VAR thread 2022/23

[Deleted member 77198]

Trippier's intention was to take out the player, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking about the consequences.

From Kev's reaction he knew the outcome could have been serious. If Kev had have been half a step closer it would have been excessive.

That again is in the wording for a yellow card.

If Kev was a step closer and the tackle was different maybe excessive force may have been used… but it wasn’t.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

If it had been a different tackle, it would have been judged on how it happened.

Being half a step different is irrelevant to this particular decision.

If the referee had deemed it to be a Yellow card at the time, I'd have had no argument. But he gave a Red and it didn't top the high bar that the PL state when considering intervention from the VAR Ref for a 'Clear & Obvious error.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

If the referee had deemed it to be a Yellow card at the time, I'd have had no argument. But he gave a Red and it didn't top the high bar that the PL state when considering intervention from the VAR Ref for a 'Clear & Obvious error.

Sure and that’s been debated on here for pages.

Either clear and obvious needs specifying or it needs binning.

 

[Bill]

new champions required so VAR goes to work .

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

For all the half wits on here these are the laws of the game regarding red cards

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

For the past few seasons all we have heard about is when a player, making a tackle, has two feet off the ground he is out of control. Trippier lunged, from a distance, at KDB who was running a full tilt, both feet were off the ground, thus out of control and therefore was endangering the safety of the player. The challenge doesn't have to have excessive force. Once the red card had been shown we are then told about the high bar required for it to be overturned. The bar suddenly dropped to the ground as their is no cleat and obvious error made by the ref.

Did Trippier lunge? Yes
From the side? Yes
Out of control? Yes
Endangering the safety of the player? Given that contact was at knee height then the answer is more than likely, yes.

So where are the ground for an overturn. There are none so this debate should end now.

In rugby the ref and TMO would look at a red card incident and work through a framework to ensure the correct decision is made https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/13

I have just gone through the framework for football and still arrived at a red, there is no question in my mind that the ref made the correct decision in the first instance and was then 'persuaded' to change his mind. Have to protect the brand don't we, don't want little nasty City winning game after game. Utterly corrupt and not sure why people on here can't see it unless of course you are all WUM.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

For all the half wits on here these are the laws of the game regarding red cards

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

For the past few seasons all we have heard about is when a player, making a tackle, has two feet off the ground he is out of control. Trippier lunged, from a distance, at KDB who was running a full tilt, both feet were off the ground, thus out of control and therefore was endangering the safety of the player. The challenge doesn't have to have excessive force. Once the red card had been shown we are then told about the high bar required for it to be overturned. The bar suddenly dropped to the ground as their is no cleat and obvious error made by the ref.

Did Trippier lunge? Yes
From the side? Yes
Out of control? Yes
Endangering the safety of the player? Given that contact was at knee height then the answer is more than likely, yes.

So where are the ground for an overturn. There are none so this debate should end now.

In rugby the ref and TMO would look at a red card incident and work through a framework to ensure the correct decision is made https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/13

I have just gone through the framework for football and still arrived at a red, there is no question in my mind that the ref made the correct decision in the first instance and was then 'persuaded' to change his mind. Have to protect the brand don't we, don't want little nasty City winning game after game. Utterly corrupt and not sure why people on here can't see it unless of course you are all WUM.

The big in bold- that’s from pundits who don’t know the laws of the game.

You’ve literally just posted the wording for a red card and then used wording that aren’t in the laws that are used by pundits.

“Off the ground” and “out of control” are not worded in the laws of the game.

This is the wording for a yellow card:

• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

The key bit to make it a red card is “excessive force” and there wasn’t any.

 

[Blue Mist]

You’ve just described a yellow card.

As I said, tell that to KDB. Perhaps we should scrap var and just say if a bloke goes off on a stretcher it's a red, anything else is a yellow.
It was reckless, it could have seriously injured Kev that it didn't is just down to luck.
My point is a professional footballer knows a bad/reckless tackle, one likely to cause serious injury. Kevs reaction said it all.

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

The big in bold- that’s from pundits who don’t know the laws of the game.

You’ve literally just posted the wording for a red card and then used wording that aren’t in the laws that are used by pundits.

“Off the ground” and “out of control” are not worded in the laws of the game.

This is the wording for a yellow card:


The key bit to make it a red card is “excessive force” and there wasn’t any.

Oh here we go. Read the LOTG, there doesn't need to be excessive force so it's not the key bit. Please read this part again ' Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

And whilst I agree about off the ground and out of control it's what everyone has been banging on about for many seasons. Regardless Trippier was lunging at KDB from the side, two footed and over the ball. That in my mind was endangering his safety hence the card and having given the card there was no logical reason to overturn his own decision.

 

[halfcenturyup]

To be a red card it has to be excessive force and it clearly and obviously wasn’t. He only dinked the side of de Bruyne’s leg with the side of his toe.

The ref’s initial opinion from seeing it once, at one speed, from one angle was that it was red. After a number of replays from a number of angles and speeds, he came to a much more informed and the correct decision.

One replay was all I needed to show he’d hardly touched him and there was no excessive force.

Excessive force OR endangering an opponent.

 

[old blue]

yep

dodgy replay and in a flash goal given

After being told by Neville he was not offside.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Oh here we go. Read the LOTG, there doesn't need to be excessive force so it's not the key bit. Please read this part again ' Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

And whilst I agree about off the ground and out of control it's what everyone has been banging on about for many seasons. Regardless Trippier was lunging at KDB from the side, two footed and over the ball. That in my mind was endangering his safety hence the card and having given the card there was no logical reason to overturn his own decision.

