Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)
- Thread starter RedFish
- Start date
How did VAR ruin today when the controversy was that it wasn't used to overturn the first instance error? The injustice would have been the same with no VAR
Aside from the decisions being wrong, klopp himself said he didn’t celebrate the goals as he knew they would reviewed, didn’t want to waste his energy and then once the review is complete the moment has passed. This isn’t right surely, if managers are already holding back their celebrations its only a matter of time before them, the players and fans all with hold their celebrations. It’s pathetic.
What supports my argument is the fact the ball hit his arm,which is outstretched from his body, whilst he's stood in the penalty box. Jesus wept.
I'm glad you clarified that the three former referees have reviewed the situation with replays and not the naked eye alone. I will sleep much better tonight knowing that.
What's the rules then? As you suggested one handball cancels another?
I'm sure you would have slept even better if it was a couple of additional pundits who viewed the replays.
As for the rules, it depends if the Trent situation is determined to be punishable:
- If you decide that it is, Silva, an attacking player, created a goalscoring opportunity by the ball touching his hand, meaning Liverpool should be awarded a free kick.
- If you decide that it isn't, then Silva didn't create a goalscoring opportunity, and you should play on.
There is simply no interpretation of the rules which ends up on a pen.
The injustice is other teams getting pulled up on similar instances, same as the debatable offside goal. Shef Utd have a 3 minute offside review, this game had a 10 second review. I’d call that injustice
I would guess because he rather wanted to give Liverpool the advantage?! But even if he missed Bernardo also handling the ball, I dont see how that would be VAR relevant.
Don't know why this isn't the standard. This makes Oliver look so much better and gives genuine insight into his thinking. Also, note the appropriate use of VAR.
This today would help us understand what's going on. Just use it like in rugby. And when play stops for VAR it should be like cricket where you can hear it being discussed and fed back to the on field umpire.
Sounds like a case of confirmation bias where you only count its missteps and not when it worked for the better.
Don't know what to tell you besides you're just going to have to get used to it. It's here to stay regardless how much you oppose it, and that's for the better
TAA slapping it around with his hand is enough advantage for me.
Also, a fk award illustrates a previous offence has occurred.
So as to illustrate control of the game and prevent confusion
You have a restart as they call it
It's sensible
This is fecking Oliver, fecking up again.
100% agree. It's so inconsiderate of the match-going fan experience that is at the core of the game. I cannot imagine being sat at Spurs vs. Sheffield United for four fecking minutes not having a clue what was going on.
It's like today. At half time the PL told sky the pen wasn't given as they decided the hand was in a natural position. Laughable explanation yes but at least we know why. If that had been broadcast at the time then we clear it to immediately. Why not just have the audio? It's baffling.
I’d argue that it’s got as much wrong / missed as what it has called right. So what’s the point in that?
and this version of VAR is clearly not here to stay, its already been changed not even a quarter the way into the season, it’s a shit show and you can see enough people not happy/ disillusioned with it to fallout of love with the game/ stop going to games/ cancel paid subscriptions. This happens over the next few years and money starts being lost, you can bet something about it will change.
how you can be happy with this and defend it by just saying it’s here to stay get used to it is bizarre
The crux of the problem, in laymans terms, is it's not fixing what needs fixing and trying to fix what doesn't. If an offside is debatable by a stray hair one way or the other, then benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking side, it's also ridiculous accidental handball when it's not making a player's body bigger being punished.
They should only get involved when the error is obvious.
They should only get involved when the error is obvious.
I think you're looking at this through the lens of Liverpool scoring later on and not liking that fact.
Letting play continue after an accidental handball is a perfectly natural call.
-Because VAR is not a problem and claiming a video review system to be inherently bad for a sport is where the bizarre lies. The usage can get better. What won't get better is the game without it.
