Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
I've told you once!!!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
VAR thread 2022/23
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
crazyg
Well-Known Member
No you didn't.I've told you once!!!
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,662
Why not let VAR decide? ;-)No you didn't.
crazyg
Well-Known Member
Yes. What can possibly go wrong?Why not let VAR decide? ;-)
Then Taylor is a very poor referee. If he believes that is a foul by Noggin the Nog, he must now realise he missed the other 442 challenges that he didn't blow for.Taylor and VAR thought so. Lots of amateur refs online though disagree.
Perhaps he should retire as he is clearly not up to it.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,662
Fair enough, it’s a fair summation to think that.Then Taylor is a very poor referee. If he believes that is a foul by Noggin the Nog, he must now realise he missed the other 442 challenges that he didn't blow for.
Perhaps he should retire as he is clearly not up to it.
There isn’t much support for giving the goal outside of our fans though.
eyalluvitt
Well-Known Member
Did VAR do it’s job and CSI investigate Salad bowls LA Lakers esq ball control to help him score?I don't know why people are blaming VAR for City's disallowed goal. VAR did it's job. It asked Taylor to look at a foul in the build up to the goal. Taylor is to blame here. He should have rejected VAR on the basis that he had allowed such minor infringements up to that point, as he told both teams he would be doing, and he wasn't going to change his refereeing approach at that point.
TAYLOR IS TO BLAME. He referrees well generally, but has a habit of turning weak when confronted with important decisions.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,662
No as there is no clamour anywhere but here and on City twitter. Even then it took almost a day to come out.Did VAR do it’s job and CSI investigate Salad bowls LA Lakers esq ball control to help him score?
Not sure that’s deemed clear and obvious to those that rant about everything needing to be clear and obvious.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,978
Dale Johnson's (ESPN) take on it:
"VAR overturn: Goal disallowed for foul on Fabinho by Haaland
What happened: Manchester City thought they had taken the lead in the 53rd minute through Phil Foden, but there was a VAR review after Fabinho went to ground in the buildup under a challenge from Erling Haaland.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: This brings us back around to a discussion from last month, when Arsenal striker Gabriel Martinelli had a goal ruled out for a foul in the buildup by Martin Odegaard on Manchester United midfielder Christian Eriksen.
Erling Haaland pulls on the shirt of Fabinho. BBC
If referees are officiating games to a higher threshold, allowing the game to flow more and not giving so-called soft free kicks, then the VAR should be trying to officiate that way too.
Referee Anthony Taylor saw the incident and, as he had done so in the rest of the game, decided there wasn't enough in the challenge to warrant a free kick; he is seen to gesture at Fabinho to get up.
The VAR, Darren England, is effectively re-refereeing the game by intervening and making a judgement on an individual incident to a different standard. Once Taylor is sent to the monitor and shown the pull on the shirt, he has little option than to go with the advice of the VAR. Perhaps Taylor didn't see the tug, but the fact remains that disallowing the goal for this went against the way the game was being officiated.
The independent panel, which assesses all major decisions, told Arsenal that the VAR shouldn't have become involved in the Odegaard-Eriksen incident, and this feels like it's on those exact same lines."
But then he finishes by grasping at this straw:
"However, there was no way the goal could stand, regardless of the merits of the Fabinho-Haaland incident.
Subsequently, Haaland kicked the ball when it was already under Alisson's control. It's a very simple area of law: if the goalkeeper has even one hand on the ball when it is on the ground, he is deemed to be in control and cannot be challenged. If Taylor had rejected the overturn for the possible foul by Haaland on Fabinho, he would then have been shown this next situation."
Or the next one, or the next one, until they had found a good one, I suppose.
"VAR overturn: Goal disallowed for foul on Fabinho by Haaland
What happened: Manchester City thought they had taken the lead in the 53rd minute through Phil Foden, but there was a VAR review after Fabinho went to ground in the buildup under a challenge from Erling Haaland.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: This brings us back around to a discussion from last month, when Arsenal striker Gabriel Martinelli had a goal ruled out for a foul in the buildup by Martin Odegaard on Manchester United midfielder Christian Eriksen.
Erling Haaland pulls on the shirt of Fabinho. BBC
If referees are officiating games to a higher threshold, allowing the game to flow more and not giving so-called soft free kicks, then the VAR should be trying to officiate that way too.
Referee Anthony Taylor saw the incident and, as he had done so in the rest of the game, decided there wasn't enough in the challenge to warrant a free kick; he is seen to gesture at Fabinho to get up.
The VAR, Darren England, is effectively re-refereeing the game by intervening and making a judgement on an individual incident to a different standard. Once Taylor is sent to the monitor and shown the pull on the shirt, he has little option than to go with the advice of the VAR. Perhaps Taylor didn't see the tug, but the fact remains that disallowing the goal for this went against the way the game was being officiated.
The independent panel, which assesses all major decisions, told Arsenal that the VAR shouldn't have become involved in the Odegaard-Eriksen incident, and this feels like it's on those exact same lines."
But then he finishes by grasping at this straw:
"However, there was no way the goal could stand, regardless of the merits of the Fabinho-Haaland incident.
Subsequently, Haaland kicked the ball when it was already under Alisson's control. It's a very simple area of law: if the goalkeeper has even one hand on the ball when it is on the ground, he is deemed to be in control and cannot be challenged. If Taylor had rejected the overturn for the possible foul by Haaland on Fabinho, he would then have been shown this next situation."
Or the next one, or the next one, until they had found a good one, I suppose.
eyalluvitt
Well-Known Member
Send any Liverpool fan a pic of his “handball” and they instantly reply with Rodri at Goodison. it’s not just Klopp’s brain where we live Rent freeNo as there is no clamour anywhere but here and on City twitter. Even then it took almost a day to come out.
Not sure that’s deemed clear and obvious to those that rant about everything needing to be clear and obvious.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.