Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

[Zlatan 7]

Maddison looks gutted waiting for VAR.

If Kasper didn't fully celebrate it, then that's fair enough, but the instant reaction from the rest of the players + supporters doesn't exactly seem negative

My first reply to you on this was about you saying match day fans ‘supposedly’ have their day ruined so I replied that match goers, players and managers have all withheld their celebrations which does kind of ruin the game/day all so we can check that 1mm offside for five minutes, I’m really against that.
I remember klopp saying about it, an now a keeper in a cup final. I didn’t say every player has stopped celebrating.

 

[UncleBob]

My first reply to you on this was about you saying match day fans ‘supposedly’ have their day ruined so I replied that match goers, players and managers have all withheld their celebrations which does kind of ruin the game/day all so we can check that 1mm offside for five minutes, I’m really against that.
I remember klopp saying about it, an now a keeper in a cup final. I didn’t say every player has stopped celebrating.

Aand on ignore you go.

Good luck onwards

 

[Thunderhead]

just seen the Cavani goal, nice, but was it not offside?

 

[kiristao]

just seen the Cavani goal, nice, but was it not offside?

There was a very very small touch from Bruno and at that point Cavani was onside. If Bruno hasn't made contact, it would have been offside.

 

[acnumber9]

just seen the Cavani goal, nice, but was it not offside?

If Bruno didn’t get a touch, yes. If he did then no. Really difficult to tell from the replays I’ve seen.

 

[Swedish_Plumber]

just seen the Cavani goal, nice, but was it not offside?

Think they’re saying Bruno touched it!

 

[cyberman]

just seen the Cavani goal, nice, but was it not offside?

Looks like it nicked the studs to come out flat like that imo

 

[Sandikan]

Looks like it nicked the studs to come out flat like that imo

It's very clearly the opposite.
Both angles show there's no deviation on the ball at all.

 

[Sandikan]

If Bruno didn’t get a touch, yes. If he did then no. Really difficult to tell from the replays I’ve seen.

They seem to be applying the logic that because they can't tell 100% that he's not got the thinnest touch ever on it, that they'll allow it!

Fulham should be fuming at that.
All replays show no suggestion of any deviation of the ball.

 

[RaptorSlo]

There was a very very small touch from Bruno and at that point Cavani was onside. If Bruno hasn't made contact, it would have been offside.

I wonder if they could even tell whether Bruno made a touch or not, and gave him the benefit of a doubt and let the goal stand cause they couldn't tell for sure either way.

 

[cyberman]

It's very clearly the opposite.
Both angles show there's no deviation on the ball at all.

Does the ball have to deviate if its touched? It could just drop a fraction if grazed surely?
I dunno, maybe cause its a Utd player

 

[sullydnl]

To overturn it they'd need definitive proof Bruno didn't touch it. If they don't have that the goal stands, because it was given on the pitch.

 

[kiristao]

To overturn it they'd need definitive proof Bruno didn't touch it. If they don't have that the goal stands, because it was given on the pitch.

I wonder if they could even tell whether Bruno made a touch or not, and gave him the benefit of a doubt and let the goal stand cause they couldn't tell for sure either way.

This looks like the most plausable explanation.

 

[UncleBob]

They seem to be applying the logic that because they can't tell 100% that he's not got the thinnest touch ever on it, that they'll allow it!

Fulham should be fuming at that.
All replays show no suggestion of any deviation of the ball.

Linesman didn't flag. If VAR then can't say for certain, then they stick with the linesmans decision. If he had flagged for offside, decision probably would've been offside

 

[rimaldo]

i’d have been annoyed if that was given against us. the only way to prevent it in future is to follow cricket’s lead and have hot spot and snicko on hand to review such “touches” alongside two on field umpires who stand 11 or so yards away from the ball. play may have to be slowed/stopped at times to allow them to get in to position.

 

[acnumber9]

They seem to be applying the logic that because they can't tell 100% that he's not got the thinnest touch ever on it, that they'll allow it!

Fulham should be fuming at that.
All replays show no suggestion of any deviation of the ball.

Yeah, it’s a cop out.

