VAR thread 2022/23

[Bluekiwi]

A question ...............

What was the reason that Klopp got sent off for?
From the clips I have seen it appeared to be some sort of tussle with Salah that wasn't deemed to be a foul. If that was the case then why was Haaland and Foden's goal penalised as it was a similar incident.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Referencing this opening post above from the Liverpool Post-Match Thread so others understand I believe we ultimately lost because of mistakes from Pep (and Cancelo, unfortunately) and not because of VAR.

But I am also choosing to use the thread created to debate VAR… to, err, debate the consistency and correctness of the VAR decisions (or indecisions) in the match. I have also only questioned the potential handball on Salah’s goal and offered evidence of Thiago getting away with quite a lot during the match (which I am sure some could argue our players did, as well).

I agree that the decision to disallow Foden’s goal was technically correct, though, I think it is perfectly reasonable to question why so many similar challenges were let go during the match but Haalands’ were not (something Pep and the players themselves have questioned).

I feel as though I need to post this as my character (and apparently intelligence) are being attacked in a wholly dishonest way.

I agree with everything you say re VAR. I posted myself that in the context of that match that disallowing the goal was unfair and inconsistent.
I thought the match itself was fine margins rather than we were tactically deficient. I thought Liverpool executed their game plan very well and the game turned on the VAR decision. Whoever scored first in the second half would go onto win.

 

[Blue Mist]

A question ...............

What was the reason that Klopp got sent off for?
From the clips I have seen it appeared to be some sort of tussle with Salah that wasn't deemed to be a foul. If that was the case then why was Haaland and Foden's goal penalised as it was a similar incident.

I don't quite understand what you are asking but....
When Foden scored Klopp berated the 4th official but nothing was done about it. Later Bernie and Salah had the tussle which the linesman ignored. Klopp lost it and as the lino went past he got a verbal barrage that stopped him dead. Despite the fact we were attacking, Taylor felt it was severe enough to stop play and send the ignorant bastard off.
That was why he was sent off. I don't understand the last bit of your post about Noggin the Nog. Taylor didn't think Noggin had committed a foul until instructed by the Var wank.

 

[shemnel]

soooooo

Haaland's tug was a foul and Salah didn't handball it. There, I said it.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

If the referee did not see a really obvious decisions - would that be justified?

The Chelsea match was pre VAR. The 4th Official or whoever was in Taylor's ear in that match had no right being involved in the game.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Because none of those teams are Manchester City and because this fixture is Uber important for the PL brand.

The PL and the media do seem to be pushing this whole rivalry angle to boost their viewing figures and worldwide sales...

 

[halfcenturyup]

Exactly what does the last part of the first bullet point mean?

"... unless the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save."

I have no idea what they are trying to say.

Can anybody help me with this?

 

[Paladin]

Exactly what does the last part of the first bullet point mean?

"... unless the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save."

I have no idea what they are trying to say.

Ok. So breaking it down, the clause says "The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hands... by touching it (the ball) with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper had made a save."

So the goalkeeper has control of the ball merely by touching the ball with his hands or arms, other than if the ball rebounds from him. This raises the question when the ball could be touched by the goalkeeper's hands or arms but the touch is not a rebound. The scenarios I can think of are:

1. The goalkeeper is holding the ball with one or both hands.
2. The goalkeeper has the ball between his hand and any other surface, such as the pitch, the goalpost, another player (but if the player moves away, the ball could then be dropped and the goalkeeper would no longer have in control of it).
3. The goalkeeper could be lying on the ground with the ball inadvertently stationary, yet touching any part of his arm or hand.

If the ball touches a goalkeeper's hands or arm in any other than these scenarios, it would constitute a rebound.

Even in the third scenario above, whilst the ball is in contact with the goalkeeper's hands or arm, no other player would be allowed to play the ball. The goalkeeper has six seconds (often interpreted by referees as anything between 6 and 20 seconds) by which time the ball must be released back into play.

This is my personal interpretation based on the written LOTG and logical deduction. Official advice or clarification given to referees could well differ.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Ok. So breaking it down, the clause says "The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hands... by touching it (the ball) with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper had made a save."

So the goalkeeper has control of the ball merely by touching the ball with his hands or arms, other than if the ball rebounds from him. This raises the question when the ball could be touched by the goalkeeper's hands or arms but the touch is not a rebound. The scenarios I can think of are:

1. The goalkeeper is holding the ball with one or both hands.
2. The goalkeeper has the ball between his hand and any other surface, such as the pitch, the goalpost, another player (but if the player moves away, the ball could then be dropped and the goalkeeper would no longer have in control of it).
3. The goalkeeper could be lying on the ground with the ball inadvertently stationary, yet touching any part of his arm or hand.

If the ball touches a goalkeeper's hands or arm in any other than these scenarios, it would constitute a rebound.

Even in the third scenario above, whilst the ball is in contact with the goalkeeper's hands or arm, no other player would be allowed to play the ball. The goalkeeper has six seconds (often interpreted by referees as anything between 6 and 20 seconds) by which time the ball must be released back into play.

This is my personal interpretation based on the written LOTG and logical deduction. Official advice or clarification given to referees could well differ.

Without wishing to derail the thread, what they are trying to say is if the goalkeeper is holding the ball in one or two hands, or if the ball is between one hand or two hands and the ground, then he is always in control of the ball.

If the ball is touching his arm or hand in any other case, deliberately or inadvertently, then he is also in control of the ball, unless this happens as a result of a rebound or a save. So let's say the goalkeeper dives to make a save and the ball rolls against his arm on the ground, then he is not in control of the ball until he picks it up or puts one hand or both hands on top of it?

Is that about it?

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

Saying Haaland fouled the dip is ignoring everything else.
Pep has stated Taylor said he would be letting minor fouls go. Right up to Phils goal he did. Either he was ordered to change his mind or he is very weak minded and reversed his manager briefing. Which ever it is and we should be told, but won't be, it is wrong.
Time and time again we are on the shitty end of an Anfield Var decision. That is Peps belief also judging by his comments. It needs calling out.

It isn't just at Anfield. We have been on the arse end of just as many decisions at our place against them