Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)

[limerickcitykid]

I mean I don't think he's interfering with the keeper, but I think he's interfering with Azpilicueta's attempts to get to the ball and thus as he is offside its the correct decision.

Seeing it again, I agree with this. Looked like Azpi probably could have swung a foot at it if he wasn’t laying there.

I think interfering the keeper is a bit more grey but at the same time on the replay you couldn’t even see the ball when it was shot so fair enough actually, that’s blocking the keeper’s vision.

All in all, looks the right call.

 

[Carl]

Having someone on the floor in front of you and just behind from where the ball is coming from is most definitely obstructing the GKs view. Correct decision was made.

Camera angles showed that his view was not "clearly obstructed". Only person potentially obscuring the view was Azpi.

I'm not so sure he interfered with the gk but i think he does obstruct azpilicueta

Also he looks offside the first time soucek tries to shoot and fumbles the ball into him

Very weird passage and i'm still not sure what exactly VAR was looking at there

Azpi doesn't come into it in this case. GK only.

 

[limerickcitykid]

Camera angles showed that his view was not "clearly obstructed". Only person potentially obscuring the view was Azpi.



Azpi doesn't come into it in this case. GK only.

Camera angles showed that you couldn’t even see the ball. That’s clearly obstructing.

And of course Azpi can come into it. Interfering with a defender while offside is offside.

 

[Carl]

Camera angles showed that you couldn’t even see the ball. That’s clearly obstructing.

And of course Azpi can come into it. Interfering with a defender while offside is offside.

Azpi - I'm going off what Sky said. In that it was chalked off because the goalkeepers vision was obstructed.

On that point, I find it really weird that you think it was. The art work is not mine (unfortunately) but Kepa is a full grown ass man. He may well be crouching but from where the ball was hit from theres just no way Antonio is blocking his vision. Its ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

 

[limerickcitykid]

Azpi - I'm going off what Sky said. In that it was chalked off because the goalkeepers vision was obstructed.

On that point, I find it really weird that you think it was. The art work is not mine (unfortunately) but Kepa is a full grown ass man. He may well be crouching but from where the ball was hit from theres just no way Antonio is blocking his vision. Its ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

I don’t need some shitty artwork. It showed the angle from behind the keeper and you couldn’t see the ball half the time.

He interfered with Kepa, Azpi, and initially the ball hit off him before the shot. Pick your choosing, he was offside.

 

[Carl]

I don’t need some shitty artwork. It showed the angle from behind the keeper and you couldn’t see the ball half the time.

From behind the net, and much lower than the GKs actual line of vision. In no way representative of what he could actually see.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Camera angles showed that you couldn’t even see the ball. That’s clearly obstructing.

And of course Azpi can come into it. Interfering with a defender while offside is offside.

Whether it was obstructing or not, the camera angle being blocked from the balk doesn’t mean keepers line of sight was

 

[Anustart89]

He's obviously interfering with Azpilicueta's ability to defend the situation, look at Azpilicueta's right foot. Is he perfectly able to block the incoming shot with an offside player obstructing his ability to move towards the ball?

 

[Adam-Utd]

I don’t need some shitty artwork. It showed the angle from behind the keeper and you couldn’t see the ball half the time.

He interfered with Kepa, Azpi, and initially the ball hit off him before the shot. Pick your choosing, he was offside.

You understand why this is VERY important right?

 

[UncleBob]

Blocks the view feck all from Kepa's angle, imho, and the player is already down at the ground and not moving

Poor decision, imho

 

[Berbasbullet]

It was clearly offside, the same way the one that benefited us earlier in the season was offside. He’s on the floor next to the goalie for goodness sakes, of course the keeper had to consider that player. It doesn’t even matter that he’s blocking the ball or not.

 

[montpelier]

It was clearly offside, the same way the one that benefited us earlier in the season was offside. He’s on the floor next to the goalie for goodness sakes, of course the keeper had to consider that player. It doesn’t even matter that he’s blocking the ball or not.

I think so too.

The "GK can see the ball" argument is working too hard, even if it's factually correct. Play is being interfered with by him. Look at the state of it, ffs.

Let me try this to be more polite though. The GK doesn't know if he's on or off and isn't duty bound to care. But isn't the GK affected by the possibility of a deflection or possible play of the ball. Therefore GK is affected by offside player. It's a distraction.

