VAR thread 2022/23

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen230 said:
I normally sulk like a baby and refuse to watch highlights when we’ve lost. But I’ve just forced myself to watch Match of the Day. I was as a pissed off as anyone yesterday but I have to say in the sober light of the next day, my anger has subsided a bit. It was a foul by Haaland. I’d still probably be a bit annoyed because of the context of the way the rest of the game was refereed. But that’s tempered by the fact, I’m pretty sure Haaland kicked the ball when the ‘keeper had a hand on it anyway, so I doubt the goal would have stood.

More annoyed with the defending for the goal now more than anything. Both by DeBruyne and Cancello.
Click to expand...
Why should a foul before a goal be judged anymore harshly than the 442 other similar fouls that Taylor let go ?

Var was for clear and obvious mistakes, not to forensically analyse the 15 minutes before a goal is scored. Var looked several times at the Alison/Haaland contact and because they couldn't find a reason to disallow it, went further back in play. Haaland and the scouse twat were competing for the ball knowing that was the kind of challenge Taylor was allowing. To then punish him is wrong and it means Taylor had referred the entire game incorrectly.

If that was Salah and Diaz do you think they would have said it was a foul ? No chance.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Click to expand...

So you agree with the Var decision Alan ?
You believe that Taylor looked at the screen and said ah yes I missed that it was a clear and obvious mistake by me it was foul and it was far worse than the 442 fouls I had previously allowed so I will cancel out the goal.
 
Blue Mist said:
Why should a foul before a goal be judged anymore harshly than the 442 other similar fouls that Taylor let go ?

Var was for clear and obvious mistakes, not to forensically analyse the 15 minutes before a goal is scored. Var looked several times at the Alison/Haaland contact and because they couldn't find a reason to disallow it, went further back in play. Haaland and the scouse twat were competing for the ball knowing that was the kind of challenge Taylor was allowing. To then punish him is wrong and it means Taylor had referred the entire game incorrectly.

If that was Salah and Diaz do you think they would have said it was a foul ? No chance.
Click to expand...
I've just dared to watch MOTD. They mentioned that, by the way, they had been told that the non-goal would have been ruled out anyway, due to Haaland's foul on Allison. So why, then, bring it all the way back to the shirt pull? Conspiricy theorist I am not - and agree Haaland fouled the geezer - though surely the keeper incident (if it was a foul) would be the call?
 
Blue Mist said:
Why should a foul before a goal be judged anymore harshly than the 442 other similar fouls that Taylor let go ?

Var was for clear and obvious mistakes, not to forensically analyse the 15 minutes before a goal is scored. Var looked several times at the Alison/Haaland contact and because they couldn't find a reason to disallow it, went further back in play. Haaland and the scouse twat were competing for the ball knowing that was the kind of challenge Taylor was allowing. To then punish him is wrong and it means Taylor had referred the entire game incorrectly.

If that was Salah and Diaz do you think they would have said it was a foul ? No chance.
Click to expand...

But you’ve just made that up. You’ve no idea what the VAR looked at and in what order.
 
york away to this! said:
I've just dared to watch MOTD. They mentioned that, by the way, they had been told that the non-goal would have been ruled out anyway, due to Haaland's foul on Allison. So why, then, bring it all the way back to the shirt pull? Conspiricy theorist I am not - and agree Haaland fouled the geezer - though surely the keeper incident (if it was a foul) would be the call?
Click to expand...
That makes no sense though. The goal is scored, a very quick check is done for offside then they look at the Haaland/Alison incident. They decide no foul so review the play before it. You can't do it the other way round as where do you start. Var looked at the Alison incident first, they must have.
 
Stephen230 said:
But you’ve just made that up. You’ve no idea what the VAR looked at and in what order.
Click to expand...
I am using common sense. The obvious first point of call is the Haaland/Alison incident. Why would anyone look at anything else first ? That incident was what the players were complaining about. It was what Sky were focused on. Why go back in play to watch the build up ?
 
Blue Mist said:
I am using common sense. The obvious first point of call is the Haaland/Alison incident. Why would anyone look at anything else first ? That incident was what the players were complaining about. It was what Sky were focused on. Why go back in play to watch the build up ?
Click to expand...

