The ref spoke to him and to me it both seemed they agreed it was offside. The ref even pointed over as if he signalled offside himself after the discussions.The assistant is supposed to raise his flag after the play ends if he thinks it’s offside. He didn’t do that this time, so without VAR we have to assume that he had made the decision not to raise his flag.
Just do it like rugby.I'm thinking that they shouldn't get rid of VAR but simplify it. The beauty of goal line technology is how simple it is.
Ditch Stockley Park and simply allow the referee to consult with the fourth official and a screen when he's not sure on a possible red card, penalty call, handball/foul leading to a goal or an offside. Maybe even introduce a 'challenge' system where managers have a limited number of appeals per game if they think a decision has gone against them.
VAR helping Spurs again?
Every single week, it's ridiculous...
Didn't see all the game... How did it help them?
If anything Burnley's goal should have been ruled out under the dumb new handball rule
Why? The VAR would have looked at it anyway. What would a challenge do?That's why I keep saying there needs to be a challenge system for incidents like these, where they can pick and choose what gets looked at. That was a stonewall penalty for me, you can't just go straight through someone's back like that, surely? Less than a minute later, Moss gave them a free kick and a yellow for Sanchez for a much lighter push in the back.
In my world, a challenge would force the referee on the pitch to go to the sideline monitor and have another look. In that case, he just needs to change his mind and is thus not bound by the clear and obvious criteria that is required when another referee overrules him (or recommends a change of decision).Why? The VAR would have looked at it anyway. What would a challenge do?
All those instances are checked. I dont think a challenge does anything, its not as if theyll change their mind because a manager really thnks they should.In my world, a challenge would force the referee on the pitch to go to the sideline monitor and have another look. In that case, he just needs to change his mind and is thus not bound by the clear and obvious criteria that is required when another referee overrules him (or recommends a change of decision).
How do you know it was looked at? Play just went on without any mention of a VAR check by the announcer, as I recall.
I think that risk of public embarrassment would lead to more reversed decisions, to be honest. A challenge would also lower the threshold for a reversal from "clear and obvious" to "balance of probabilities", as a ref would only need to think that the new decision is more right. The problem with the PL's implementation of VAR is that refs won't give decisions because they have VAR to back them up and then VAR has an unreasonably high threshold to reverse that decision, so a lot of non-calls stand when the ref, given all angles of an incident, probably would've given the call in the first place.All those instances are checked. I dont think a challenge does anything, its not as if theyll change their mind because a manager really thnks they should.
If the ref says he 100 percent saw it then it goes by the onfield decision. I just think Moss is that bad
Ive been unbiased in my comments on this incident but just to say, if that was not given, what stops an attacker laying down in front of the keeper on free kicks (clearly in potential offside position). Even if keepers view is not impeded. Should that be allowed, as your view suggests it should?You have to look at the images from when the shot is taken. To me it looks like De Gea has clear sight of the ball regardless of Sigurdsson’s position.
Him having to move out of the way is no different to a player walking back from an offside position and ignoring the ball so that another player can get
I’d be annoyed if that was given as offside against my team.
Still, Sigurdsson didn’t help the situation by just sitting there.
It's a bit unclear. Clearance constitutes new phase of play. But then a couple of months ago van Dijk handballed it at the half-way line and two passes later Mané had scored. The PL then decided that it was too far back in the move. So handball -> pass -> assist apparently doesn't count either.So with Burnley’s goal why did it stand? It hit their players hand in the build up..or does it not count if an opposing player clears it just before?
What’s the exact definition of ‘build up’ for a goal to be disallowed?
The same also applies to offside. If a player is offside but the assistant keeps his flag down (encouraged to do so), after a few clearances the ball is in the back of the net, should the goal stand? Would this be unfair to the defensive side? There is no guideline on how long nor how far VAR can trace back to, which is quite controversial for me.It's a bit unclear. Clearance constitutes new phase of play. But then a couple of months ago van Dijk handballed it at the half-way line and two passes later Mané had scored. The PL then decided that it was too far back in the move. So handball -> pass -> assist apparently doesn't count either.
First of all, nobody said three challenges each. If you're worried about time, give them two each and have it so that it's one per half so you only get one in the second half. That's you'd usually want to waste time anyway.The issue with giving each team three challenges is that in most games it would result in much more delay. It would make 5 or 6 reviews the standard in a 90min match, which isn't the case now. Yet at the same time it's not so many that a team couldn't have three genuine reviews rejected before getting screwed over on a fourth call, especially if they're allowed to challenge more minor incidents.
First of all, nobody said three challenges each. If you're worried about time, give them two each and have it so that it's one per half so you only get one in the second half. That's you'd usually want to waste time anyway.
If it's a baseless appeal, ie something that's clear cut, it'll be over in five seconds (two minutes if Moss has to get his arse to the monitor, but he'll be gone soon) and no significant time will have been wasted. If it's an outrageous call, the time is lost to protests anyway. How long did it take for Gylfi to take that free kick after Fred's "handball"? It would've taken the same time for the ref to sprint to the monitor, see that it hit his knee and restart play with a drop ball, plus we would've had the right decision.
If teams challenge throw-ins and they get it right every time and get to keep their challenges, well that's not a criticism of the system, is it? It would shine a spotlight on refereeing incompetence if they call them wrongly that many times, right?
It is virtually nonpractical to let teams make challenges, and there are plenty of reasons why such system is not adopted. Football consists of more players, counterattacks, a larger variety of incidents, and fewer pauses than tennis. Challenges will inevitably interfere the play.The issue with giving each team three challenges is that in most games it would result in much more delay. It would make 5 or 6 reviews the standard in a 90min match, which isn't the case now. Yet at the same time it's not so many that a team couldn't have three genuine reviews rejected before getting screwed over on a fourth call, especially if they're allowed to challenge more minor incidents.
Isn’t that kind of allowed when players stand in front of the goal keeper and try to distract him? It doesn’t happen often but I’ve seen it and it wasn’t classed as offside.Ive been unbiased in my comments on this incident but just to say, if that was not given, what stops an attacker laying down in front of the keeper on free kicks (clearly in potential offside position). Even if keepers view is not impeded. Should that be allowed, as your view suggests it should?
VAR sucks. At least it should cancel Fred's card so he doesnt have to be limited by a yellow card for half a match. Penalty could be given 50/50 imo
Had this happened to Salah, we all know itd be a pen