 

[VP89]

I feel like this sort of a decision is something that will still polarize views and that's after a good 18 hours after the event with all camera angles and picking into laws.

What this tells me is it's not a problem with VAR, but more Premier League's interpretation of what VAR is brought in for, which is clear and obvious errors. You can extend that and look at less obvious factors to better the integrity of the game itself, but there has to be a limit. I think this incident surpasses that limit - where it's still neither here nor there and it's too subjective for VAR to step in (remember its for clear and obvious events).

Whether it is or isn't an obstruction for Kepais too subjective to call and I Think Neville was correct in saying, if it takes 3-5 minutes and you're still unsure then you should give the goal because it's there for clear and obvious errors.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I don’t need some shitty artwork. It showed the angle from behind the keeper and you couldn’t see the ball half the time.

He interfered with Kepa, Azpi, and initially the ball hit off him before the shot. Pick your choosing, he was offside.

That was my first thought too. Although I think it was a defender who got the first touch. So he couldn’t have been offside before the shot on goal.

He’s definitely interfering with play at that point though. Even if he isn’t deemed to be blocking the keeper’s view, the defender has to step over him to try and block the shot. There’s no way you can lie on the ground in an offside position, between the ball and the nearest defender/keeper, and claim you’re not interfering with play.

 

[Zlatan 7]

I feel like this sort of a decision is something that will still polarize views and that's after a good 18 hours after the event with all camera angles and picking into laws.

What this tells me is it's not a problem with VAR, but more Premier League's interpretation of what VAR is brought in for, which is clear and obvious errors. You can extend that and look at less obvious factors to better the integrity of the game itself, but there has to be a limit. I think this incident surpasses that limit - where it's still neither here nor there and it's too subjective for VAR to step in (remember its for clear and obvious events).

Whether it is or isn't an obstruction for Kepais too subjective to call and I Think Neville was correct in saying, if it takes 3-5 minutes and you're still unsure then you should give the goal because it's there for clear and obvious errors.

Yep, totally agree.

I feel like this sort of a decision is something that will still polarize views and that's after a good 18 hours after the event with all camera angles and picking into laws.

What this tells me is it's not a problem with VAR, but more Premier League's interpretation of what VAR is brought in for, which is clear and obvious errors. You can extend that and look at less obvious factors to better the integrity of the game itself, but there has to be a limit. I think this incident surpasses that limit - where it's still neither here nor there and it's too subjective for VAR to step in (remember its for clear and obvious events).

Whether it is or isn't an obstruction for Kepais too subjective to call and I Think Neville was correct in saying, if it takes 3-5 minutes and you're still unsure then you should give the goal because it's there for clear and obvious errors.

 

[montpelier]

I feel like this sort of a decision is something that will still polarize views and that's after a good 18 hours after the event with all camera angles and picking into laws.

What this tells me is it's not a problem with VAR, but more Premier League's interpretation of what VAR is brought in for, which is clear and obvious errors. You can extend that and look at less obvious factors to better the integrity of the game itself, but there has to be a limit. I think this incident surpasses that limit - where it's still neither here nor there and it's too subjective for VAR to step in (remember its for clear and obvious events).

Whether it is or isn't an obstruction for Kepais too subjective to call and I Think Neville was correct in saying, if it takes 3-5 minutes and you're still unsure then you should give the goal because it's there for clear and obvious errors.

Fair enough but..

The offside position is factual. So after moving on to the subjective bit (interfering) and then deciding its too difficult and allowing the goal (and this being your default) seems like its ignoring the factual (clear and obvious too) assessment VAR has done for you.

Seems a bit illogical somehow although I'm not crystal clear on why I think that exactly, tbh.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Fair enough but..

The offside position is factual. So after moving on to the subjective bit (interfering) and then deciding its too difficult and allowing the goal (and this being your default) seems like its ignoring the factual (clear and obvious too) assessment VAR has done for you.

Seems a bit illogical somehow although I'm not crystal clear on why I think that exactly, tbh.