For the exact reason that what happened happened. VAR had identified two potential fouls. It would make no sense wasting time on the second one until or unless the first one was deemed no foul. Then the second one became irrelevant.
 
Blue Mist said:
So you agree with the Var decision Alan ?
You believe that Taylor looked at the screen and said ah yes I missed that it was a clear and obvious mistake by me it was foul and it was far worse than the 442 fouls I had previously allowed so I will cancel out the goal.
Click to expand...
I think it was a foul, yes.
 
paulchapo said:
This is the dangerous ground we are going if a referee says he is "Letting the game flow" as it's a cheats charter. As Bernardo said he let lots of similar tussles and challenges go, but when we score it's disallowed for a foul. They can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Clearly,they can.

The sooner football is stripped back to basics,the better.The game is losing support and passion because of the unnecessary bullshit that now governs it.
 
Blue Mist said:
But waa it a clear and obvious mistake.....
Or just one of the many fouls he had allowed all game ?
Click to expand...

That's it, it was a tussle and he's told both managers he's allowing such. Bernardo's tussle with Salah later was more violent but nothing given. We are no better off with var if it's still open to interpretation. Stick to what it was originally brought in for. Clear offsides, handballs, penalty claims and sly elbows the ref has missed. Not taking five minutes to disallow a goal as someone's nose or big toe is offside.
 
It staggers me how the narrative is that Taylor had a good game at weekend? Letting fouls go unpunished is not good refereeing, it culminates in exactly what happened on Sunday. That "foul" from Haaland happened throughout the game yet VAR didn't operate the same high bar that Taylor did. If that's the case you simply cannot referee a game in that manner.
 
paulchapo said:
This is the dangerous ground we are going if a referee says he is "Letting the game flow" as it's a cheats charter. As Bernardo said he let lots of similar tussles and challenges go, but when we score it's disallowed for a foul. They can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
It is because it gets looked at by VAR when a goal is scored. If that same offence is committed by the defender VAR won't even bother checking it. It disadvantages the attacking team.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
It is because it gets looked at by VAR when a goal is scored. If that same offence is committed by the defender VAR won't even bother checking it. It disadvantages the attacking team.
Click to expand...
That is why using var is wrong. They have changed so many rules to try and make football attractive rather than boring, stopping a keeper picking up a back pass was the first, the defenders being allowed in the area at goal kicks is one of the latest, but now we are penalising attackers and therefore stopping the one thing fans love, goals. What a farce.
 
Blue Mist said:
That is why using var is wrong. They have changed so many rules to try and make football attractive rather than boring, stopping a keeper picking up a back pass was the first, the defenders being allowed in the area at goal kicks is one of the latest, but now we are penalising attackers and therefore stopping the one thing fans love, goals. What a farce.
Click to expand...
“His big toe was offside”
”The point of his shoulder was offside”
”When he pointed to where he wanted the pass, that made his arm offside”
”His hard on was offside”
 
Blue Mist said:
Why should a foul before a goal be judged anymore harshly than the 442 other similar fouls that Taylor let go ?

Var was for clear and obvious mistakes, not to forensically analyse the 15 minutes before a goal is scored. Var looked several times at the Alison/Haaland contact and because they couldn't find a reason to disallow it, went further back in play. Haaland and the scouse twat were competing for the ball knowing that was the kind of challenge Taylor was allowing. To then punish him is wrong and it means Taylor had referred the entire game incorrectly.

If that was Salah and Diaz do you think they would have said it was a foul ? No chance.
Click to expand...

The ref could have decided I’ve let enough go throughout the game, I’ll let Haaland off - it’s his call , not VAR. He saw it on monitor, it was a foul, it was the correct decision
Also, are you honestly in agreement Salah made a handball in the turn for the goal ?

Blue Mist said:
That is why using var is wrong. They have changed so many rules to try and make football attractive rather than boring, stopping a keeper picking up a back pass was the first, the defenders being allowed in the area at goal kicks is one of the latest, but now we are penalising attackers and therefore stopping the one thing fans love, goals. What a farce.
Click to expand...

there's more goals this season on average per game than at any time in Prem history
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top