-It still gets more right than the other way and I'm certain the figures can prove it
-PL referees are botching its usage but this is the first year using it and it will get better as the FA adds more guides to its use from their mistakes. The lacunas will get fleshed out
-lastly and more realistically if majority are for it it's not getting scrapped to appease a minority opposing change
yes I think a video review is bad for the sport. How badly was it really needed? It’s slowed down the game and killed celebrations. In absolutely no way had it made the game better.
also, your first point about being certain figures can prove it, I don’t doubt as the the figures will not consider what has been missed, only what has been changed.
your second point is just wishful thinking that the refs watch it on fast forward so it’s quicker or I don’t know, it’s always just going to be a replay watched over and over.
Guess we just disagree
The ball hits Silvas hand then Alexander-Arnold's arm, so surely it can't be a penalty because a penalty could lead to a goal, and any goal scored where there is any use of a hand or arm by the attacking team is disallowed?
When Mane had a goal disallowed at Old Trafford, if instead of scoring he was clearly fouled in the penalty area and the referee awarded a penalty, I'm pretty sure on the VAR check the penalty would be overturned?
When Mane had a goal disallowed at Old Trafford, if instead of scoring he was clearly fouled in the penalty area and the referee awarded a penalty, I'm pretty sure on the VAR check the penalty would be overturned?
But then it becomes an assessment of the difference between wrong and obviously wrong.
A plain level wrong isn't enough, let's stick with the duff decision, being the confusing result of that quite often.
Wait what? Where did you read this from that post? I made no such point
And after 2 handball? Probably not so much. They bring peace and clarity in usually with a nice meaningless restart, most often.
Fair cop on the other thing, I must admit.
It’s the first year and it will get better. You know this how? So wishful thinking, yes.
A player being completely disconnected (in terms of the line) from the last defender maybe?
What I don't get is given the amount of times a goal has been disallowed due to a marginal offside this season means there must have been many cases of goals like that pre VAR, yet I could never recall much fan outrage, so they either didn't notice or just accepted shit happens. Would i have spotted that Quincy Promes was offside against us in Amsterdam? Most probably not, likewise Mount vs Liverpool about 5,000 phases of play before the goal.
Also the timing is a big problem in terms of letting teams and fans celebrate and blow their emotional load, it's beyond deflating and borderline cruel. I have become paranoid celebrating for the most part (both goals against Palace I texted my mate "Abraham/Pulisic has scored but I'm paranoid about VAR" and held off from saying panic over until I actually saw Palace kick off) and I have still been caught out twice (vs Liverpool and Ajax).
At some point a teams going to think they have won the CL with a last minute goal, will celebrate for two minutes only for the rug to be pulled from under their feet, it's not on and something needs doing. I can't even imagine how I'd feel if Drogba's goal in Munich was called back a whole two minutes later, it needs to be done within seconds if the goal is to be disallowed, or potentially if they need time to make their mind up, let the scoring team know it may happen and don't let them celebrate why they review it.
The part where I said the FA would add guides to flesh out its usage. Anyway you really need to slow down and read what youre replying. Think i agree we need to agree to disagree. This isn't very fun
You said....
Which makes no sense in itself if you read it again. I replied saying it’s wishful thinking on your part that it’s going to get better and there’s no possible way you can know this.
Not really that hard to understand, yet you tell me I need to slow down.
You also ignored the rest of my post and instead focused on being a drama queen with your wait what comment.
A deliberate handball remains an offence but that the following scenarios will result in a free-kick even if accidental:
- if the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand or arm
- a player gains control/possession of the ball after it touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
- a ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
- the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
If it hits Silvas arm in the area, even if accidentally, then they get a penalty directly from it, thats a goal scoring opportunity.
It all happens straight away within half a second. Lovren kicks it, it rebounds off Silvas arm, goes sideways, hits Trents arm and then the ball is cleared, Liverpool have the ball. The ref is simply saying play on.
Now the ref can say, its hit Silva on the arm and then they get a direct penalty from it. Under the rules as stated above thats not allowed, so free kick to Liverpool. But weve got the ball so in this instance hes waved play on, so they just play on like you would in an other situation.
I do think the first handball situation is in such close proximity to the defender that it can't be a foul, while the second handball is not similar. TAA hand is moving towards the ball as it is just an instinctive reaction. That is not allowed and should be a penalty.