 

[Thunderhead]

Cancelo sending off for falling over, eyes always in the ball then a c coming together

 

[Thunderhead]

Gundogan gets whacked on the knee, no red card

 

[Hughie77]

A bit like McTominay did on Thu?

Yes

 

[Anustart89]

They seem to be applying the logic that because they can't tell 100% that he's not got the thinnest touch ever on it, that they'll allow it!

Fulham should be fuming at that.
All replays show no suggestion of any deviation of the ball.

The burden of proof is to disprove what the ref has judged, so if the ref claims to have seen, heard or otherwise inferred a touch from Bruno then VAR has to disprove that. If the ref had said that Bruno didn't touch it then VAR would've had to undisputedly prove that Bruno did touch it in order to give the goal. The most likely explanation then becomes that Mason claimed a touch and VAR couldn't disprove it.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

How is is that the ref books the Fulham keeper for time wasting, and then blows up before the 4 mins of additional time is up whilst we are attacking?

 

[V.O.]

How is is that the ref books the Fulham keeper for time wasting, and then blows up before the 4 mins of additional time is up whilst we are attacking?

4 mins added time and Liverpool aren't winning? Play until 94:40.

4 mins added time and United aren't winning? Blow up at 93:55.

 

[RaptorSlo]

Linesman didn't flag. If VAR then can't say for certain, then they stick with the linesmans decision. If he had flagged for offside, decision probably would've been offside

That's not the case for offsides.

Only with fouls you get the "don't want to overturn the ref" calls.

 

[Bubz27]

Because he's fat prick who couldn't be bothered seeing out his last game.

 

[Hughie77]

His line of sight wasn't blocked because the ball was high in the air at the time it was flicked on - meaning that Alisson could clearly see it.

With regards the brainfart by Dean for allowing a freekick instead of an uncontested dropball, and it should have been disallowed by VAR because of the error.

If we're going to allow the referee's to change the rules during the game, then why not just let them award corners when it goes out for throwings etc.

It was a clear mistake by Dean and VAR should have disallowed the goal.

Farce.

Its not a farce when it concerns the scum getting the favourable descions, I bet theres more sanctions on us after this ESL if the premier league do anything.

 

[JB08]

Embarrassingly bad. No surprise there. It was so simple to see Fernandes didn't touch the ball.

 

[UncleBob]

That's not the case for offsides.

Only with fouls you get the "don't want to overturn the ref" calls.

https://www.skysports.com/football/...d-goal-by-var-in-match-vs-southampton-but-why

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

It certainly hasn't lowered the overall quality, but it has highlighted just how incompetent some of the referees are.

It's also highlighted the incompetence of the knobheads in charge, the amount of rule changes during a season and still they can't implement rules that actually make sense. How Mike Dean still has a job is beyond me.

I think that's reasonable but this is also more or less my point - a system that highlights the shortcomings of its employees can hardly be deemed to be successful, can it?

Genuinely I preferred back when a wrong decision was made - it could be chalked up to a referee missing a call or making a bad decision. Now we have things reviewed endlessly and even more baffling decisions made - all under the guise of "objectivity" which is not strictly true given the limitations of technology.

Guess my broader point is that football is inherently a difficult game to neatly package into digestible and isolated events - and personally I'd argue that it shouldn't be. VAR is an attempt to do just that, and for me that's contrary to the spirit of the sport.

 

[Anustart89]

Everyone will be talking about VAR ruining celebrations, but Werner's celebration is ridiculous when he must've known that he handballed it in

Edit: Just checked the GW thread, happy to see the reactions in there being similar to mine

 

[cyberman]

So far VAR has saved Leicester from being robbed of a FA cup win and a CL spot in the space of 3 days

 

[Makelele]

Can someone with refereeing insight explain how on earth Werner gets called for a foul instead of getting a penalty? Incredible.

 

[P-Ro]

Can someone with refereeing insight explain how on earth Werner gets called for a foul instead of getting a penalty? Incredible.

Not clear and obvious. For it to be given a pen to Chelsea it would have required Werner's calf to detach from his knee.

 

[Wiltord02]

It's soft as hell but that should be a penalty for Werner. Would love the VAR ref to explain his decision making there.

 

[Bosws87]

It's soft as hell but that should be a penalty for Werner. Would love the VAR ref to explain his decision making there.

