VAR thread 2022/23

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
City_Sean said:
It staggers me how the narrative is that Taylor had a good game at weekend? Letting fouls go unpunished is not good refereeing, it culminates in exactly what happened on Sunday. That "foul" from Haaland happened throughout the game yet VAR didn't operate the same high bar that Taylor did. If that's the case you simply cannot referee a game in that manner.
Click to expand...
I don't know why people are blaming VAR for City's disallowed goal. VAR did it's job. It asked Taylor to look at a foul in the build up to the goal. Taylor is to blame here. He should have rejected VAR on the basis that he had allowed such minor infringements up to that point, as he told both teams he would be doing, and he wasn't going to change his refereeing approach at that point.

TAYLOR IS TO BLAME. He referrees well generally, but has a habit of turning weak when confronted with important decisions.
 
Paladin said:
I don't know why people are blaming VAR for City's disallowed goal. VAR did it's job. It asked Taylor to look at a foul in the build up to the goal. Taylor is to blame here. He should have rejected VAR on the basis that he had allowed such minor infringements up to that point, as he told both teams he would be doing, and he wasn't going to change his refereeing approach at that point.

TAYLOR IS TO BLAME. He referrees well generally, but has a habit of turning weak when confronted with important decisions.
Click to expand...
Who says Taylor had a choice ? Refs 99 times out of a hundred do what var 'suggests'. There is a reason why they do.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
The ref could have decided I’ve let enough go throughout the game, I’ll let Haaland off - it’s his call , not VAR. He saw it on monitor, it was a foul, it was the correct decision
Also, are you honestly in agreement Salah made a handball in the turn for the goal ?



there's more goals this season on average per game than at any time in Prem history
Click to expand...
Was it his decision though? Technically it was, but how much pressure was he under to overturn it? We'll never know unless the PiGMOL allow us access to the real-time comm's.

In the context of the game (every contested challenge that went before and after the goal) it was the INCORRECT decision. It can't ONLY be given as a foul if a goal is scored then let go every other time. That's a bullshit way to run the game.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Was it his decision though? Technically it was, but how much pressure was he under to overturn it? We'll never know unless the PiGMOL allow us access to the real-time comm's.

In the context of the game (every contested challenge that went before and after the goal) it was the INCORRECT decision. It can't ONLY be given as a foul if a goal is scored then let go every other time. That's a bullshit way to run the game.
Click to expand...

Fair reply
You've answered your first question straight away, so yes. It was a foul. correct decision

The responsibility should lie with the ref not VAR, if he deems that not much of a foul in the context of the game then it's on him to ignore the VAR and it's on him to make the ultimate decision when seeing it on the monitor.

I personally think there is a difference of allowing some argy bargy go throughout the game but when it leads to a goal then the correct decision has to take precedent, think we've seen that in the history of the game - a couple of challenges go unpunished in the middle of the pitch or waved play on, but in the area it's given a penalty no matter what (for example)

I'm definitely in favour for comm's/transparency argument - not sure it would solve much but still be good to know what was said.
 
Paladin said:
I don't know why people are blaming VAR for City's disallowed goal. VAR did it's job. It asked Taylor to look at a foul in the build up to the goal. Taylor is to blame here. He should have rejected VAR on the basis that he had allowed such minor infringements up to that point, as he told both teams he would be doing, and he wasn't going to change his refereeing approach at that point.

TAYLOR IS TO BLAME. He referrees well generally, but has a habit of turning weak when confronted with important decisions.
Click to expand...
Taylor, like every other PiGMOL specimen, will have had a game that exhibited strong, consistent refereeing, according to PiGMOL, and be a role model to budding referees.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Fair reply
You've answered your first question straight away, so yes. It was a foul. correct decision

The responsibility should lie with the ref not VAR, if he deems that not much of a foul in the context of the game then it's on him to ignore the VAR and it's on him to make the ultimate decision when seeing it on the monitor.