I don't get the confusion, it's pretty elementary stuff. So what is this new rule? If an attacking player uses his hand before his teammate scores a goal, the goal should be disallowed? That isn't really a new rule I hope? Was it really allowed before?
It sound more like a guideline to manoeuvre with the new use of VAR. In any case, since the first handball was unavoidable and not cause for a foul, the fact he was an attacking player is of no relevance to the next situation.
To me it's a clear penalty. Ref probably didn't see that part. If the ref somehow 'knew' what happened and still chose to ignore the handball from TAA, or play some sort of advantage "two fouls make it zero, he's an attacker which means the defender is in position to yadda yadda" make it up as you go along, then no wonder people gets confused. I'm tired of all this gibberish used to cover up every mistake they make.
This was probably all part of the "not going to make Liverpool blame us for losing the title to city" plan.
I still remember this ref giving a red card for some shit invented mid game called "collective foul". Never to be seen again. In his mind if some player has committed too many fouls against a particular player, no matter who does the next one gets sent off. Perfect. Shit show every week in this league. VAR has highlighted the problems, instead of fixing it. I'll bet they scrap VAR before they think about fixing any of this shit though.
I don't get the confusion, it's pretty elementary stuff. So what is this new rule? If an attacking player uses his hand before his teammate scores a goal, the goal should be disallowed? That isn't really a new rule I hope? Was it really allowed before?
It sound more like a guideline to manoeuvre with the new use of VAR. In any case, since the first handball was unavoidable and not cause for a foul, the fact he was an attacking player is of no relevance to the next situation.To me it's a clear penalty. Ref probably didn't see that part. If the ref somehow 'knew' what happened and still chose to ignore the handball from TAA, or play some sort of advantage "two fouls make it zero, he's an attacker which means the defender is in position to yadda yadda" make it up as you go along, then no wonder people gets confused. I'm tired of all this gibberish used to cover up every mistake they make.
This was probably all part of the "not going to make Liverpool blame us for losing the title to city" plan.
I still remember this ref giving a red card for some shit invented mid game called "collective foul". Never to be seen again. In his mind if some player has committed too many fouls against a particular player, no matter who does the next one gets sent off. Perfect.
Shit show every week in this league. VAR has highlighted the problems, instead of fixing it. I'll bet they scrap VAR before they think about fixing any of this shit though.I don't get the confusion, it's pretty elementary stuff. So what is this new rule? If an attacking player uses his hand before his teammate scores a goal, the goal should be disallowed? That isn't really a new rule I hope? Was it really allowed before?
To me it's a clear penalty. Ref probably didn't see that part. If the ref somehow 'knew' what happened and still chose to ignore the handball from TAA
Ah, I get it. In that case, I quite like that rule. Makes it clear cut in situations like these, just call the handball no matter what, no grey zones.
So then the right call would be Dead ball free-kick for the handball... no possible advantage to play what so ever.
Got it?
So then the right call would be Dead ball free-kick for the handball... no possible advantage to play what so ever.
Got it?
In my opinion, for VAR in general, it should just work like this:
If the referee sees an incident, his call on the field stands. So if someone commits what looks like a foul in the box and the ref says I saw it but i dont consider it a free kick, its no free kick. VAR cant overule him. Hes the ref. There will always be some subjectivity at the end of the day.
VAR can only support the ref. So VAR can check something obvious that the Ref may not have seen and advise the ref. If VAR has new information that the ref missed he can check it out on the monitor. VAR is like a linesman, theyre just giving advice to the ref.
With regards to offsides I think there should be something similar to cricket, where there is an umpires decision or in this case linesmans decision.
There is a small zone, like in cricket, by which the linesmans decision is the ultimate arbitrar of whether something is offside. After all, VAR is only supposed to step in with clear and obvious errors. A toe being offside, in the heat of the moment when a player running is not a clear error of offside from the linesman.
So for example you could make this a 5cm or 10cm area, a zone of doubt, beyond the offside line drawn by VAR. If the attacker is in this area they are still onside.