Soft

One of the most blatant penalties i've ever seen, he's twatted him full pelt in the back of the leg.

 

[UncleBob]

I think that's reasonable but this is also more or less my point - a system that highlights the shortcomings of its employees can hardly be deemed to be successful, can it?

Genuinely I preferred back when a wrong decision was made - it could be chalked up to a referee missing a call or making a bad decision. Now we have things reviewed endlessly and even more baffling decisions made - all under the guise of "objectivity" which is not strictly true given the limitations of technology.

Guess my broader point is that football is inherently a difficult game to neatly package into digestible and isolated events - and personally I'd argue that it shouldn't be. VAR is an attempt to do just that, and for me that's contrary to the spirit of the sport.

It's highlighted the shortcomings of some of its employees, not all of them.

Not sure what it is people miss. Henry's handball and the consequences for Ireland?

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

It's highlighted the shortcomings of some of its employees, not all of them.

Not sure what it is people miss. Henry's handball and the consequences for Ireland?

But this is also why I think having VAR to watch at normal speed would be a great addition - for obvious mistakes. I don't understand how the standard can purport to be "clear and obvious" errors yet the VAR will have to freeze frame and watch in slow mo to overturn. For me, clear and obvious means visible at normal speed - the Henry handball would qualify.

 

[Anustart89]

Soft

One of the most blatant penalties i've ever seen, he's twatted him full pelt in the back of the leg.

Honestly, I think it's a tough one and not at all black and white. If Tielemans is in the process of taking a stride, and not shooting the ball, we'd say that Werner stuck his foot in front of him and tripped him. Since Tielemans is in the process of shooting the ball, Werner just nipping in and putting his foot between the shooting leg and the ball could be construed as obstructing the shot since he's never in control of the ball.

If that's a penalty, then any player can put his foot in front of the ball as a defender's attempting to clear it and buy a penalty. There are arguments for both sides, because the end result is obviously that one player gets absolutely twatted in the leg and ends up conceding a free kick, but has he put himself in danger (similarly to lowering your head) by just placing his foot between a shot/clearance and the ball? And if that's a penalty, then how do you judge a situation where a player trips another? Does the foul go to the one who makes the trip because he's the one getting kicked?

 

[Bearded One]

Honestly, I think it's a tough one and not at all black and white. If Tielemans is in the process of taking a stride, and not shooting the ball, we'd say that Werner stuck his foot in front of him and tripped him. Since Tielemans is in the process of shooting the ball, Werner just nipping in and putting his foot between the shooting leg and the ball could be construed as obstructing the shot since he's never in control of the ball.

If that's a penalty, then any player can put his foot in front of the ball as a defender's attempting to clear it and buy a penalty. There are arguments for both sides, because the end result is obviously that one player gets absolutely twatted in the leg, but has he put himself in danger (similarly to lowering your head) by just placing his foot between a shot/clearance and the ball?

Almost like you read my mind, I concur fully with your viewpoint.

 

[Gringo]

The ball is there to be won and Tielemans doesn't get a touch on it, he fouls Werner. Its a penalty all day long.

 

[WeePat]

Honestly, I think it's a tough one and not at all black and white. If Tielemans is in the process of taking a stride, and not shooting the ball, we'd say that Werner stuck his foot in front of him and tripped him. Since Tielemans is in the process of shooting the ball, Werner just nipping in and putting his foot between the shooting leg and the ball could be construed as obstructing the shot since he's never in control of the ball.

If that's a penalty, then any player can put his foot in front of the ball as a defender's attempting to clear it and buy a penalty. There are arguments for both sides, because the end result is obviously that one player gets absolutely twatted in the leg and ends up conceding a free kick, but has he put himself in danger (similarly to lowering your head) by just placing his foot between a shot/clearance and the ball? And if that's a penalty, then how do you judge a situation where a player trips another? Does the foul go to the one who makes the trip because he's the one getting kicked?

I mean, this would be correct if Tielemans wasn't in possession of the ball, but since he was and he dillydallied on the clearance, Werner had every right to secure the ball. It happened in a split second though. If Tielemans doesn't kick him, Werner has possession of the ball. I don't think the penalty can be any clearer.