VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[halfcenturyup]

But it's clear not head high lol

The law doesn't specifically say the opponent has to be standing in a normal position for it to be dangerous. And even if it did, the normal position for a keeper deliberately handling the ball outside the area by standing on the line and reaching a couple of feet towards the attacker is clearly with his head somewhere around the attacker's bollocks meaning the attacker should have kept his feet on the ground during the incident to avoid the risk of committing a very serious offence. Red card to Haaland imho.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

They do not want to spoil a show piece event by sending a player off.
Sky wanted 11 v 11, it was one all with both teams going for it. Perfect tele.

Not just any player, but the goalkeeper, for taking a borderline action. With no collision. Anotherwords, it would have been harsh.

When you do not follow the rules for whatever reason, you are cheating. The failure of the referee and Var to act in the cup final was so it was kept competitive.

But they did have grounds to deny the review and correction. You continue to claim that they didn't follow the rules. They applied the rules as it relates to what constitutes a denial of a GSO. Haaland was running wide, he didn't have control of the ball. According to the VARs, while it was a "possible" denial of a GSO (according to them) it wasn't an "obvious" one. Due to the direction Haaland was moving, lack of control, etc.

I know you are mad about it, and rightly so. City deserved a free kick and there's a fair point that it should have been a red card if you consider it a denial of a GSO. However, to conclude that they didn't follow the rules and that they were "cheating" is a bit much.

Also isn't it interesting that I get accused of keeping this going, but yet I go away for 24 hours and you are all still talking about it lol.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

The law doesn't specifically say the opponent has to be standing in a normal position for it to be dangerous.

I sense some sarcasm here. The point was simply that it was certainly a high boot. And I didn't bring that up to argue that Haaland should have been red carded, but rather to speak to the control that he was trying to gain there, as that was part of the criteria for what goes into an "obvious" denial of a GSO. He lifted his boot while running at high speed to get to it before Henderson, which in turn forced Henderson to reach out across the line in the race to get to the ball first.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

But it's clear not head high lol

With Henderson on a knee it was in that "ballpark". Had Henderson remained in his earlier position it could have clipped him. Fortunately he got back and reached out rather than forcing a collision.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Not really worth comparing anything prior to about the 1990s with modern football as far as discipline goes.

Sendings off used to be as rare as rocking horse shit and were reserved for attempted murder and above.

Sendings off now weren’t even a foul in the 70s & 80s most of the time.

Important point to put this all in perspective. The harshness of carding these days compared to the good ol days is a stark contrast. In the 70s and 80s the Henderson handball would never have been a red card in a million years. Only in so-called "modern" football would it even be considered as such.

The arguments surrounding this incident are so inconsistent with historical standards. In the 70s or 80s, in such a situation, chances are the ref or a lino catches it, gives a free kick, and that's that. No delay, no BS, no controversy. Play on. But in this environment it's become a major scandal due to VAR and absurdist carding standards.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

In the 70s and 80s the Henderson handball would never have been a red card in a million years. Only in so-called "modern" football would it even be considered as such.

DGSO has been around for nearly 35 years.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

DGSO has been around for nearly 35 years.

2025 - 35 = 1990. 1990 > 70s and 80s

Back in those days, there was no such thing as a denial of a GSO, so no consideration of any such thing as being a red card.

 

[southamptonblue]

Without getting involved with the debate between TBG and the rest of the world.........
I bet if Henderson had tried to head that ball, and Halaand had poked it past him and scored....they would have disallowed it for 'dangerous play' ;) (which it clearly wasn't)

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Another caveat related to this incident is found in a recent post from IFAB itself :



According to the Laws of the Game, a player is sent off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick.

Here IFAB has offered further clarification to one the four criteria to judge whether a player commits a DOGSO offence :

They added "towards the offender's goal" next to "general direction of the play" as further clarification for what they are looking for.

general direction of the play (towards the offender’s goal)

It's noteworthy that this clarification occurred prior to the FA Cup Final.

In my exchange with Paladin he stated that "The law doesn't say the player has to be running directly towards the goal."

But this post makes it clear that the IFAB does in fact need the direction of the player to be moving towards the goal in order to consider it a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Without getting involved with the debate between TBG and the rest of the world.........

More like VAR / IFAB vs the world. It's their criteria after all. Don't shoot the messenger!

I bet if Henderson had tried to head that ball, and Halaand had poked it past him and scored....they would have disallowed it for 'dangerous play' ;) (which it clearly wasn't)

Which speaks directly to the point I had made earlier. That Henderson backed away and reached out across the line rather than doing something else like trying to head it away in the path of Haaland and his high boot.

To your point, had Henderson tried to head it out as some have suggested, with Haaland trying to get to it in the same way, his head could have been taken clean off and Haaland could have very well been sent off himself for a dangerous challenge!