Now you might think well what if youre right on 5cm beyond the VAR line - youre just shifting the line. Well the thing is youd have no arguments that VAR called you offside incorrectly. Because even if VAR draws the line slightly incorrectly by 1-2cm youre still 3cm offside anyway.
Youre basically giving an attacker the benefit of the doubt (which offiside is supposed to be), and if its right on the margins, well the attacker cant complain if it goes against them because they were beyond the offside line anyway.
This would sort out the arguments about the exact line of where VAR draws offside, and also when VAR is allowed to step in for incidents.
If the referee sees an incident, his call on the field stands. So if someone commits what looks like a foul in the box and the ref says I saw it but i dont consider it a free kick, its no free kick. VAR cant overule him. Hes the ref. There will always be some subjectivity at the end of the day.
VAR can only support the ref. So VAR can check something obvious that the Ref may not have seen and advise the ref. If VAR has new information that the ref missed he can check it out on the monitor. VAR is like a linesman, theyre just giving advice to the ref.
With regards to offsides I think there should be something similar to cricket, where there is an umpires decision or in this case linesmans decision.
There is a small zone, like in cricket, by which the linesmans decision is the ultimate arbitrar of whether something is offside. After all, VAR is only supposed to step in with clear and obvious errors. A toe being offside, in the heat of the moment when a player running is not a clear error of offside from the linesman.
So for example you could make this a 5cm or 10cm area, a zone of doubt, beyond the offside line drawn by VAR. If the attacker is in this area they are still onside.
Now you might think well what if youre right on 5cm beyond the VAR line - youre just shifting the line. Well the thing is youd have no arguments that VAR called you offside incorrectly. Because even if VAR draws the line slightly incorrectly by 1-2cm youre still 3cm offside anyway.
Youre basically giving an attacker the benefit of the doubt (which offiside is supposed to be), and if its right on the margins, well the attacker cant complain if it goes against them because they were beyond the offside line anyway.
This would sort out the arguments about the exact line of where VAR draws offside, and also when VAR is allowed to step in for incidents.
The second hand ball was a direct result of the first hand ball. It would have been unfair to deny advantage play because of an offence which was a direct result of an opposition offence. Simple, really.
It didn't result in a goal?
Also on the FA site the rule stipulates that it is only handball if the player "gains possession/control of the ball" and then scores/creates a goalscoring opportunity. Since Silva did not gain possession/control of the ball, the rule regarding the creation of a goalscoring opportunity doesn't seem to come into it.
The rule regarding accidental handball seems to only be activated in the instance of a goal actually being scored. Since a goal was not scored, the accidental handball rule likewise doesn't seem to apply.
In fact the only guideline that seems relevant is the one regarding deflections off another player. As far as I know though that isn't the guideline VAR is citing in choosing not to call a penalty (maybe I'm wrong).
Last edited:
What "should have happened" in the Liverpool v City match is the ref should have blown the whistle for a penalty against TAA then gone to VAR to confirm. Upon review of VAR they would have then came back with the ball first struck B Silva's hand before it struck TAA resulting in a free kick to Liverpool. Instead, my guess is that the ref decided to let the play go and allow VAR to intervene in case he got the call wrong. As it happened, Liverpool marched back up the field and scored. So you would be punishing Liverpool by awarding them a free kick instead of a goal. So instead I believe they just decided that one handball cancelled out the other and the only reason this is a talking point is because Liverpool scored. If the ball had been cleared and gone out for a throw in for the next stoppage it would be a non-issue...
His handling of the ball did create a scoring opportunity as it created the handball on TAA...
Even if we accept that to be true it doesn't seem to matter. That would only matter if the handball had resulted in Silva gaining possession/control of the ball first. It didn't, so the rule doesn't seem to apply.
Yes it does. Any time an attacking player handles the ball it's a handball. You are only reading one part of the law. He gained an advantage from it, so it would be called. The advantage being it created a penalty...
It was a goalscoring opportunity. Replays showed Sterling was coming in from behind. If the ball wasn't stop he would have at least a shot on goal inside the penalty area.
I'd be happy to retract if you could quote the relevant part of the law. I genuinely can't see it in the link I gave - maybe there's a better source?