VAR and Refs | General Discussion

TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
It was Neymar's goal in the 2015 CL final against Juventus. The consensus was that the officials made the correct call (despite it being neither deliberate nor affecting the direction of the ball) because, in the game called football, you simply can't score a goal with your hands. Here's the incident:

Click to expand...


First time I’ve heard of that and completely disagree with their logic. He didn’t score a goal with his hand. He scored with his head. The fact it accidentally brushed off his hand makes no difference, seeing as it didn’t change the direction or otherwise make it any harder for the keeper to save. If that’s really the root cause for accidental handball ending up as a punishable offence then everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

On a side note, I don’t blame the officials for the call they made in real time. It must have been very difficult to be certain he didn’t deliberately reach for the ball with his hand at the same time as his head to make absolutely sure he got something on the ball. It’s only looking at replays you can see that didn’t happen.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
First time I’ve heard of that and completely disagree with their logic. He didn’t score a goal with his hand. He scored with his head. The fact it accidentally brushed off his hand makes no difference, seeing as it didn’t change the direction or otherwise make it any harder for the keeper to save. If that’s really the root cause for accidental handball ending up as a punishable offence then everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

On a side note, I don’t blame the officials for the call they made in real time. It must have been very difficult to be certain he didn’t deliberately reach for the ball with his hand at the same time as his head to make absolutely sure he got something on the ball. It’s only looking at replays you can see that didn’t happen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, agree with all that. I’d just add that even if it did make it harder to save then, frankly, so what. It’s unfortunate for the defending team but, as long as it’s clear that it was accidental, that’s just the effect of having a rule which covers deliberate handball only.

As it is, we now have the ludicrous situation where that goal would be disallowed but if a teammate sprinted up and tapped it in on the line then it would be a goal. It’s an utter farce.
 
Bucephalus74 said:
Re.: Havertz leg breaker.

First of all, it was nothing of the kind. Lead foot looked awful in real time but in reality, Havertz only clipped a grounded foot with his trail (also along the ground) foot.

But secondly, if you want to tell me it was a reckless to intentional bad foul that only wasn't worse because Havertz's bad tackling is about as accurate as his shooting, and no one should get away with a very raised, straight leg, studs up, just because it missed, I'm on board with that.

Seriously, real time, I thought Havertz was off. Turns out, he's no better at kicking players than balls. Sometimes you ride the luck of your own incompetence.
Click to expand...

Havertz used excessive force and was reckless.

It was a clear red.
 
Withnail said:
It's just not a red card challenge. It wasn't dangerous and there wasn't a lot of force behind it. It wasn't a potential leg breaker like what Havertz got away with last week. There've been some bad decisions lately but this wasn't one of them.
Click to expand...
Clearly, a matter of opinion.
 
Withnail said:
It's just not a red card challenge. It wasn't dangerous and there wasn't a lot of force behind it. It wasn't a potential leg breaker like what Havertz got away with last week. There've been some bad decisions lately but this wasn't one of them.
Click to expand...
Oh well, on reflection you’re probably right. My bad.
 
I see timid Ten Hag has a ban for picking up 3 yellows this season. How many do notorious touchline cnuts like Arteta and Klopp have?
 
IMO, we really need to get our football back. Nowadays watching football even when Man Utd score I can't celebrate waiting for VAR to give clearance before I can celebrate. FFS.

Sometime, out of a blue during a match, out of nowhere a simple challenge that put in slow motion to watch may result in some idiotbin VAR room awarding a red card that completely change the match.

The inconsistencies are staggering week in week out about "subjective offside" (WTF is subjective offside?), hand ball calls, penalty calls and whatnot. The rules seems to change week in week out depending on which idiot is sitting in the VAR room.

Enough is enough?
 
Watching "Match Officials Mic'd Up" and Newcastle goal versus Arsenal. Foul on Gabriel not given as the "two hands did not justify him flying forwards like that". i.e. exaggerated contact will draw an adverse inference of simulation / no foul.

Yet Rodrigo throws himself to the floor in a blatant dive after minimal contact from Hojlund and gets given as a penalty minutes after.
 


For the most part, I think this is fair enough, although I don't agree with Webb saying that the Fulham player would definitely have been able to play the ball had Maguire not been interfering.