 

[stonerblue]

With Henderson on a knee it was in that "ballpark". Had Henderson remained in his earlier position it could have clipped him. Fortunately he got back and reached out rather than forcing a collision.

'Fortunately ' ? The keeper bobbed his keks when he knew he wasn't making it to the ball, thought about it for a split second then decided to slap the ball away. He knew he was beaten. If he doesn't slap it it's on a plate for Haaland.
Free kick and yellow card minimum.

 

[southamptonblue]

Which speaks directly to the point I had made earlier. That Henderson backed away and reached out across the line rather than doing something else like trying to head it away in the path of Haaland and his high boboot.

It wasn't a high boot, and wasn't dangerous, and I said it 'half' tongue in cheek.....but it wouldn't have surprised me.

......Don't drag me into your 30 day 6,000 post war over VAR. lol.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

'Fortunately ' ? The keeper bobbed his keks when he knew he wasn't making it to the ball, thought about it for a split second then decided to slap the ball away. He knew he was beaten. If he doesn't slap it it's on a plate for Haaland.
Free kick and yellow card minimum.

Fortunately as in to avoid a dangerous collision!

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

It wasn't a high boot, and wasn't dangerous, and I said it 'half' tongue in cheek.....but it wouldn't have surprised me.

......Don't drag me into your 30 day 6,000 post war over VAR. lol.

lol you said it, not me. Had Henderson not backed away, they very well could have considered a boot that high as dangerous with Henederson there, especially had he tried to head it. That was my point.

I was routinely mocked for offering this up, but now you've confirmed this could well have been the case.

 

[richardtheref]

For the record DOGSO was 1st brought in, in 1979. However, in those days it was known as a "professional foul". This was changed in 1991 to DOGSO to more accurately reflect what the foul was for.
1st keeper I can remember being sent off for a similar offence to Henderson's was Pagiluca in the 1994.
Can TBG please not respond as I am sick of your nonsensical arguments?

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

For the record DOGSO was 1st brought in, in 1979. However, in those days it was known as a "professional foul". This was changed in 1991 to DOGSO to more accurately reflect what the foul was for.
1st keeper I can remember being sent off for a similar offence to Henderson's was Pagiluca in the 1994.
Can TBG please not respond as I am sick of your nonsensical arguments?

Nonsensical arguments? LOL you've just agreed with me. Such a thing was never considered a red card back in the 70s and 80s.

 

[hertsblue]

So we finally agree it was DOGSO. I'll answer your question, and then it's time to let it drop.

I have no idea why the VAR didn't ask Attwell to review that incident. I'm pretty sure it wasn't calculus, Henderson's head being in danger or the length of Henderson's arm though.

It's speculation, but my guess is that Gillett, the VAR, deliberately showed bias towards the underdog team.

We'll never know though, just like we will never know why Attwell allowed the Fernandes goal when Rashford was clearly offside, or why Villa were denied the opening goal against United.

We had that ex Palace guy Cann on Var also as one of the 3 var officials so wouldnt surprise me if he put the seed of doubt into the other 2. Amazed as he has always been pulled from Palace games prior to being allowed to run the line v us in the PL and then on Var for the final, both v Palace.

 

[richardtheref]

Nonsensical arguments? LOL you've just agreed with me. Such a thing was never considered a red card back in the 70s and 80s.

Yes there was it was just called something different.
You couldn't help yourself could you?

 

[Stiff Little Wingers]

Explained: Why Dean Henderson avoided red card for handball outside Crystal Palace box to deny Erling Haaland in FA Cup final clash vs Man City | Goal.com US

Dean Henderson can count himself lucky for escaping being shown a red card after he handled the ball outside the area.

www.goal.com

As I explained :

"The officials judged Haaland to be taking the ball wide and away from goal as the reason as to why Henderson was not given his marching orders, marking a significant decision in the cup final."

On the BBC's coverage, Gary Lineker said that VAR explained: "The direction in which Haaland was going made it a possible, but not an obvious goal scoring opportunity."

When explaining this I was told that this was irrelevant. But as it you can see, it was directly relevant to the decision that was reached.

I also corrected the false claim echoed by many on here that it was Henderson's swat that put the ball wide, rather than the direction Haaland was going. I pointed out that Haaland was in fact running wide prior to the swatting and that appeared to be what caused it to not be considered a denial of a GSO.

This is bordering on delusional. Haaland hadn’t touched the ball - the goalie swatted it away, He denied a goal scoring opportunity, in fact a very good opportunity. The official explanation is telling us something different to what our own eyes see.
Additionally, what VAR are also saying is no need for the ref to check the monitor as it absolutely, clearly and obviously was not in any way contentious.
This has cost us a cup final. It’s an utter disgrace

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Can't believe people are still taking The Beautiful Game's bait. Haha