The offside Is factual, whether he’s impeding while being there is subjective, and that’s what the decision balances on.

also while I’m having a moan, the offside may be factual yes, but the way they measured the head offside In this decision was comical, jittering back and forth trying to get it right and then still not having it bang on and then the added dotted line that I assume accounts for the angle. It was quite funny to be honest and is no way accurate enough if that was only marginally offside.

 

[montpelier]

The offside Is factual, whether he’s impeding while being there is subjective, and that’s what the decision balances on.

also while I’m having a moan, the offside may be factual yes, but the way they measured the head offside In this decision was comical, jittering back and forth trying to get it right and then still not having it bang on and then the added dotted line that I assume accounts for the angle. It was quite funny to be honest and is no way accurate enough if that was only marginally offside.

But if you default the subjective bit so that we are saying its too difficult let's say it isn't offside (which is saying its onside, essentially)

Then offside = onside effectively. Because of the "subjective is tricky, we won't bother" sub clause. The "nearly all interfering is subjective" sub clause?

Taking into account that being directly in front of the GK is being called a subjective situation.

There can hardly ever be any interfering ever again can there?

 

[montpelier]

Which I think is what people seem to want btw. The "I hate seeing goals disallowed" brigade if you like. I don't mean to be completely horrible when I call it that, but they don't seem to like any kind of offside decisions very much, that's for sure.

 

[montpelier]

Other than someone standing offside and either kicking it in the goal or making the last pass. I've seen the 2nd last pass being described as having happened in a different phase of play.

Perhaps I'm too far the other way. I'd disallow everything

 

[matsdf]

Very weird dissalowing the Spurs goal without giving them a free kick.

 

[Zlatan 7]

But if you default the subjective bit so that we are saying its too difficult let's say it isn't offside (which is saying its onside, essentially)

Then offside = onside effectively. Because of the "subjective is tricky, we won't bother" sub clause. The "nearly all interfering is subjective" sub clause?

Taking into account that being directly in front of the GK is being called a subjective situation.

There can hardly ever be any interfering ever again can there?

I’ve read this a few times and can’t work it out sorry, there can be a subjective decision on something after an offside has occurred can’t there? It’s not the default goto, it’s just saying he was offside but not interfering.

and the no interfering, yes that’s exactly what I want when decisions are so marginal they take 3-5 minutes to work out.

 

[Eckers99]

Even though United are one of few teams to regularly benefit from VAR decisions, I still think it's utter bollocks and hasn't fulfilled its purpose of removing controversy and getting major calls right. It just adds to the problem and dilutes goal celebrations.

I mean, Moura is being fouled there, making the handball unavoidable and totally unintentional. It's well harsh.

And I say that as someone who also loves watching Jose get shat on.

 

[UncleBob]

Even though United are one of few teams to regularly benefit from VAR decisions, I still think it's utter bollocks and hasn't fulfilled its purpose of removing controversy and getting major calls right. It just adds to the problem and dilutes goal celebrations.

I mean, Moura is being fouled there, making the handball unavoidable and totally unintentional. It's well harsh.

And I say that as someone who also loves watching Jose get shat on.

Doesnt matter according to the new rules. If it touches your hand AS an attacking player, make sure to pass the ball a few times before scoring

 

[Zlatan 7]

Even though United are one of few teams to regularly benefit from VAR decisions, I still think it's utter bollocks and hasn't fulfilled its purpose of removing controversy and getting major calls right. It just adds to the problem and dilutes goal celebrations.

I mean, Moura is being fouled there, making the handball unavoidable and totally unintentional. It's well harsh.

And I say that as someone who also loves watching Jose get shat on.

It’s amazing
the Sheffield United player kicks the ball at mouras arm as he’s mid fall with his head turned. Amazing

 

[montpelier]

I’ve read this a few times and can’t work it out sorry, there can be a subjective decision on something after an offside has occurred can’t there? It’s not the default goto, it’s just saying he was offside but not interfering.

and the no interfering, yes that’s exactly what I want when decisions are so marginal they take 3-5 minutes to work out.

I think it ends up being that there can't be a discussion about anything subjective.

Because if in front of the GK is subjective then everything is.

If you say that is too difficult and you go to allowing the goal - which they say they want to - then all subjective interfering is never going to be offside.

If all interfering is subjective, which it seems to be done this way. How is there ever any interfering?