Secondly, while I agree on not using an attacker's arm when drawing an offside line, I think that defender's arms should be included as they regularly use their arms and hands to block players, pull on jerseys or just try to outmuscle the attacker. In this case, the Fulham player's arm is playing everyone onside. Obviously, this isn't in the rulebook so the goal is, by the law, ruled out. But it should be something they look at.
 
Withnail said:
Spot on from the VAR on the goal. Pity they missed both red cards as Webb alluded to their.
Click to expand...

It was probably spot on. But 4 minutes is far too long. Yet i don't think they could have been as accurate without that much time. We've seen multiple instances this season of things clearly not being checked properly, or the pace of the ongoing game meaning that something that likely would be called, is ignored.

In short, VAR can never work to a satisfactory level, and should be scrapped.
 
NotChatGPT said:
IFAB strongly disagrees with you there.

Handling the ball
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
  • scores in the opponents’ goal:
    • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
    • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

Any touch whatsoever between the ball and Haalands arm, no matter how accidental or minimal, will continue to be an offence and result in the goal being disallowed.
Click to expand...
The point I was trying to make is that there was no clear and obvious error made by the referee to warrant a VAR check.
 
I hate how the officials all refer to each other by nicknames while comunicating, it comes accross a bit childish and unprofessional especially when the officials are well aware their conversation could be broadcast on TV around the world.

The way the VAR refers to Antony Taylor as Tayls on this Wolves one is proper cringe:-

 
One thing I don't understand, They say they are not sure that the ball has gone out of play. They for offside how can they draw the line from the shoulder. Its the same principal. For both you need to draw a vertical lone from the edge to the ground first. If one can se done and is said to be an objective decision then ball out of play should also work the same way.
 
Tragically Hip said:
The point I was trying to make is that there was no clear and obvious error made by the referee to warrant a VAR check.
Click to expand...

This is a objective call. No clear and obvious error on handball by the goal scorer. Its either yes or no.
 
The decisions always seem more reasonable when you hear someone talking through the logic behind them. It's almost like hearing the rationale for a decision from the ref/VAR at the time rather than weeks later might be a good idea....
 
Shane88 said:
Nothing wrong with that. The angle from in front of the goal at 2:07 shows what a pathetic dive it was from Gabriel. No way was that a foul.
Click to expand...

Yeah I've no idea why people were so adamant it was a foul. The shot they were using as evidence was close in and didn't show the whole incident.

sullydnl said:
The decisions always seem more reasonable when you hear someone talking through the logic behind them. It's almost like hearing the rationale for a decision from the ref/VAR at the time rather than weeks later might be a good idea....
Click to expand...

Hmmm strange that isn't it?
 
Withnail said:
Yeah I've no idea why people were so adamant it was a foul. The shot they were using as evidence was close in and didn't show the whole incident.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the referees involved, and some people in here, understand the concept. It’s not Joelinton standing right behind Gabriel and sticking out his arms. Joelinton is 1.86 and built as a tank, he has mistimed his header and on his way down he has both hands stretched out on the upper part of Gabriels back. It’s basic physics really, where does the weight go? there is no way whatsoever Gabriel stands a chance of getting anything on it as Joelintons weight will always push him downwards. It’s a fairly obvious freekick, no idea why people are speculating if Gabriel goes down too easy or not when the focus should be on what Joelinton is doing and what the consequence always will be.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
I hate how the officials all refer to each other by nicknames while comunicating, it comes accross a bit childish and unprofessional especially when the officials are well aware their conversation could be broadcast on TV around the world.

The way the VAR refers to Antony Taylor as Tayls on this Wolves one is proper cringe:-

Click to expand...

So even though VAR says the Wolves player makes contact (which is not 100% clear for me… best angle has another player run in front just at the critical moment), which MATCHES what ref said…

… Howard Webb said they should have still called the ref as he felt it reached the “clear and obvious” threshold?

So there are subjective decisions AND subjective “clear and obvious” decisions now?

Good job they’re not making it overly complicated?
 
RedRocket9908 said:
I hate how the officials all refer to each other by nicknames while comunicating, it comes accross a bit childish and unprofessional especially when the officials are well aware their conversation could be broadcast on TV around the world.

The way the VAR refers to Antony Taylor as Tayls on this Wolves one is proper cringe:-

Click to expand...


