VAR thread 2022/23

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen230 said:
Is it possible to have laws of the game that aren’t loose or ambiguous in a contact sport like football though?

Could you word a law that covers exactly what a foul is, that covers every possible incident you’d like to be penalised, excludes every possible incident you’d like to not be penalised, and not be the slightest bit ambiguous?
Click to expand...

If everything is so subjective, and it is, the wording of the law should be suitably vague.

You can't try to describe every incident that causes offside, for example, and then forget the purpose of the law, which is the offside player getting advantage, and say "letter of the law". You can describe certain situations that can clarify subjective areas, but the overriding factor should be "gaining an advantage". There can be no letter of the law for subjective decisions. It doesn't make any sense.

Same for handball. Who cares if the ball brushes your hand before you score, or any of the other 25 situations it describes (over-exaggeration intended)? Was it deliberate or not is the issue.
 
Djibrilshairdo said:
Just adding insult to injury. What a joke of an organisation.

www.bbc.co.uk

Fabinho: PGMOL accepts Liverpool midfielder should have been sent off for Evan Ferguson tackle

Referees' body PGMOL accepts Liverpool midfielder Fabinho should have been sent off for a tackle on Evan Ferguson in Sunday's FA Cup tie at Brighton.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

VAR is like the dippers, a complete shambles.

What's the point of apologising if no action is taken.

The list of bent decisions this season is out of control and is fast making the premier league a joke.
 
give it to gordon said:
VAR is like the dippers, a complete shambles.

What's the point of apologising if no action is taken.

The list of bent decisions this season is out of control and is fast making the premier league a joke.
Click to expand...
I particularly liked this part:

"As part of a drive for transparency within PGMOL, the organisation has privately let it be known there was enough evidence to warrant a red card."

Wtaf?
 
halfcenturyup said:
I particularly liked this part:

"As part of a drive for transparency within PGMOL, the organisation has privately let it be known there was enough evidence to warrant a red card."

Wtaf?
Click to expand...

Transparency would mean miking up and letting the public hear the discussion. That's not going happen.

The premier league needs to look into improving the refs in their league as PGMOL fall well sort. Or perhaps PGMOL are just doing what the premier league want.

The two red tops do well out of PGMOL, more so than most.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I particularly liked this part:

"As part of a drive for transparency within PGMOL, the organisation has privately let it be known there was enough evidence to warrant a red card."

Wtaf?
Click to expand...
This is just BULLSH*T. Leaking a story about how they are driving towards transparency is all just image manipulation. Strangely, the article only mention the Fabinho challenge. I presume the other two red cards that would have been issued to 90% of the other teams in the PL have been airbrushed from history?

If they were SERIOUS about transparency, we'd have been allowed full unfettered access to communications between the referee's and VAR long ago.

They aren't which has more than roused suspicions of game manipulation.
 
SWP's back said:
As I have said before, Dale is independent and usually speaks sense



I bet quite a few on here will now support what he’s saying.
Click to expand...

Well, when he is speaking sense (“usually” means he doesn’t always), of course. ;-)

Jokes aside, he isn’t the only one that has done analysis to indicate that VAR intervention (or nonintervention, as is more often the case this season) generally favours Liverpool and United at the expense of other teams.

Hence why that has been the reasonable argument being put forth. Again, many people seem to want to interpret the suspect officiating arguments in here as assertions that it is an “always on” approach, which is not correct. They aren’t always attempting to influence match outcomes, nor are they always successful when they are attempting to do so.

But there is mounting evidence of favouritism toward the cash cow clubs and such interventions unfortunately make sense from an overall business perspective for the league.
 
Stephen230 said:
Whether he’s right or not is maybe debatable. But I think you’re missing his point. He specifically says that Ederson could ( would ) have acted differently without the presence of Rashford. But there is no mention in law of a player reacting differently to an opponent in an offside position, being cause for an offside offence having occurred.

He acknowledges that Rashford has affected Ederson’s choice not to come and play the ball. His point is, he hasn’t physically stopped his ability to do so. That seems totally wrong to every fair minded person. But his job is to point out the actual law, not how fair he thinks it is.
Click to expand...
Forget Ederson, Rashford impacts Akanjis ability to play the ball 100%.
 
inchy14 said:
Forget Ederson, Rashford impacts Akanjis ability to play the ball 100%.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely correct.

Akanji could not get the ball without going through the back of Rashford. Because the lineman had not yet raised his flag Akanji had to assume Rashford was onside and so making such a challenge would have very likely lead to him being sent off. Assuming Rashford was offside and making the challenge would have been idiocy, and Akanji isn’t an idiot. Because of nearly EVERY previous similar situation in the history of the Premier League leading to players in Rashford’s position being deemed as offside, Akanji reasonably assumed that Rashford would eventually be flagged as offside.

For that reason alone Rashford was “interfering with play”.

A decision not to deem Rashford offside was so far outside of established precedent there was no reasonable observer during the incident that expected the goal to be given. Not the linesman, not our players, not commentators waiting for the officials to confer, not any non-United fan in the stadium or watching on TV. And no reasonable observer now thinks such an incident will ever be given as onside again.

The the referee overriding the linesman and the nonintervention by VAR Is more farcical the more you analyse the play.
 
SebastianBlue said:
This is absolutely correct.

Akanji could not get the ball without going through the back of Rashford. Because the lineman had not yet raised his flag Akanji had to assume Rashford was onside and so making such a challenge would have very likely lead to him being sent off. Assuming Rashford was offside and making the challenge would have been idiocy, and Akanji isn’t an idiot. Because of nearly EVERY previous similar situation in the history of the Premier League leading to players in Rashford’s position being deemed as offside, Akanji reasonably assumed that Rashford would eventually be flagged as offside.

For that reason alone Rashford was “interfering with play”.

A decision not to deem Rashford offside was so far outside of established precedent there was no reasonable observer during the incident that expected the goal to be given. Not the linesman, not our players, not commentators waiting for the officials to confer, not any non-United fan in the stadium or watching on TV. And no reasonable observer now thinks such an incident will ever be given as onside again.

The the referee overriding the linesman and the nonintervention by VAR Is more farcical the more you analyse the play.
Click to expand...

It's this letter of the law thing that gets me. "He may have been onside by the letter of the law, but it's subjective". Which is it?

Going through the four or five requirements in the law one by one and explaining how then it wasn't necessarily offside is just mental gymnastics. There is no other game on the planet where that wasn't offside. Still fuming. That one decision switched me from "it's tough for referees and they generally do the best they can" to "something is going on here". It will be difficult to switch back again.

In any case, just spare me this justification bollocks. It was a mistake or it was deliberate. Either way it was wrong.

Not aimed at you, btw. Mr SB, sir. Just another rant about that bullshit decision.
 
Thank fuck this wasn’t against City. They’ve drawn the line from the second last defender and completely ignored his mate behind him who appears to be playing the attacker well on side.

5b87e30b8df3c2ed9b9425247a82362f.jpg
 
Just watched motd - how VAR let Toney's equaliser stand I have no idea. Shite, but well done Lee Mason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top