VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[TheBeautifulGame]

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

No, a "professional foul" could be a number of things. i.e. stopping a counter attack, preventing an opponent from advancing into a dangerous area.

And to the point of contention, there was no automatic red card associated with it.

The denial of a goal scoring opportunity was put in to the LOTG following the 1990 World Cup in Italy where there were a number of incidents.

In fact, the purpose of its introduction into the laws following that world cup was specifically to "deter players from committing cynical fouls that deliberately prevented an opponent from scoring".

So if you want to get technical, it was put in specifically to deter players from committing "deliberate" fouls that prevented an opponent from scoring. So its introduction into the laws was never intended to punish non-deliberate fouls. And it wasn't until 1991 that handballs were included into that umbrella.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

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.

No, you're just ignoring the laws and the way they are worded. That post makes it very clear that direction of play means, specifically needing to be moving towards goal. Haaland wasn't. In addition, he didn't ever have control of the ball.

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

The reasons for why it was a disgrace is fair game. I wouldn't disagree with you on that point. Should have been a free kick, clearly, as I said from the beginning.

And the reason why that couldn't be corrected is because of the inadequacies of VAR and the language they set that prevents them from correcting basic errors.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

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

They've kept it going. I'm merely responding to their points. I can't be blamed for keeping this going any longer. If they quote me and offer further discussion, I have an obligation to respond in kind.

 

[richardtheref]

When I qualified as a class 4 ref my mentor said to me "always remember you are going to referee a sport where the players, managers and supporters don't understand the laws of the game ".
Just saying. Given the way this thread has gone. I am once again going to stop posting on here until we have a new incident to discuss. Goodnight and God bless.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

They've kept it going. I'm merely responding to their points. I can't be blamed for keeping this going any longer. If they quote me and offer further discussion, I have an obligation to respond in kind.

You're like the Stockton Rush of the VAR thread.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

No, a "professional foul" could be a number of things. i.e. stopping a counter attack, preventing an opponent from advancing into a dangerous area.

And to the point of contention, there was no automatic red card associated with it.

The denial of a goal scoring opportunity was put in to the LOTG following the 1990 World Cup in Italy where there were a number of incidents.

In fact, the purpose of its introduction into the laws following that world cup was specifically to "deter players from committing cynical fouls that deliberately prevented an opponent from scoring".

So if you want to get technical, it was put in specifically to deter players from committing "deliberate" fouls that prevented an opponent from scoring. So its introduction into the laws was never intended to punish non-deliberate fouls. And it wasn't until 1991 that handballs were included into that umbrella.

Just out of interest, what level do you referee at?

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Just out of interest, what level do you referee at?

He doesn’t ref anymore, he stepped aside to head the PGMOL.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

He doesn’t ref anymore, he stepped aside to head the PGMOL.

A most noble act and highly commendable.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

He doesn’t ref anymore, he stepped aside to head the PGMOL.

If I had any official involvement with football's officiating, the sport would be in much better shape. And that's not hyperbole. Those involved have taken the sport on a wild goose chase.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

You're like the Stockton Rush of the VAR thread.

That was a needless tragedy and I would never fathom acting as irrationally and as wrecklessly as that foolish man did. Nor do I have any desire to explore ocean depths let alone outside of conventional standards.

I really think it's low of you to make such an analogy. That man put other peoples lives at risk while assuring them that it was safe. That was a deeply disturbing situation and it is inappropriate for you to compare me to such a man, even in jest.

 

[Stephen230]

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?

From memory the first time the term ‘professional foul’ came to light was after Phil Thompson brought down John Robertson just outside the box in the 1978 League Cup Final Replay. The referee gave a match winning penalty and Thompson was crying to anyone who’d listen that he’d committed a ‘professional foul’ just outside the box.

Then two years later, Willie Young hacked down Paul Allen in the 1980 FA Cup Final. And as a result of that, serious conversations started that a yellow card and a free kick 30 yards out was a punishment that didn’t fit the crime.

I don’t recall when I first heard the actual term DOGSO, but it wasn’t until the 1990 World Cup that a red card was introduced as punishment for what we now call a DOGSO. And then the following year they added handball to it.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

When I qualified as a class 4 ref my mentor said to me "always remember you are going to referee a sport where the players, managers and supporters don't understand the laws of the game ".
Just saying. Given the way this thread has gone. I am once again going to stop posting on here until we have a new incident to discuss. Goodnight and God bless.

So you would have us believe that only you know best and that we "supporters" are all mere peons compared to you oh wise one who has been so thoroughly trained by your mentor to believe that "players, managers and supporters" inherently do not understand the laws of the game.