This. Any attempt at a challenge at knee height when the opponent is running at full speed is endangering the opponent's safety, imo. It's a horrible precedent to set, and the next guy who gets fucked over may not be so lucky. De Bruyne certainly wasn't impressed. He knows.

Not setting out to "do him" isn't much of a defence either.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

After being told by Neville he was not offside.

What???

You mean there are 2-way comm's between the TV studio and VAR operators???

*Pretends to be shocked*

 

[halfcenturyup]

The referees have guidelines about how to apply the laws of the game, don't they? Does anyone know if these are published?

Or is it like some sort of secret society where nobody is allowed to know how anything works unless they have a weird handshake?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

To be a red card it has to be excessive force and it clearly and obviously wasn’t. He only dinked the side of de Bruyne’s leg with the side of his toe.

The ref’s initial opinion from seeing it once, at one speed, from one angle was that it was red. After a number of replays from a number of angles and speeds, he came to a much more informed and the correct decision.

One replay was all I needed to show he’d hardly touched him and there was no excessive force.

That's how I saw it, other than I thought he got in front of de Bruyne's knee, and was more of a trip. If it had hit from the side, I'd be more inclined to a red card, but I don't think he did.

Much of the debate is down to not knowing the conversation and inventing a version. I'll add to that with this version - it may be as simple as:
VAR: "red card, checking. What reasoning did you give the red card for?"
Ref: "studs connecting with the side of the leg, high, Serious Foul Play"
VAR: "if he didn't contact with studs?"
Ref: "then yellow"
VAR: "okay, I think you should look at the contact again, as he didn't contact with studs"

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

That's how I saw it, other than I thought he got in front of de Bruyne's knee, and was more of a trip. If it had hit from the side, I'd be more inclined to a red card, but I don't think he did.

Much of the debate is down to not knowing the conversation and inventing a version. I'll add to that with this version - it may be as simple as:
VAR: "red card, checking. What reasoning did you give the red card for?"
Ref: "studs connecting with the side of the leg, high, Serious Foul Play"
VAR: "if he didn't contact with studs?"
Ref: "then yellow"
VAR: "okay, I think you should look at the contact again, as he didn't contact with studs"

Whether or not it was a Red card is not up for debate. For what it's worth I think it could have gone either way which means it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake.

The problem with this whole debacle is why VAR jumped in when the Premier League's own statement says they 'set a high bar' when it comes to VAR involvement in such decisions? For me there was no bar at all. The VAR official (or someone else) simply disagreed with the on field decision and told them to look again.

I've no doubt there will be very similar could go either way incidents later on in the season where the ref will give a Red and won't even be asked to look at the monitor, or conversely they'll give a Yellow and be asked to look again with a view to upgrading it to a Red.

It's this level of inconsistency that gives rise to accusations of cheating/manipulation of outcomes.

 

[Paladin]

That's how I saw it, other than I thought he got in front of de Bruyne's knee, and was more of a trip. If it had hit from the side, I'd be more inclined to a red card, but I don't think he did.

Much of the debate is down to not knowing the conversation and inventing a version. I'll add to that with this version - it may be as simple as:
VAR: "red card, checking. What reasoning did you give the red card for?"
Ref: "studs connecting with the side of the leg, high, Serious Foul Play"
VAR: "if he didn't contact with studs?"
Ref: "then yellow"
VAR: "okay, I think you should look at the contact again, as he didn't contact with studs"

If we're speculating on what went on between the referee and the VAR, how about...

VAR: "Red card, checking. What reasoning did you give the red card for?"
Ref: "Use of excessive force against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. Violent conduct."
VAR: "Fair enough, if that's your opinion, it's a red card under the Laws of the Game."

 

[Ithryn Luin]

This is a much better rule than trying to find 1mm of a shirt sleeve of an attacker being offside.

Fans have been calling for this since VAR’s inception - to be more lenient/giving the advantage to attackers instead of defenders, if you can’t separate two lines with the naked eye, sack off the microscopic inspection of trying to find the attacker offside - and now fans are moaning about it.

Except last night when they first put up the lines I thought (so did Neville) that Rashford's line was in front of the last defender. Then in a second they decided it was a goal and we never got to see the evidence again. On Saturday they spent an age looking at a Palace goal and ruled it offside, but this time there was a Villa player in the centre way beyond the Villa line as the ball was played from free kick to the far side. Lets face it, United will enjoy the benefit of any doubt and more in VAR decisions!

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Except last night when they first put up the lines I thought (so did Neville) that Rashford's line was in front of the last defender. Then in a second they decided it was a goal and we never got to see the evidence again. On Saturday they spent an age looking at a Palace goal and ruled it offside, but this time there was a Villa player in the centre way beyond the Villa line as the ball was played from free kick to the far side. Lets face it, United will enjoy the benefit of any doubt and more in VAR decisions!

What you have to look at is the potential TV earnings for a Rag's v Dipper's title race. I know that looks impossible right now, but so did Leicester winning the PL.

 

[mat]

What you have to look at is the potential TV earnings for a Rag's v Dipper's title race. I know that looks impossible right now, but so did Leicester winning the PL.

It's as if the rags have been given the arsenal script of starting off shit then getting in the top 4.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Oh here we go. Read the LOTG, there doesn't need to be excessive force so it's not the key bit. Please read this part again ' Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

And whilst I agree about off the ground and out of control it's what everyone has been banging on about for many seasons. Regardless Trippier was lunging at KDB from the side, two footed and over the ball. That in my mind was endangering his safety hence the card and having given the card there was no logical reason to overturn his own decision.

My counter-argument is that Trippier didn't lunge at the player. He lunged in front of the player to impede him.