Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
Still not sure about the Shaw/Brady ordeal. I didn't think VAR gave free kicks for fouls in the build up to a VAR reviewed incident. I also thought the only card that could be given from a VAR was a red. I've not seen a decision reversed and a booking given the other way before. But Shaw plays the ball, the follow through looks bad if you freeze it on Shaw's foot looking like he makes studs-up contact, but he actually doesn't, it goes behind the Burnley player's leg. But VAR froze it on that more than once.
Click to expand...

They can review it if it’s a potential red card, but then issue a yellow if it’s decided to not be a sending off offence.
 
acnumber9 said:
Yeah, that’s a joke though. They’re sitting on Sky talking about how lucky Shaw and how bad a tackle it is but Brady’s tackle wasn’t just denying a goal scoring opportunity, it was high and reckless with no intent of getting the ball.
Click to expand...

Total fecking farce, I agree. VAR, eh? We sacrifice entertainment to avoid controversy and eradicate obvious mistakes by referees. Going brilliantly so far.
 
You’d have to feel for Maguire. An absolute worldie header getting chalked off for some phantom foul. And to add to the misery, the ‘VAR check’ lasted all of 0.87 seconds.

Incredible.
 
bosnian_red said:
That's fine to think it should be a red and do a check. They can't end up changing a free kick and yellow to another free kick and yellow though, that's the point. There are 3 options for VAR to conclude - a red for Brady with United free kick, a red for Shaw with Burnley free kick, or keep the yellow for Brady with a United free kick. They literally aren't allowed to change it the way they did.
Click to expand...
I thought this.

They’ve re-refereed the game which I keep hearing is what VAR isn’t supposed to do.
 
Cpt Negative said:
Amazing considering every ref knows reckless tackles can still be given as a red if the game has stopped
Click to expand...

I suppose this at least explains why Friend was still watching the Brady clip again, even though he'd clearly decided it was a foul by Shaw by then.
And clearly didn't deem it a violent conduct job, which you correctly state could still be given as red, irrespective of the game being brought back.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Pusma? And can you name another incident in the history of VAR where they checked for a foul in the buildup to a freekick and/or red card?
Click to expand...

I remember a weird scenario in a Liverpool game where someone arguably fouled a Liverpool player before TAA then handled it in the box.
And about 10secs later Liverpool had scored and it was allowed?
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
I thought this.

They’ve re-refereed the game which I keep hearing is what VAR isn’t supposed to do.
Click to expand...
Yup. I'm ok with them thinking Shaw's should be a foul. But the only result of that is no red for Brady, and even that is questionable because according to VAR's rules, the only change there could have been if Shaw's should have been a red.
 
Sandikan said:
I suppose this at least explains why Friend was still watching the Brady clip again, even though he'd clearly decided it was a foul by Shaw by then.
And clearly didn't deem it a violent conduct job, which you correctly state could still be given as red, irrespective of the game being brought back.
Click to expand...

Did he, though? He watched that from one camera angle, from miles away. Didn’t get anything like the scrutiny he gave Shaw.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Not to mention the first time in about 50 attempts that he’s won a header in the opposition box and got it on target.
Click to expand...

He gets quite a few on target. But they're always exactly into the keeper's hands.
That was a sensational header today.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Pusma? And can you name another incident in the history of VAR where they checked for a foul in the buildup to a freekick and/or red card?
Click to expand...
Pusma is a short, emphatic rhetorical question. I can think of plenty of decisions where a penalty decision was not given because even though there was a foul, there was a previous offside call.

A red card and a goal scoring opportunity is as game changing as it comes, stands to reason that something happening 2 seconds prior would be taken into account.

Edit:The only thing that should be exempt from this is violent conduct, which should be penalised whatever happened beforehand, but that wasn't the case here.
 
I'm certain Utd had a decision recently where play was pulled back aftet a yellow card was given (that was never a yellow card )
Yellow card stuck though so why didn't Bradys yellow stick when it was a stonewall yellow anywhere on the pitch.
 
El Zoido said:
The problem isn’t VAR it’s that they’re still making the wrong decisions. VAR in principle is fine.
Click to expand...
There will never be the right decisions. Not with this stupid accuracy they’re looking et minimal contacts in slow mo, every incident could go either way. It’s a mess
 
bosnian_red said:
Yup. I'm ok with them thinking Shaw's should be a foul. But the only result of that is no red for Brady, and even that is questionable because according to VAR's rules, the only change there could have been if Shaw's should have been a red.
Click to expand...
My thoughts on the matter aswell; if VAR is used like this do we have to forensically analyse throw ins/corners to ensure the ball went out off the correct player etc. prior to goals from every set piece.

As you say, Shaw can be red carded there but he’s basically rewound the game about 15 secs & started it again.
 
bosnian_red said:
That's fine to think it should be a red and do a check. They can't end up changing a free kick and yellow to another free kick and yellow though, that's the point. There are 3 options for VAR to conclude - a red for Brady with United free kick, a red for Shaw with Burnley free kick, or keep the yellow for Brady with a United free kick. They literally aren't allowed to change it the way they did.
Click to expand...