I really couldn't be arsed listening to all that but what surprised me most wasn't them missing the ball hitting Hwang's right leg, it was them clearly seeing it hit his left leg and saying "oh he didn't try to play it with that one so it doesn't matter". What sort of fecking stupid rule is that? If you get the ball with your trailing leg in a slide tackle before you contact the player is it supposed to be a foul now? The rules are written by halfwits if so, why do they feel the need to make it so complicated for themselves when they can barely enforce the simple rules properly?
 
Berbaclass said:
Think the Newcastle goal and Maguire offside they got spot on to be honest.
Click to expand...

Spot on, but not how they described it. They mention Maguire stopping their defender reaching the ball. He wasn’t reaching it if Harry wasn’t there, so in their reasoning of the situation, they really should have allowed the goal.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
I hate how the officials all refer to each other by nicknames while comunicating, it comes accross a bit childish and unprofessional especially when the officials are well aware their conversation could be broadcast on TV around the world.

The way the VAR refers to Antony Taylor as Tayls on this Wolves one is proper cringe:-

Click to expand...


Listening to Howard Webb describe this just makes me utterly convinced that he doesn’t have the brains to be in charge.
We feel this is a situation that reaches the threshold for being an clear and obvious error, even though there is contact, even though the ball isn’t played by the defender. And we are asking the VAR going forward with that instruction to have a look at it, see where the consideration sit, and if they don’t like the decision on the field then ask the referee what they saw and if it’s significantly different to what they see on video then recommend a review so that the referee can look at it for himself.
Click to expand...

The level of incompetence is shocking, it really is. Just out of the blue they decide to introduce a different level of interpretation, where in some situations they will ask the referee what he has seen, but not in all situatnions. The only thing it will ever result in is even less consistency

I’ve been saying it for ages, it should be standard in every single situation that the referee instantly explains what he’s seen in the key scenarios, so that the VAR can consider the situation based on if the referee has seen the full extent of it and decided it’s ok, or if he’s only seen parts of it and doesn’t have all the information to make a correct decision.
 
Wrecking ralf said:
Spot on, but not how they described it. They mention Maguire stopping their defender reaching the ball. He wasn’t reaching it if Harry wasn’t there, so in their reasoning of the situation, they really should have allowed the goal.
Click to expand...
The act of challenging the defender is a what makes it offside, never mind trying to get the ball.
 
Berbaclass said:
Think the Newcastle goal and Maguire offside they got spot on to be honest.
Click to expand...

Agree, the calls have been decent recently generally.

Calls have even started to go against Liverpool and Spurs.

Brighton got shafted last season v both of them. There were incidents like the Cucu hair pull and Mendy v West Ham nonsense. I could go on.

I think the overall standard has got better and most importantly no particular teams getting the rub always now.
 
sullydnl said:
The decisions always seem more reasonable when you hear someone talking through the logic behind them. It's almost like hearing the rationale for a decision from the ref/VAR at the time rather than weeks later might be a good idea....
Click to expand...

They've clearly just done some hasty dubs and sold them as actual recordings from the games. The real tapes were full of effing and blinding, along with comments to make Ron Atkinson blush. But hey, if having their conversations broadcast live leads to more of them getting sacked, I'm all for it.

On a serious note, it's already a bit crap that the fans at the ground are usually the last to know anything about these VAR calls. That gets even worse if the crowd are the only viewers not having access to the decision making process.

BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
So even though VAR says the Wolves player makes contact (which is not 100% clear for me… best angle has another player run in front just at the critical moment), which MATCHES what ref said…

… Howard Webb said they should have still called the ref as he felt it reached the “clear and obvious” threshold?

So there are subjective decisions AND subjective “clear and obvious” decisions now?

Good job they’re not making it overly complicated?
Click to expand...

To me, it isn't really complicated at all. "Clear and obvious" isn't a real thing - it's just the marketing tool that was used to push VAR. It made it seem like it was going to be unintrusive and reserved for matters of fact, rather than what we have now - constant lengthy stoppages over subjective calls.

The only thing that is truly clear and obvious about VAR, is that they quite clearly and very obviously pick and choose which incidents to focus and fixate on based on nothing but a whim. This results in VAR selectively re-refereeing parts of the match, and it's a complete crapshoot as to which parts suffer that treatment.

See? Simple!
 
Berbaclass said:
Think the Newcastle goal and Maguire offside they got spot on to be honest.
Click to expand...
I think the Newcastle one was a bit more chaotic in terms of the audio - natural because of the situation, but listening to the Fulham decision, I think they handled it really well. Can't really argue with the logic of making the call.
 
