VAR thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
bluenova said:
I think the argument is that if Oliver says:

De Bruyne didn't ever have the ball in his control/possession. Which is true.
Partey gets to the ball first. That's also true - he probably could have played it, but decided to block and let Ramsdale collect.
Partey gets between De Bruyne and the ball. Whilst there's a lot of contact between both players in the end, initially he does plant his foot down and Kev kicks into it first.

Clearly if Kev was running with the ball, or had already played it, then it would be much more likely to go City's way, but if Oliver has seen all that and has decided that Partey gets there first and is blocking Kev, then VAR can't do much about it, as he's seen it.

If he'd given a pen, that almost certainly wouldn't be overturned either.
Click to expand...

I think this is the way the referee’s interpreted it and I agree with your analysis. Partey gets between man and ball. De Bruyne kicks him. Foul given.

The issue with that interpretation is where you draw the line between “shielding the ball” and illegal obstruction. I think this is as close to that line as it’s possible to get but I do think in this case it’s actually illegal obstruction.

To take an extreme example you can’t rugby tackle a player to the ground in the name of “protecting the ball”. Therefore there is some criteria for what constitutes “legally shielding”.

I think the most fundamental of these is that you either have to be in possession of the ball, or moving towards the ball. Partey meets neither of these criteria. He runs perpendicular to the motion of the ball to block the run of De Bruyne while not in possession of ball. After he makes that action and makes collision inevitable then it doesn’t matter how the two players make contact. It’s totally moot, because he has basically intercepted an opponent with no eyes for the ball which you’re simply not allowed to do.

For sake of argument, if defenders were allowed to do this regularly, then all of the free kicks we see given for blocking off a runner would never be penalised as long as the attacker runs into the defender. But they are given as fouls all the time, because defenders can either stand their ground or play the ball but they can’t play the man only.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Partey didnt kick De Bruyne, De Bruyne kicked him. Technically its a foul against KDB. I also cannot remember when that has NEVER been given as a penalty despite that.
Click to expand...
Just watch the video Party never attempts to play the ball, just sticks his leg between both of Kevins and brings him down. Cast iron penalty the on field official and VAR were an utter disgrace.
 
Gray said:
Just watch the video Party never attempts to play the ball, just sticks his leg between both of Kevins and brings him down. Cast iron penalty the on field official and VAR were an utter disgrace.
Click to expand...


The VAR is never getting involved in a call like that. It’s irrelevant if he thinks it’s a penalty or not. There’s no provision for him asking the referee to ‘have another look to be sure’ He can only get involved if he thinks the referee has made an obvious error. The number of totally biased City fans on here of the opinion it wasn’t a penalty is probably proof that it doesn’t fall into that category.

As for the second goal. It’s a classic example of how different camera angles can tell completely different stories. There’s one freeze-frame that has Stones looking clearly offside. Another where he looks half a yard onside. The one they decided was the best angle actually only has one green line, not the usual two. Which indicates the ‘benefit of the doubt’ provision was applied, which the semi automatic system would have ruled offside.

d92c8004655f421395717996397b6dda.jpg
 
BlueHammer85 said:
If you scrap VAR, Stones perfectly good goal would not stand and the Lino’s could just flag anytime they want too with no questions asked - personally I don’t want that.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Before VAR, the decision-making by the linos was different, they would tend to keep the flag down if they weren't sure or if the players were "about level". Now they know with VAR as a crutch, they can rule it offsides and as long as they don't blow the whistle, it can be reviewed, then reversed to a goal. Before VAR, they would generally give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker in a situation like that. And if, before VAR, after a goal was given on a set piece like Stones goal, and then (lets say) a replay showed the goal scorer as being "marginally" offside, it wouldn't be a scandal because it was seen as being "close enough". It produces more controversy when a goal is disallowed after being given on the pitch, after a celebration, than if a goal was initially ruled offsides then given upon review. But in either scenario, it's not the same as a goal being given in the moment, without any review. As long as the attacker was "about level" with the defender, anotherwords, as long as "some" or "most" of the attacker's body was level with the farthest back point of the defender, generally that was seen as being "onside". Until VAR, that is, then they essentially redefined was offsides was, by applying microscopic analysis.

In the Stones goal, the organic moment of that was lost in the VAR nonsense. Yes, the goal was correctly counted upon review, but it wasn't as glorious of a moment given the delayed reaction. That was taken away due to VAR. So even though the correct decision was eventually given, it's not remotely the same thing of what that would have been like pre-VAR. In a VAR-less world, it probably would have been given as a goal, but maybe it wouldn't, as the defender's foot beyond the attacker would have hard to see in real-time. But at the same time, there are countless wrong decisions throughout a match that aren't even reviewable. i.e. who touched a ball last - corner kick / goal kick, etc that could lead to goals. And when you look at the amount of times VAR has robbed fans of joy, made the wrong call after a long review, one correct "reversal" like the Stones goal doesn't even remotely justify its existence.
 


The instinctual on-field, real-time decision of a referee on what he determines is an intentional movement of the arm/hand to block a ball is always the best way to handle this. Yes some will be missed, some will be 50/50 that the ref makes a confident decision on (or doesn't), but compared to the amount of handball controversy that has existed in the sport since VAR was introduced, it's not even close.

If a referee's view is blocked and he misses a critical handball (i.e. the infamous Henry handball) and it's a howler, that doesn't happen very often. Most of the time, pre-VAR, "intentional" handballs were punished accordingly. What we've experienced since VAR is far more than just the occasional, once in a blue moon howler handball miss. There's been controversial handball / no handball rulings on almost a daily basis since VAR has been introduced. Pre-VAR, if the referee actually sees the ball hitting a hand (which is most of the time) and has to decide if it was intentional or not in real-time, it's pretty clear that the real-time ref *generally* did a better job making handball decisions than VAR has done on handballs following long VAR delays.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.