VAR thread 2022/23

[Stephen230]

Didn't see the game, but were either of the off-side "goals" what you would call "clear and obvious" or were they mm or cm offside? Put it this way, if they had been allowed, would there have been outrage at the poor decision? Honest question. I don't know.

And I am not sure VAR not doing anything can be described as a good night for VAR. If the referee got the calls right, surely it was a good night for the referee?

The VAR did do something. He advised the referee to disallow two goals that had been given as goals on the field.

The Nunez one was certainly close to the naked eye. But a pretty easy VAR decision.

The Brentford one was different, in that the guy was clearly yards offside. The issue was whether there had been a touch by Mee. The linesman didn’t see the touch and the guy would have been onside without it. Once the VAR had established Mee had got a feint but clear touch on the ball, it was the easiest decision ever.

Also nobody in The Premier League is ever millimetres offside anymore. There’s a tolerance level. If you look at the image for the Nunez offside, although it’s not a very clear photo, you’ll see there’s is a red line for the forward and a blue line for the defender, with a bit of green between them. If those two lines overlap at all, even if the red line is further forward, then the tolerance rule is applied and he’s onside.

 

[BlueHammer85]

So let's have a look at the three seasons pre- and post-VAR.

Pre: 8, 3 and 7 penalties
Post: 5, 6 and 8 penalties

Actually one more post-VAR than pre-.

You are using this year to date, which as far as I can tell is 0 penalties, to try to justify a point when it is just an outlier due to other factors, probably due to the fact they are crap this year.

You don't need to do it. I think most reasonable people would agree that the availability of VAR has led to a reduction in play-acting and trying to con the ref, as we saw very clearly, I think, at the world cup.

But this whole discussion started because the feeling was that, if someone trod on Salah's foot when he was running in the box at Anfield, he would get a penalty. Let's see if that happens and, if it does, what the result is.

Fairly balanced reply - cheers

 

[BlueHammer85]

The VAR did do something. He advised the referee to disallow two goals that had been given as goals on the field.

The Nunez one was certainly close to the naked eye. But a pretty easy VAR decision.

The Brentford one was different, in that the guy was clearly yards offside. The issue was whether there had been a touch by Mee. The linesman didn’t see the touch and the guy would have been onside without it. Once the VAR had established Mee had got a feint but clear touch on the ball, it was the easiest decision ever.

Also nobody in The Premier League is ever millimetres offside anymore. There’s a tolerance level. If you look at the image for the Nunez offside, although it’s not a very clear photo, you’ll see there’s is a red line for the forward and a blue line for the defender, with a bit of green between them. If those two lines overlap at all, even if the red line is further forward, then the tolerance rule is applied and he’s onside.

Was always going to improve given time - some wouldn’t allow any time for it too

It’s refreshing this season so many correct onsides/offsides are being given

 

[Hart of the Matter]

Nunez goal for Liverpool would have stood without VAR

Perhaps without VAR the officials would take more responsibility in getting the decisions right in the first place....

 

[halfcenturyup]

Fairly balanced reply - cheers

Well I don't want you thinking I am against VAR. It is here to stay. I just don't think it is implemented very well in that it's implemented from a referee's perspective by referees. Not from a player's or a spectator's perspective. Which is a fundamental mistake imo.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The VAR did do something. He advised the referee to disallow two goals that had been given as goals on the field.

The Nunez one was certainly close to the naked eye. But a pretty easy VAR decision.

The Brentford one was different, in that the guy was clearly yards offside. The issue was whether there had been a touch by Mee. The linesman didn’t see the touch and the guy would have been onside without it. Once the VAR had established Mee had got a feint but clear touch on the ball, it was the easiest decision ever.

Also nobody in The Premier League is ever millimetres offside anymore. There’s a tolerance level. If you look at the image for the Nunez offside, although it’s not a very clear photo, you’ll see there’s is a red line for the forward and a blue line for the defender, with a bit of green between them. If those two lines overlap at all, even if the red line is further forward, then the tolerance rule is applied and he’s onside.

Thanks for that and yes, sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was trying to distinguish between the two off-side "goals" and the two allowed goals. Not incorrectly over-ruling goals that were correctly awarded doesn't seem much of a success to me.

On the two off-sides, the point was made that the Nunez goal would have been allowed without VAR. I was trying to see if there would have been much of a problem if, without VAR, it had been allowed. It is so close, I suppose the answer, from a spectator perspective, would have been no. Unless you were a Brentford fan, of course.

The other, I must confess, I didn't follow. I will go have a look. But if it comes down to a faint touch and the effect that had on the player in the advanced position, then I doubt anyone in the stadium, including the players, followed that thought process in real time. Anyway, I will find some video so I can follow it myself.

Thanks again for the info.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Perhaps without VAR the officials would take more responsibility in getting the decisions right in the first place....

It was an extremely tight call , humans can’t be expected to get those type of decisions correct and doubt very few would have flagged. Luckily we’ve got VAR and they can chalk off Liverpool goals that would have otherwise stood

 

[halfcenturyup]

It was an extremely tight call , humans can’t be expected to get those type of decisions correct and doubt very few would have flagged. Luckily we’ve got VAR and they can chalk off Liverpool goals that would have otherwise stood

You aren't appealing to our partisan nature, are you? Cheap shot :)

But really, I have a hard time celebrating decisions that can't be seen with the naked eye, no matter who scores them. To me, as a spectator, it isn't what the game is about.

I would even accept the Mahrez non-penalty if the authorities didn't go to such contrived lengths to get some decisions 100% accurate. That's the consistency problem I have.

 

[Stephen230]

FWIW, I thought Mahrez over-dramatised the fall as well. Twisted and shouted, not helped by the fact that he was up a second later chasing the ball. Not sure the referee could have been expected to see the actual contact but refer post 983 in the post-match thread for clear video of his boot distorting on impact. Difficult not to lose balance in those circumstances.

But, that notwithstanding, I cannot understand, for the love of God, the difference between VAR determining a factual offside and referring to the referee for subjective elements (interfering, deliberate play etc..) and VAR determining an actual contact and referring to the referee for subjective elements (seriousness, effect on player).

You will tell me that's not the protocol. But I would ask then, why not?

We are probably going round in circles here. It just boils down to the fact that, imo, VAR isn't implemented very well.

I’ve still not seen Saturday’s incident. That link on the other thread didn’t work. But coincidentally an example of what the Premier League showed as a no penalty, also involved Mahrez and is apparently quite similar.

 

[Blue Mist]

From Troll to Spammer.