NotChatGPT said:
I don’t think the referees involved, and some people in here, understand the concept. It’s not Joelinton standing right behind Gabriel and sticking out his arms. Joelinton is 1.86 and built as a tank, he has mistimed his header and on his way down he has both hands stretched out on the upper part of Gabriels back. It’s basic physics really, where does the weight go? there is no way whatsoever Gabriel stands a chance of getting anything on it as Joelintons weight will always push him downwards. It’s a fairly obvious freekick, no idea why people are speculating if Gabriel goes down too easy or not when the focus should be on what Joelinton is doing and what the consequence always will be.
Click to expand...

None of that happened though. He's not putting any real weight on him. Watch it again from the wide angle. His hands are touching him but Gabriel throws himself forward and his legs back. It's clear as day.
 
Garnacho's Shoelaces said:
They are now running through Maguire offside at Fulham. He apparently "impacts the defender's ability to play the ball" despite it being an impossibility for defender to reach it.
Click to expand...
This is what makes the offside subjective, because neither plays the ball. In some instances someone could claim the defender is reaching it, and if it were the other way around the benefit of the doubt would be given the attacker "no way he reaches that". Thus you'll have two identical situations being judged differently based on any impulse and previous information. If the other team scored a goal, we probably wouldn't even get a VAR review or discussion. The review show would probably be about how they made the correct call because he "didn't impact the defender's ability to play the ball" because Maguire wouldn't reach it anyways.
 
Withnail said:
None of that happened though. He's not putting any real weight on him. Watch it again from the wide angle. His hands are touching him but Gabriel throws himself forward and his legs back. It's clear as day.
Click to expand...

You can literally see Joelinton hanging over Gabriel. Look where the ball comes in as well. Is Gabriels ability to clear the ball badly affected due to Joelintons arms and the weight? Yes. Is it legal? No. It’s clearly not a push, but the use of his arms prevents Gabriel from challenging.
 
Click to expand...


What a load of bollocks.

Is the scorer offside? No

Is the assister offside? No

Is any attacker blocking the keepers view offside? No

Goal.

VAR took almost 5 minutes to find a way to disallow a goal that 99% of the time would never be disallowed pre VAR and probably post VAR aswell.
 
NotChatGPT said:
You can literally see Joelinton hanging over Gabriel. Look where the ball comes in as well. Is Gabriels ability to clear the ball badly affected due to Joelintons arms and the weight? Yes. Is it legal? No. It’s clearly not a push, but the use of his arms prevents Gabriel from challenging.
Click to expand...

To me there's a clear jump forward from Gabriel after any potential pushing or leaning by Joelinton has concluded. Gabriel isn't interested in challenging, he's trying to win a free out imo.
 
NotChatGPT said:
You can literally see Joelinton hanging over Gabriel. Look where the ball comes in as well. Is Gabriels ability to clear the ball badly affected due to Joelintons arms and the weight? Yes. Is it legal? No. It’s clearly not a push, but the use of his arms prevents Gabriel from challenging.
Click to expand...

Gabriel cheating with the obvious simulation makes it impossible to judge as we don't actually know if he was impacted or not as he threw himself to the turf.
 
NotChatGPT said:
I don’t think the referees involved, and some people in here, understand the concept. It’s not Joelinton standing right behind Gabriel and sticking out his arms. Joelinton is 1.86 and built as a tank, he has mistimed his header and on his way down he has both hands stretched out on the upper part of Gabriels back. It’s basic physics really, where does the weight go? there is no way whatsoever Gabriel stands a chance of getting anything on it as Joelintons weight will always push him downwards. It’s a fairly obvious freekick, no idea why people are speculating if Gabriel goes down too easy or not when the focus should be on what Joelinton is doing and what the consequence always will be.
Click to expand...

It’s a foul clear as day.

The crazy thing about the released clip is that they didn’t even look at a close up shot or multiple angles. They were trying to rush through because they had four issues to check and so lazily just concluded that it wasn’t a foul based on some long shot and with the excuse that Gabriel might have been flopping. Any real examination using multiple angles would show that it’s an incredibly forceful two handed push in the back by a very strong big man.
 
The communication whenever I see any of these VAR and Ref discussions are at absolute clusterfeck, nothing seems clear or straightforward in their actually discussions between each other.... probably doesn't help the ref's got about 8 players down his ear every time too.

The communication aspect needs to be simplified first and foremost, just seems like they are mass panicking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.