VAR thread 2022/23

[halfcenturyup]

No, as per the James Milner review in the scouse derby.

They made a mess of things yesterday. They could have just said that the judge on the defender that made him skew his clearing header was a foul and negated all this nonsense about deliberate playing of the ball.

Fair enough. At the risk of seeming tedious, is a mis-kick a deliberate play of the ball for offside?

 

[flook]

Well, if it isn't, then why not, at a free kick just outside the box, have an attacker a couple of metres to the side of the keeper to pick up any deflections?

because he would be offside when the kick was taken AND when it deflected off the defender

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Fair enough. At the risk of seeming tedious, is an mis-kick a deliberate play of the ball for offside?

It’s at the discretion of the referee, so using yesterday’s example, I will say yes/no*…

*delete one at random.

My honest thought would be that it depends on how much pressure the offside player is putting on the defender. If none, they‘ve not interfered and so shouldn‘t be deemed active. That’s my subjective opinion, it isn’t defined in the LOTG.

 

[flook]

Fair enough. At the risk of seeming tedious, is a mis-kick a deliberate play of the ball for offside?

Apparently yes if playing the ball fulfills the "deliberate" criteria, then the result of playing the ball is irrelevant......I sound sure there don't I, but who the fuck knows really??

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s at the discretion of the referee, so using yesterday’s example, I will say yes/no*…

*delete one at random.

My honest thought would be that it depends on how much pressure the offside player is putting on the defender. If none, they‘ve not interfered and so shouldn‘t be deemed active. That’s my subjective opinion, it isn’t defined in the LOTG.

Apparently yes if playing the ball fulfills the "deliberate" criteria, then the result of playing the ball is irrelevant......I sound sure there don't I, but who the fuck knows really??

I am just trying to get my head around all this shit.

A mis-kick by a defender isn't a deliberate play of the ball if the keeper picks it up, however much pressure he is under, but it is for offside?

So a defender could mis-kick a ball back to his keeper, but an attacker nips in and scores. The keeper could have picked up the ball because it wasn't a deliberate play, but the attacker wasn't offside because it was?

It really does my head in.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I am just trying to get my head around all this shit.

A mis-kick by a defender isn't a deliberate play of the ball if the keeper picks it up, however much pressure he is under, but it is for offside?

So a defender could mis-kick a ball back to his keeper, but an attacker nips in and scores. The keeper could have picked up the ball because it wasn't a deliberate play, but the attacker wasn't offside because it was?

It really does my head in.

Yes. The referee could deem that a defender had sliced the ball back to his keeper and that it wasn’t a deliberate back pass. That doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t a deliberate play on the ball though. He’s just shanked it, unless the attacker being there and put pressure on him.

I guess ultimately, the decision is at the discretion of the referee. Having VAR makes it the discretion of two of them, doubling their ability to get it right, as well as wrong!

I need a coffee.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Just enough "grey area" to manufacture the desired outcome - all VAR was ever brought in to do - unless you take in the washing.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

There's no right or wrong sometimes, its judgement. And I'm going to keep on banging on about it.

Just enough "grey area" to manufacture the desired outcome - all VAR was ever brought in to do - unless you take in the washing.

But that just doesnt add up. We've benefitted from stupid VAR calls, our rivals have suffered them.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

There's no right or wrong sometimes, its judgement. And I'm going to keep on banging on about it.








But that just doesnt add up. We've benefitted from stupid VAR calls, our rivals have suffered them.

It's done subtlety - make no mistake about that. I doff my cap to it sometimes - just enough to take people in. No point in it blowing itself wide open, just yet at least.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It's done subtlety - make no mistake about that. I doff my cap to it sometimes - just enough to take people in. No point in it blowing itself wide open, just yet at least.

So both the absurd Messi penalty and offside French goal yesterday must have put your theory back a bit, given it was so overt and so wrong. That’s the antithesis of subtle, isn’t it?

 

[GaudinoMotors]

probably the first major tournament without players throwing themselves down in the box without contact claiming a penalty

Ashley Young not picked and Egypt didn't qualify.

 

[flook]

Personally i don't believe the conspiracy theories for the very simple reason I don't believe the people supposedly perpetrating them have the intelligence to do so with the subtlety apparently employed

 

[flook]

Ashley Young not picked and Egypt didn't qualify.

