VAR thread 2022/23

[Metalartin]

He offered no opinion on whether he thought it was the correct decision or not, so reply was no reflection on him. In any case, stating that someone has no clue about the laws of football isn’t having a dig. Just stating a fact. I have no clue about the rules of rugby union but I wouldn’t be offended if someone pointed that out.

To be fair, it was you who gave it "everyone bar a few City fans". That's probably why you got that response and then you tried to say the responses you agree with are worth more.

I had a red scouse try and tell me no City fans thought the red was harsh but me(why do people try that bluff to win an argument?). "I've talked to City fans la, they all think it's a good call on the red". I told him, I watched two different live streams with lots of commenters(one of which wasn't a dedicated City channel), seen comments in the very sky highlights video he was posturing on, read forums like this one... Full of people saying things ranging from: "fair pen", "both soft pens", "never a red", "red by the letter of the law but what a shite/harsh rule that is" and so on.

I know what the letter of the law is, I was just saying "harsh" is an objective view(just like "soft pen"). That it doesn't seem right that an honest shoulder to shoulder attempt can get you sent off. Yet if you full send a sliding tackle and take the player out in the exact same spot, you have a good chance of staying on the pitch. The "attempt to play the ball" suggests that a shoulder to shoulder can't be done fairly, which isn't quite right. They are both attempting something completely within the rules to win the ball, one directly, one indirectly... That's the only difference. A shoulder to shoulder is challenging for position on a contestable ball.

The Fullham attacker moved right towards Cancelo's path too, both before and after his kick-on. His initial run was directed left, he had to bend his run right to meet the ball and then his kick-on(look where the ball ends up) sent the ball and the angle of his run further right. Rather than left into space. Cancelo chose his path before the player got anywhere near the ball and kept running in the direction he was facing if anything, meaning he barely changed the angle of his run. Still a foul because he didn't get shoulder on shoulder(almost, if you watch the reverse angle slow-mo) and there was simply too much force coming from behind. Still a harsh red in principle though because you could see what he was trying to do.

There's no way they don't review that TAA, blatant, deliberate, illegal push in the back, if he's in a City shirt either btw(just a pen). Let be real.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I know what the letter of the law is, I was just saying "harsh" is an objective view(just like "soft pen"). That it doesn't seem right that an honest shoulder to shoulder attempt can get you sent off. Yet if you full send a sliding tackle and take the player out in the exact same spot, you have a good chance of staying on the pitch. The "attempt to play the ball" suggests that a shoulder to shoulder can't be done fairly, which isn't quite right. They are both attempting something completely within the rules to win the ball, one directly, one indirectly... That's the only difference. A shoulder to shoulder is challenging for position on a contestable ball.

That's right. My only real issue with the Cancelo red card is that it was for attempting a shoulder charge, which is a valid manoeuvre. It seems strange to me that you can't get a red card for attempting one sort of valid manoeuvre, playing the ball, but you can be for attempting another valid manoeuvre, a shoulder charge. i know its the law as written but it doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Stephen230]

It’s probably about time to let this one go but the only other point I can make is that Cancelo’s challenge didn’t satisfy any of the criteria that is laid out for a fair shoulder charge. I don’t even think his shoulder actually made any contact. It was his arm and possibly also his leg. He was a step behind the player, not level. And the ball wasn’t in playing distance. I guess no one is changing their opinion now though.

 

[mat]

How good was the game tonight without VAR???

If the EFL are savvy enough. That's how they should market the tournament once the top 6 have been fucked off out it.

EFL League Cup - The real football trophy.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

That's right. My only real issue with the Cancelo red card is that it was for attempting a shoulder charge, which is a valid manoeuvre. It seems strange to me that you can't get a red card for attempting one sort of valid manoeuvre, playing the ball, but you can be for attempting another valid manoeuvre, a shoulder charge. i know its the law as written but it doesn't make much sense to me.

When I started reffing in the 70s I always considered the LotG a sort of 'crown jewels' among rules and regulations for arbitrating a sport. They were simple, straightforward, very black and white and hadn't been tampered with for decades but, unfortunately, they were laced with a heavy burden of ref's judgement, and over the years teams have attempted to gain advantage over advantage in order to extract from the game what their skills and talents couldn't - timewasting, diving, and example after example of simulation in order to get someone booked or removed! And in an attempt to bring order to the game IFAB and collaborators fiddle, mould, bend, accommodate all manner of improvements, and then add VAR. They were also given to explaining why one penalty was given and another not given, only to hear the following week that the explanations had changed and were now on the opposite side of the fence. it's making less and less sense the more I watch.

Little in the LotG which involve player contact makes little sense.

 

[halfcenturyup]

When I started reffing in the 70s I always considered the LotG a sort of 'crown jewels' among rules and regulations for arbitrating a sport. They were simple, straightforward, very black and white and hadn't been tampered with for decades but, unfortunately, they were laced with a heavy burden of ref's judgement, and over the years teams have attempted to gain advantage over advantage in order to extract from the game what their skills and talents couldn't - timewasting, diving, and example after example of simulation in order to get someone booked or removed! And in an attempt to bring order to the game IFAB and collaborators fiddle, mould, bend, accommodate all manner of improvements, and then add VAR. They were also given to explaining why one penalty was given and another not given, only to hear the following week that the explanations had changed and were now on the opposite side of the fence. it's making less and less sense the more I watch.

