VAR Discussion Thread

[city2]

Once again the combined inputs of the referee and Var officials demonstrate that their combined efforts are being used to negatively influence teams, and most certainly City from the officials,

It is no coincidence that the number of incidents which have had a negative effect upon the outcome of results involving City are demonstrating clear, biased and detrimental influence.

Cartel club members are a protected and the favoured species under a PL organisation who are as corrupt as their paymasters.

The sooner this is exposed and eliminated, the better for football as a whole. Corruption has prevailed for far too long.

Maybe they have heard the decision has gone City’s way and this is punishment

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

If it's ever truly exposed I don't think there will be anyng back form it.

That's true because the reality is that the PL and PiGMOL are aligned to try and ensure that certain teams enjoy the results which will make them richer , more dominant and powerful than at present.

This US driven cartel are greedy , corrupt and intent upon dominating the wealth and success which the PL provides. They have selected and employed Richard Masters as their puppet in order to implement their corrupt motives.

Donald Trump has demonstrated exactly what greedy and corrupt individuals from the US are capable of, and the yank owned clubs in the PL are just as ruthless and determined.

A scourge on football in the name of greed .

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

That's true because the reality is that the PL and PiGMOL are aligned to try and ensure that certain teams enjoy the results which will make them richer , more dominant and powerful than at present.

This US driven cartel are greedy , corrupt and intent upon dominating the wealth and success which the PL provides. They have selected and employed Richard Masters as their puppet in order to implement their corrupt motives.

Donald Trump has demonstrated exactly what greedy and corrupt individuals from the US are capable of, and the yank owned clubs in the PL are just as ruthless and determined.

A scourge on football in the name of greed .

They'll fuck the sport like they've done with baseball, basketball and NFL.

 

[cheekybids]

Yep.
I will repeat myself. It was an easy decision. 'Do I think his hands were in a natural position, yes or no'

That doesn't take 5 minutes of multiple camera angles and slow mo replays. What the fuck were Var looking at ?
It's yes or fuckin' no.
What was the ref looking at on the screen ? It's yes or fuckin' no. 20 seconds to make a simple decision not 5 minutes.

I thought the same, the length of time to review something that can be clearly seen makes no sense. If he looked twice then used the time to flick through the pages of the rule book would make more sense.

 

[SWExile]

In fairness, VAR isn't to blame for this one. Hallam was called to the monitor and stuck with his original decision. Ironically, I'd be all in favour of refs not just rolling over and reversing the call whenever VAR tells them to take another look.

It's the same issue as ever, VAR is meant to correct 'clear and obvious' errors and rule on objective line calls (although, they can't even do that right....) if you're staring at multiple replays for several minutes, it isn't clear and obvious so stick with the on field decision, basically equivalent to 'umpires call' in cricket. How about a time limit on VAR decisions? If you can't tell within a minute, the ref's call stands. Speeds the game up and stops the hunting for footage from any angle to justify what is still going to be nothing more than someone else's subjective opinion

 

[gingerprince]

Strange one for Howard Webb to completely agree VAR process working. [Although in his TV slot he carefully only says anything that can be minimally applied in the laws of the game to support VAR decision and forgets to mention all the other Laws that majorly apply to decision].

VAR only intervene if clear and obvious error.
They intervened to send Ref to monitor as they
believe Ref made a clear and obvious error as
they have been instructed to keep to onfield decision. [ EG If Ref gives penalty they confirm penalty just as surely they will also confirm no penalty if no penalty original onfield decision].
So if Referee goes to monitor and rightly or wrong feels his original decision is correct then that implies the clear and obvious error threshold that VAR need to apply to the original decision was not met and they should have just confirmed onfield decision of no penalty. The only other rationales are that onfield referee is no good/biased/doesn't want to accept he's wrong...