But anyway, on to the handball debate.

 

[mu4c_20le]

It’s amazing
the Sheffield United player kicks the ball at mouras arm as he’s mid fall with his head turned. Amazing

It doesn't have to be intentional. In a perfect world, play should have stopped as soon as the ref spotted the handball

 

[Eckers99]

Doesnt matter according to the new rules. If it touches your hand AS an attacking player, make sure to pass the ball a few times before scoring

It's total bollocks. I hate agreeing with Jamie Redknapp but the fact that Moura is being fouled, has no intention of handling the ball and Harry Kane STILL has to turn a defender inside out before scoring makes a total mockery of the application of that rule. It's a joke.

 

[RashyForPM]

It was blasted into him but how can an arm assist a goal? If it was a few passes ago, then sure. But for me, this was the right call. Goals should be created with feet or head only. If we’re gonna talk about a wrong call, it’s the fact that Kavanagh didn’t call a foul on Moura by Berge, in which case Kane would have hammered the FK into Madagascar anyway.

 

[laughtersassassin]

Correct decision by VAR as it is following the new premier League that a goal cannot stand of the ball hit an arm on the build up.

That rule was added last season and is the most idiotic rule ever but as long as it is the rule VAR has to follow it.

Also another problem with it is how it only applies to the attacking team and not the defending one so now there is a different handball rule depended on which side of the attack you are on.

There is no fix for it this season but the needed to revise the rule that all goals where a ball touches an arm are disallowed. It completely overules context sadly.

 

[SilentWitness]

I don't care that it was disallowed because of handball. I care that they've been allowed to chalk off the goal because of handball but then can't give the foul that caused him to fall. That's mental.

 

[montpelier]

You wanted clearer rules. That's a handball, technically. But only against the attacking side, obviously.

(I'd be pretending not to have seen that, and just let the goal stand)

You pushed him, that's hard luck

 

[Baxter]

VAR applied correctly the rule, albeit how harsh it is. Lucas isn’t fouled either, but they can’t take it back and give him a free kick. He’s crowded out but I can’t see that as a foul.

Having watched one of the German broadcasts, I think that rule is being changed?

 

[Rafaeldagold]

VAR has made modern football a bit ridiculous. People genuinely don’t cheer ‘goals’ as much now incase VAR finds a tiny infringement to rule it out & also it will eventually turn some people off football.

 

[Eckers99]

I don't care that it was disallowed because of handball. I care that they've been allowed to chalk off the goal because of handball but then can't give the foul that caused him to fall. That's mental.

And this. At least take it back to the original foul. Spurs don't even get that?!

 

[Zlatan 7]

I think it ends up being that there can't be a discussion about anything subjective.

Because if in front of the GK is subjective then everything is.

If you say that is too difficult and you go to allowing the goal - which they say they want to - then all subjective interfering is never going to be offside.

If all interfering is subjective, which it seems to be done this way. How is there ever any interfering?

But anyway, on to the handball debate.

But it’s not subjective in absolutes I wouldn’t think. Something can be really fifty fifty and take minutes Or days to umm and arr over, others are more clear.

but yes, in a way I’d like anything subjective not be taken to VAR and Keep it for clear Maradonna/Henry handballs that’s clear cheating or missed fouls in the box. Otherwise like you’ve alluded to there is no end, every decision subjective should be looked at, throw ins, corners, it should all be checked and not this pick and choosing that’s going on.

the handball decision, I just think is hysterical

 

[Zlatan 7]

I don't care that it was disallowed because of handball. I care that they've been allowed to chalk off the goal because of handball but then can't give the foul that caused him to fall. That's mental.

Good point, it’s this pick and choosing that grates me, it seems that it’s been rushed and the wording of covering everything hasn’t been completed

 

[montpelier]

I also think without VAR, both these goals probably stand - so there is a VAR component involved.

 

[kaiser1]

Like Gabriel Jesus goal disallowed in City vs Spurs in August for a Laporte handball when he was shoved while attacking the corner kick

 

[laughtersassassin]

Like Gabriel Jesus goal disallowed in City vs Spurs in August for a Laporte handball when he was shoved while attacking the corner kick

Exactly. It's a shit rule and needs to be changed but it has to be upheld as long as it is in place