Yes they can, because the red card for Brady would not have been given for dangerous play. He's denied a goalscoring opportunity, and so the situation is treated the same as when a goal is scored. There is a foul in the build up. The ref can punish that foul and give Shaw a yellow for it. He can also give Shaw a yellow because VAR wanted to review his tackle for a red.
 
cvb said:
Yes they can, because the red card for Brady would not have been given for dangerous play. He's denied a goalscoring opportunity, and so the situation is treated the same as when a goal is scored. There is a foul in the build up. The ref can punish that foul and give Shaw a yellow for it. He can also give Shaw a yellow because VAR wanted to review his tackle for a red.
Click to expand...
IF they gave Brady a red, then yes they can do that. But he gave Brady a yellow. So he can't. Or shouldn't be able to. Otherwise it's a very slippery slope.
 
My thoughts on a way to implement VAR:

Any reviews are limited to be watched in real time, with no slow motion or still footage and the ref only has a limited number of times to view the incident (say 5 times). This way it would definitely have to have been an error and clear for them to see to overturn. Even think they should do this on offside calls, so we are not looking at an individual pixel to put someone offside, but a judgement call by someone watching at full speed. If they cannot determine it properly then there obviously wasn’t much in it and the call on the field stands.
 
Sandikan said:
I remember a weird scenario in a Liverpool game where someone arguably fouled a Liverpool player before TAA then handled it in the box.
And about 10secs later Liverpool had scored and it was allowed?
Click to expand...

Yeah and I remember a time when Maguire had Azpilacueta in a headlock and nothing.
 
Stactix said:
I'm certain Utd had a decision recently where play was pulled back aftet a yellow card was given (that was never a yellow card )
Yellow card stuck though so why didn't Bradys yellow stick when it was a stonewall yellow anywhere on the pitch.
Click to expand...
That was for dissent if we’re remembering the same incident. De Gea against Everton I think.
 
cvb said:
Yes they can, because the red card for Brady would not have been given for dangerous play. He's denied a goalscoring opportunity, and so the situation is treated the same as when a goal is scored. There is a foul in the build up. The ref can punish that foul and give Shaw a yellow for it. He can also give Shaw a yellow because VAR wanted to review his tackle for a red.
Click to expand...
But his foul was every bit as dangerous as Shaw’s. I don’t know why the scrutiny is only on the goal scoring chance when he lunges in at knee height.
 
This wasn't football. The officials are arbitrarily going back in time to invent decisions to prevent a difficult and game changing decision. Shaw's phantom 'foul' and yellow card was invented because the officials were scared to send off the Burnley player. Maguire's superb headed goal was disallowed - for what? One of the worst decisions I have ever seen and yet the VAR doesn't even review it for accuracy.
 
How far back can they go to check a foul that the referee has played on? My understanding is that they can only go back more than a few seconds if it's a red card or a penalty, in which case they shouldn't have been able to bring the play back to the Shaw challenge unless they decided it was a red. Although I do agree it was a foul, it certainly wasn't a red and IMO even a yellow is harsh.
 
MadDogg said:
How far back can they go to check a foul that the referee has played on? My understanding is that they can only go back more than a few seconds if it's a red card or a penalty, in which case they shouldn't have been able to bring the play back to the Shaw challenge unless they decided it was a red. Although I do agree it was a foul, it certainly wasn't a red and IMO even a yellow is harsh.
Click to expand...

im sure we had a goal scored against us, where there was a clear foul on half the time between these incidents.

how far back you can go should be clarified.
 
Shaws was a yellow for sure. But Maguire did nothing! That was a great headed goal by Slabhead (in about 174 attempts)
 
MadDogg said:
How far back can they go to check a foul that the referee has played on? My understanding is that they can only go back more than a few seconds if it's a red card or a penalty, in which case they shouldn't have been able to bring the play back to the Shaw challenge unless they decided it was a red. Although I do agree it was a foul, it certainly wasn't a red and IMO even a yellow is harsh.
Click to expand...

Back to the start of that attacking phase I think, which is a subjective call. If there had been a few more passes in-between then Brady could easily have been sent off.
 
MadDogg said:
How far back can they go to check a foul that the referee has played on? My understanding is that they can only go back more than a few seconds if it's a red card or a penalty, in which case they shouldn't have been able to bring the play back to the Shaw challenge unless they decided it was a red. Although I do agree it was a foul, it certainly wasn't a red and IMO even a yellow is harsh.
Click to expand...
There is 10 seconds between the two incidents.
 
The ball goes backwards to the byline and Maguire has to pick it up.
Surely the attacking phase starts at Harry?
 
I agree the ref and VAR were terrible today.
The Shaw booking and Maguire goal for us, but also I think Burnley should've had a pen for that Maguire handball in the 88th min.

I was fuming at the 2 decisions against us though - especially the Maguire "foul". Honestly how often does that get given as a foul? I swear it's just a toss up at this point
 
The shaw/Brady thing can be explained by what they were 'checking' for.

They were checking the Brady foul for 'denying a goalscoring oppourtunity' which couldn't be a goalscoring opportunity because after checking the shaw tackle for 'possible red card' they decided that was a foul that warranted a yellow card. I think they shouldn't have re scinded the yellow for Brady as it was a poor tackle and weather or not it happened after a foul, it still happened but other than that the decision was probably the right one.

What's utterly mind boggling is they took a long time mulling over a contentious decision, but for maguires disallowed goal that is an absolute travesty they had one quick look and decided the ref who was miles away from the incident in the first place was 100% right even though the evidence infront of them looked like a 100% clean and frankly brilliant goal. Its exactly what VAR was bought in for to clean up blatant referee howlers but they just ignored it. Needs investigating IMO.
 
Just saw the Keane goal against Wolves. Two hands on the back of the defender, obviously no foul given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.