I suspect Webb will mention subjective/grey areas and not mention why if it was clear and obvious to VAR its not to Ref. I'm sure Owen isbnot allowed on that program to ask Webb what decision he would have made if VAR or if asked back to the monitor. I'm sure he will not address why it takes so long for both VAR and Ref to make a decision if its clear and obvious to them both, although poles apart.

 

[stan bowles]

It's all fine.

The bbc say it was a "courageous call".

Nothing to see here, move on now.

The same as the Cup Final with Henderson's handball and no red card. Set the narrative and then find the argument to back it up. That was Shearer (again) and Wright, if I recall.

 

[northendenton]

If only City knew someone who could hack them

 

[hertsblue]

Our penalty denied, clear handball
Then Chelsea get a penalty when the defenders arm was right next to his side, and not out stretched like our denied one, then Dorgu plays basketball with his hand to control the ball to score a goal and Var allows it.

 

[JRockBlues]

Our penalty denied, clear handball
Then Chelsea get a penalty when the defenders arm was right next to his side, and not out stretched like our denied one, then Dorgu plays basketball with his hand to control the ball to score a goal and Var allows it.

The penalty for Chelsea was specifically because it was a shot on goal. It's in the rules for that so had to be given. You cannot conflate the two incidents.

 

[Stephen230]

The penalty for Chelsea was specifically because it was a shot on goal. It's in the rules for that so had to be given. You cannot conflate the two incidents.

That's not true mate. If there's no handball offence ( deliberate or accidental ) where the ball is heading is irrelevant.

 

[JRockBlues]

That's not true mate. If there's no handball offence ( deliberate or accidental ) where the ball is heading is irrelevant.

Law 12:

Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)​

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off.


Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).


Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned.


A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee’s permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.

 

[Gazza]

Did anyone from the powers that be explain why the Dorgu goal was allowed to stand despite the ball obviously hitting his arm in the build up.

 

[JRockBlues]

Law 12:

Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)​

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off.


Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).


Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned.


A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee’s permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.

I see now that there is some debate over the wording and that this handball should not have been given as it wasn't a handball offence as the player was not making his body bigger to block the ball.

BBC Sport link

 

[waspish]

They were all saying last season if any part of the arm hand the ball hits it and it and then they score a goal it will be disallowed 100%

So when I saw it hit his arm I thought that’s not going to be allowed! So goal posts moved again! Surprised Arteta didn’t mention it…

 

[stonerblue]

I agree. I blocked him years ago because I think he's a wind up merchant: he disagrees for the sake of it, probably lonely and needs the attention.
People who once believed var was the way forward are now drifting to the greater view that it is being used to benefit certain teams by way of a corrupt organisation (pgmol). But he'll come on here and tell us it's the best thing ever to happen to the game.

The man's a ****.

Out of order that.
Hea a genuine poster and if you don't agree with him put him on ignore.
Calling him a **** is, well, a cunts trick.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I see now that there is some debate over the wording and that this handball should not have been given as it wasn't a handball offence as the player was not making his body bigger to block the ball.

BBC Sport link

I think it's muddied things hopelessly.

As I understand the argument, iIt only really applies when the keeper is not in a position to make a save. A defender can now stand with his arms right next to his body, have a shot clip one and ricochet away - penalty and yellow card.

That seems wrong.

Especially as later on, Maguire is clearly leaning to cover as much space as possible and the ball hits his arm away from his body.
It's now not handball if the player is falling, e.g. trying to change direction and slipping, or if it's to break the player's fall, but yesterday's was an incredibly generous call, as Maguire wasn't falling.
I'd accept that it wasn't deliberate, but by the England call, it still had to be a penalty and yellow card.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The problem is that the same referee can apply the LotG differently in the same game, let alone different games.

And when you have a competition where the application of the LotG in same or similar situations penalises one team and not another it simply cannot be deemed a fair competition.

 

[waspish]

No surprise this kunt backed the referee

 

[TJHTNATSOL]

No surprise this kunt backed the referee

Dermot was it cold in the ground this morning?