dear and I think is more important than anything else. You may not agree with me on that but you should be able to respect it.

I don't think it's your place to belittle my view of what is important when judging slide tackles in the box, or slide tackles in general. For me, getting to the ball first is paramount. But regardless, in the end, however we got there, as much as we both disagreed with one another's reasoning, we both arrived at the same decision - no penalty.

You may not realize it, but the same thing could happen here in regards to the Henderson handball not being a red card. I've explained my position about how it wasn't deliberate. And you can reject that all you want, but what you can't reject is what it says about a DOGSO in the LOTG.

Now I've made it clear from the beginning that, like you, I also consider it a DOGSO. However, our criteria for what we consider a DOGSO is apparently different than what it says about it in the LOTG. And now what you're trying to do is to refuse to address the criteria because it is not consistent with your argument.

As you well know, regardless of what you think about the handball being deliberate or not, it still isn't an automatic red card if they don't determine it to be a DOGSO. They clearly didn't, and after having studied the criteria, I understand why. You on the other hand do not. All you care about is being right and because of that, you are trying to ignore the elephant in the room here as it pertains to what goes into a DOGSO from a LOTG and a VAR perspective.


Wrong wrong wrong, is all you care about. All you care about is being right, and refusing to address anything that will show that you're wrong. It's sad. You were a staunch ally of mine in the good fight against VAR up until this situation. And you still are to extent but this has strained our friendship. But I do not apologize for the way I have gone about it. Not only is all this entertaining but it's important. It's important that we do our due diligence to get to the bottom of a situation like this and that's what I've tried to do.

As to your point about keeping or gaining control of the ball, as I said to the other poster, "keeping" is out the window since he never had it. Gaining is speculative. And the wording in the LOTG refers to an "obvious" DOGSO, not a maybe, not a possibly, but an "obvious" one.

Him scoring from that position many times is immaterial to the incident in question. The fact is, whether you like it or not, whether it turns you from being right about everything to being patently wrong about what the decision should have been (and me right), the fact is that the direction he was running in was not directly towards the goal.

Even if he had been able to collect it if Henderson didn't swat at it, the kick from the high boot puts that ball bouncing towards the sideline nowhere near the goal, and certainly not in the box. And by the time he would have collected it, he's presumably looking to cross it in, rather than being directly on goal. There's just no getting around this, and I would appreciate it after all we've been through for you to man up on this and admit that it is not a DOGSO at least according to their criteria which is what you claimed to be all about. How the rules are written, not if they make sense.

I would also add, as I mentioned previously, that Haaland's boot was quite high and certainly high enough to be considered dangerous, particularly with the goalkeeper so close. Even if you don't consider it dangerous, it does speak to "control" of the ball as generally a high boot like that is not indicative of having control, it's more of a desperation maneuver to get a touch onto a ball that is not within your control and hope to chase it and collect it elsewhere.

Either way, it should not have been a red card and that is abundantly clear by now. But keep telling yourself that you're right and I'm wrong. It will do little good if another situation like this arises as they'll me more misunderstood outrage and an inability to make sense of it.

You are American, you must have your own therapist. Seriously, give him a call. You need it.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Well he would have had to "gain" control of the ball now wouldn't he considering he hadn't even touched it yet. "Keeping" is out the window since he never had it. To your point, I would say, the likelihood of him gaining possession is hard to know and would require guesswork. If he kicks it at the speed he was moving in, at the height that his boot and the ball was, it gets kicked on towards the sideline! If he hits it too hard maybe it bounces out for a Palace thrown-in. If he hits it just right, maybe he is able to sprint hard to reach it before it goes out, and he collects it near the sideline. In any event he's well outside the box and near the sidelines following a kick at that angle, and the ball ends up bouncing towards the sideline in a similar manner to the direction Henderson swatted it in.

Further, you're completely ignoring the direction he was moving in prior to the incident. Haaland was not moving towards the goal, but diagonally wide towards the sideline. At first he was running down pitch straight but then after judging the bounce, he realized he was out of position and needed to turn away from the goal to get to the ball.

Still off your tits!

 

[deano ou812]

I am puzzled by this business of VAR not being able to intervene once the referee blows his whistle?

That is certainly not true for a lot of VAR interventions so why was it for the non Villa goal one?

Because it seems they make it up now as they go along,if that had been the red scousers or the rags for that matter had scored that goal I bet there would have been a different outcome in the decision making process,regardless of ref blowing up before ball goes into net ..

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I put him on ignore ages ago..the guys a complete prick.. absolutely on here with the intention of winding blues up.
Seriously the mods should either ban him or everyone should just put the prick on ignore..it's definitely better not to give him any if our time.

"ages ago"? We were chatting last week. If last week is ages ago I'm the King of England. You're an absolute riot, maybe lighten up a tad. We are all blues, and we should be mindful of needless infighting.

 

[Andy TheCatalyst Morrison]

According to our lad richard the height of Henderson on a knee is little more than a mere foot.

You trying to mock other people’s take on this incident is just hilarious. Just admit you’re wrong, apologise for the last 8 or 9 days of nonsense and we’ll forget about it. How’s that sound?