I personally think there is a difference of allowing some argy bargy go throughout the game but when it leads to a goal then the correct decision has to take precedent, think we've seen that in the history of the game - a couple of challenges go unpunished in the middle of the pitch or waved play on, but in the area it's given a penalty no matter what (for example)

I'm definitely in favour for comm's/transparency argument - not sure it would solve much but still be good to know what was said.
Click to expand...
As I said above, if you are ONLY applying the CORRECT ruling when a goal is scored then we might as well pack up and go home.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Taylor and VAR thought so. Lots of amateur refs online though disagree.
Click to expand...
Then Taylor is a very poor referee. If he believes that is a foul by Noggin the Nog, he must now realise he missed the other 442 challenges that he didn't blow for.
Perhaps he should retire as he is clearly not up to it.
 
Blue Mist said:
Then Taylor is a very poor referee. If he believes that is a foul by Noggin the Nog, he must now realise he missed the other 442 challenges that he didn't blow for.
Perhaps he should retire as he is clearly not up to it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, it’s a fair summation to think that.

There isn’t much support for giving the goal outside of our fans though.
 
Paladin said:
I don't know why people are blaming VAR for City's disallowed goal. VAR did it's job. It asked Taylor to look at a foul in the build up to the goal. Taylor is to blame here. He should have rejected VAR on the basis that he had allowed such minor infringements up to that point, as he told both teams he would be doing, and he wasn't going to change his refereeing approach at that point.

TAYLOR IS TO BLAME. He referrees well generally, but has a habit of turning weak when confronted with important decisions.
Click to expand...
Did VAR do it’s job and CSI investigate Salad bowls LA Lakers esq ball control to help him score?
 
eyalluvitt said:
Did VAR do it’s job and CSI investigate Salad bowls LA Lakers esq ball control to help him score?
Click to expand...
No as there is no clamour anywhere but here and on City twitter. Even then it took almost a day to come out.

Not sure that’s deemed clear and obvious to those that rant about everything needing to be clear and obvious.
 
Dale Johnson's (ESPN) take on it:

"VAR overturn: Goal disallowed for foul on Fabinho by Haaland

What happened: Manchester City thought they had taken the lead in the 53rd minute through Phil Foden, but there was a VAR review after Fabinho went to ground in the buildup under a challenge from Erling Haaland.

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: This brings us back around to a discussion from last month, when Arsenal striker Gabriel Martinelli had a goal ruled out for a foul in the buildup by Martin Odegaard on Manchester United midfielder Christian Eriksen.

Erling Haaland pulls on the shirt of Fabinho. BBC
If referees are officiating games to a higher threshold, allowing the game to flow more and not giving so-called soft free kicks, then the VAR should be trying to officiate that way too.

Referee Anthony Taylor saw the incident and, as he had done so in the rest of the game, decided there wasn't enough in the challenge to warrant a free kick; he is seen to gesture at Fabinho to get up.

The VAR, Darren England, is effectively re-refereeing the game by intervening and making a judgement on an individual incident to a different standard. Once Taylor is sent to the monitor and shown the pull on the shirt, he has little option than to go with the advice of the VAR. Perhaps Taylor didn't see the tug, but the fact remains that disallowing the goal for this went against the way the game was being officiated.

The independent panel, which assesses all major decisions, told Arsenal that the VAR shouldn't have become involved in the Odegaard-Eriksen incident, and this feels like it's on those exact same lines."

But then he finishes by grasping at this straw:

"However, there was no way the goal could stand, regardless of the merits of the Fabinho-Haaland incident.

Subsequently, Haaland kicked the ball when it was already under Alisson's control. It's a very simple area of law: if the goalkeeper has even one hand on the ball when it is on the ground, he is deemed to be in control and cannot be challenged. If Taylor had rejected the overturn for the possible foul by Haaland on Fabinho, he would then have been shown this next situation."

Or the next one, or the next one, until they had found a good one, I suppose.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
No as there is no clamour anywhere but here and on City twitter. Even then it took almost a day to come out.

Not sure that’s deemed clear and obvious to those that rant about everything needing to be clear and obvious.
Click to expand...
Send any Liverpool fan a pic of his “handball” and they instantly reply with Rodri at Goodison. it’s not just Klopp’s brain where we live Rent free
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top