Little in the LotG which involve player contact makes little sense.

Yes. What the IFAB don't seem to recognise is that the more detailed you make the rules to try and "improve" their application, the more scenarios you open up that need further clarification.

Off-side for example. When I was lad, any player in an offside position when the ball was kicked was an infringement. Clear, but people complained about not giving advantage to the attacking team, so active/ inactive was introduced. But then what if a player was inactive when the ball was kicked but then became active? Different phases of play? Deliberate touches by defender/ accidental starting a new phase? The whole thing just gets more and more complicated and less understandable and therefore less enjoyable for the people watching. I sometimes wish we hadn't started screwing around with the simple off-side rule at all.

Don't even start me on handball.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Yes. What the IFAB don't seem to recognise is that the more detailed you make the rules to try and "improve" their application, the more scenarios you open up that need further clarification.

Off-side for example. When I was lad, any player in an offside position when the ball was kicked was an infringement. Clear, but people complained about not giving advantage to the attacking team, so active/ inactive was introduced. But then what if a player was inactive when the ball was kicked but then became active? Different phases of play? Deliberate touches by defender/ accidental starting a new phase? The whole thing just gets more and more complicated and less understandable and therefore less enjoyable for the people watching. I sometimes wish we hadn't started screwing around with the simple off-side rule at all.

Don't even start me on handball.

I think that the old rule of being nearer the goal line than a defender should have been from where you were when the ball was played so that anyone out on the wing would be further away than a defender who might have been nearer the halfway line but also nearer the goal line as the crows fly, rather than drawing a line parallel with the ends of the pitch. I think the 'goal line' should only be the eight yards between the posts. And yer dead right about handball. There does not exist a definition of handball that extends to a comprehensible application of what has just happened on the pitch. Week after week of watching highlights I'm often left thinking "Hey, that was a penalty last week! Why not today?'

 

[BlueHammer85]

They should trial 8 games without VAR

And then put it to a Season ticket vote whether fans want it back or not

 

[Metalartin]

It's about time to show what the law actually says. As I alluded to, I was arguing with a dipper who was completely misapplying one of the laws and attempting to reason with things that the video replays do not corroborate(I think Stephen is doing the same). Cancelo very nearly got shoulder on shoulder, so they were clearly closer to being side by side than one player behind the other, which is all that matters(not an exact science here). It was the Fulham attacker who leaned in front of Cancelo which stopped the shoulder on shoulder from happening(not saying he can't do this, it's just some people aren't seeing it correctly/blagging it) and it was also the Fulham attacker who changed the angle of his run more(twice) before the contact came.

From my post in the Cancelo thread:

I had some Liverpool fan fuming about my opinion that a red was harsh(how dare I) even if I accept it's the letter of the law. This on the basis of players needing to be within playing distance of the ball, if a shoulder to shoulder is to be deemed honest. He argued the attacker was but Cancelo wasn't. I'm not sure this is what the rules say but I humoured him because this isn't what I saw from the replay. I saw Cancelo being close enough to being side on, that he put his left arm infront of the attacker at the first point of contact. The Fulham player instinctively adjusts and gets his right shoulder in front by leaning across to block Cancelo off/not allow him his shoulder. Which is where it all goes wrong for Cancelo.

The closest I've come to finding a rule like that is below. If you are arguing Cancelo isn't within playing distance then you can just as easily argue neither of them are which changes things slightly. I'd argue from the replay, it appears that the Fulham player's kick-on was more to his right than he wanted(so he messed that up, unless he wanted the contact), which took him further into Cancelo's path. If he kicked it on towards his left, he's heading into more space and away from Cancelo's path.

Impeding the progress of an opponent without contact
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the
ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with
the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly
charged by an opponent.

There's no doubt it was an honest challenge gone wrong for me and most probably anyone with a decent amount of objectivity. He had the right to challenge but he ended up fouling him, no different from attempting a sliding tackle and getting that wrong in my view. What is fair to say is, Cancelo overestimates things a lot, I don't know if it's Pep asking him to be brave or just him. I'd rather he play those situations safer. If you're central and the risk of conceding a pen is high, just let them take the shot. It's really not worth it in that position.

The most frustrating thing, is when people argue against all of the above, as if you haven't said multiple times that the the letter of the law was applied correctly, which isn't the issue. It's like they are pretentiously saying : "No you can't have that opinion, you have to say you're happy with it"

It would be simpler to go back to, it's always a red for DOGSO but I don't want that either, the less soft reds the better. I'd really rather just have a pen given given every time, unless it's a dangerous tackle but I suppose decisions like these even things out for the smaller teams(dream decisions for them).

 

[Hart of the Matter]

Last night was a great game. No VAR...