Ironically it is through that prism that you should be lecturing us all on why Henderson was not determined to have denied an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity by the means that are laid out in the LOTG. If you are such a qualified expert on the laws as you profess to be then you would know that Haaland would have needed to be moving towards goal which he wasn't and you'd be confirming my view of the situation.

So save me the hubris about you inherently knowing better because you profess to be a qualified referee and as such it would be beneath you to continue engaging with us common folk. The fact is that you could offer no response to #2,801 and proceeded to head for the exit.

Happy trails to you . . . until we meet again.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

So you would have us believe that only you know best and that we "supporters" are all mere peons compared to you oh wise one who has been so thoroughly trained by your mentor to believe that "players, managers and supporters" inherently do not understand the laws of the game.

Ironically it is through that prism that you should be lecturing us all on why Henderson was not determined to have denied an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity by the means that are laid out in the LOTG. If you are such a qualified expert on the laws as you profess to be then you would know that Haaland would have needed to be moving towards goal which he wasn't and you'd be confirming my view of the situation.

So save me the hubris about you inherently knowing better because you profess to be a qualified referee and as such it would be beneath you to continue engaging with us common folk. The fact is that you could offer no response to #2,801 and proceeded to head for the exit.

Happy trails to you . . . until we meet again.

Opted out this far as there’s little to add to what others have posted but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you need to give the internet a miss for a bit mate

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

That was a needless tragedy and I would never fathom acting as irrationally and as wrecklessly as that foolish man did. Nor do I have any desire to explore ocean depths let alone outside of conventional standards.

I really think it's low of you to make such an analogy. That man put other peoples lives at risk while assuring them that it was safe. That was a deeply disturbing situation and it is inappropriate for you to compare me to such a man, even in jest.

Chill out fella, the loose analogy is he ignored the evidence just as you are, but it's clearly not a direct comparison. By the way I won't be responding to any more comments. ;-)

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Chill out fella, the loose analogy is he ignored the evidence just as you are, but it's clearly not a direct comparison. By the way I won't be responding to any more comments. ;-)

Looks like we have another one joining Richard at the pub. Your loose analogy was cringe and also void of an apt comparison. I have gone to great lengths to observe all evidence thoroughly, if there's any criticism of me it is that I have been "too thorough". I have also studied the LOTG as it relates to that incident and have communicated that to explain why the decision was reached. Yet it is you and others who seem to be "ignoring the evidence" as it pertains to what goes into a denial of a GSO.

So run off little lad, keep ignoring the evidence as it pertains to which way Haaland was running, and the lack of control he had, let alone that the action from Henderson that avoided a collision and was inherently borderline and non-deliberate. I pointed out quite aptly that when denial of a GSO was added to the laws in 1990, it was only for deliberate infractions. So not only was the decision (as much as we all dislike it and disagree with it) consistent with the current laws as they are written, but if had they had issued a red card it would have certainly gone against the spirit of the laws relating to denial of GSOs as they were introduced in 1990.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

It doesn't say that at all. General direction of the play (towards the offender's goal)" doesn't equate to "running directly towards the goal". Not in any sense.

You really have no feel at all for the game.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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

It's important bullshit is countered, otherwise people start believing it, or at least start believing the people spouting it have any credibility.

Until it becomes wumming, of course, and then that's a different matter.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

It doesn't say that at all. General direction of the play (towards the offender's goal)" doesn't equate to "running directly towards the goal". Not in any sense.

You really have no feel at all for the game.

He was not moving towards the goal. He was clearly moving wide away from the goal. He's already beyond the post and moving further away from it.



He needed to be moving towards the goal in order for it to be considered a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

 

[halfcenturyup]

He was not moving towards the goal. He was clearly moving wide away from the goal. He's already beyond the post and moving further away from it.

View attachment 158171

He needed to be moving towards the goal in order for it to be considered a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

No he didn't. The general direction of the play has to be towards the offender’s goal. You are reading words and not understanding the context. Not for the first time.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

No he didn't. The general direction of the play has to be towards the offender’s goal. You are reading words and not understanding the context. Not for the first time.

Context? He's either moving towards the goal or he's isn't. The direction that he was moving would have taken him to the sideline short of the corner flag, not towards the goal.

You continue to dig a deeper hole for yourself. Best to just concede that you are in denial about what happened. He's running towards the sideline, period. For you to continue to deny this any longer out of some desperate attempt to be right would be mad.

There's a reason why VAR made the decision that they made. We don't have to like it, we don't have to agree with it, but we can certainly understand it and not be in denial about why the decision was made.

If you continue to suggest that he was running towards the goal when it's patently clear that he was running wide toward the sidelines, you cannot be taken seriously. And for you to lecture me about not having a "feel" for the game when you can't even admit he was running wide is wild.