There was a Tunisian guy yesterday who tried it on, and Ronaldo got a penalty doing it didn't he? or is a fairys kiss deemed sufficient contact?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

It's done subtlety - make no mistake about that. I doff my cap to it sometimes - just enough to take people in. No point in it blowing itself wide open, just yet at least.

Wow very subtly I must say. I mean run-in for the end of season, Rodri handballs blatently and they dont take the chance to hand the title to lfc?

I know what you mean, making sure there is no pattern, but the exmple above would have been the easiest thing to stop us winning. There's other examples too, which have convinced me there isnt orchestrated VAR corruption. Stupididity yes. Bias even. Maybe I'm missing the point though, I'm talking about the PL.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Personally i don't believe the conspiracy theories for the very simple reason I don't believe the people supposedly perpetrating them have the intelligence to do so with the subtlety apparently employed

It's hardly intelligence, the errors and manipulation are fairly blatant - hence all the discussion - This is early days and they need to garner some trust - but make no mistake - we are well on the way to match outcome assisting if not fixing.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It's hardly intelligence, the errors and manipulation are fairly blatant - hence all the discussion - This is early days and they need to garner some trust - but make no mistake - we are well on the way to match outcome assisting if not fixing.

Do you intend to stop watching football when you believe it’s being manipulated/fixed, or stay as you are and watch through gritted teeth in case the manipulation gives City another 3 titles in 4 years?

There will always be bad eggs that have been go at by betting agencies. There won’t be systematic corruption that decides who the league winners are. To think that would be absurd and nigh on impossible to manufacture.

 

[Phil1]

I still believe incompetence is far more likely than collusion with dodgy far east betting syndicates.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Do you intend to stop watching football when you believe it’s being manipulated/fixed, or stay as you are and watch through gritted teeth in case the manipulation gives City another 3 titles in 4 years?

There will always be bad eggs that have been go at by betting agencies. There won’t be systematic corruption that decides who the league winners are. To think that would be absurd and nigh on impossible to manufacture.

Now, these are two arguments I don't like.

First one. People who have followed City through three divisions aren't going to stop watching if they think there is an attempt, at the moment, to stop us winning trophies, especially as it doesn't seem to be working. It's the "participate in society" meme.

Second one. I doubt anyone really believes the PL picks who they want to win the trophy before the season starts. But it is in their interests to i) keep it close ii) keep the most supported teams at the top and iii) to have new names up there sometimes. It would be naive to assume they don't have these objectives. That doesn't mean they will will ensure that key decisions are given wrongly, but it can mean that games and teams are refereed differently at different stages of the season.

Personally, I don't see any malicious intent to damage City's chances, but I can imagine that some games are refereed differently to others. I think we have all seen that. And for the reasons I set out above.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Now, these are two arguments I don't like.

First one. People who have followed City through three divisions aren't going to stop watching if they think there is an attempt, at the moment, to stop us winning trophies, especially as it doesn't seem to be working. It's the "participate in society" meme.

Second one. I doubt anyone really believes the PL picks who they want to win the trophy before the season starts. But it is in their interests to i) keep it close ii) keep the most supported teams at the top and iii) to have new names up there sometimes. It would be naive to assume they don't have these objectives. That doesn't mean they will will ensure that key decisions are given wrongly, but it can mean that games and teams are refereed differently at different stages of the season.

Personally, I don't see any malicious intent to damage City's chances, but I can imagine that some games are refereed differently to others. I think we have all seen that. And for the reasons I set out above.

And I get that, partially at least.

I‘ve followed City for 35+ years and would walk away from the sport if it was all found to be corrupt. Therefore, I do ask the question in as good a faith as I can.

The second part is the Richard Scudamore argument where they want new winners every 5 years if at all possible. It gets trotted out frequently when decisions go against us.

I guess we will never know what people fully mean when they come on here and emotionally rant about corruption, the game being bent etc. It doesn’t help the debate and there is no reasoning with them whilst in that state.

Therefore, for a week after any controversial decision in a City match, this thread becomes impossible to have rational debate in.

It’s better at the moment as these incidents are happening in neutral games that don’t affect City, or England (so far).

I don’t think anybody can prove malicious intent, but it doesn’t stop people shouting it from the rooftops when a decision doesn’t go the way they wanted.

 

[flook]

I'd argue that if there was malicious intent, someone would have broken ranks by now and there would be at the very least credible accusations to look at. The Mark Halsey incident a few years ago seemed briefly to be such an occurrence, but it went very quiet very quickly.

Yes I know, that was suspicious in itself