The pass or cross normally goes back ie behind the ball so that wouldn't work.
But I guess I forgot you couldn't be offside because now you say it, its familar
Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
But I guess I forgot you couldn't be offside because now you say it, its familar
The Shaw decision was the right call on the replays - even though I thought it was a great tackle at the time.
That Maguire decision however was awful. Not sure how VAR sees that and decided it was the right call.
That Maguire decision however was awful. Not sure how VAR sees that and decided it was the right call.
That's just false equivocation.
There's every chance he didn't see the tackle, or didn't see contact in it, as it proved when he then changed his own decision. I don't buy that they've 'made him' do anything either. He can always stick to his own decision, as Graham Scott has already done (twice already, to my knowledge, and egregiously at that, for shame).
You can't argue that he didn't see the other incident as he was the one who bloody whistled for a foul.
The first one is for something he didn't see and the second one is for something he did see but interpreted differently.
I think it's because it wasn't a clear and obvious error. The ref gave the foul for Maguire having his hand on the back of their player and given it did happen (albeit soft), VAR wasn't going to overrule it. It was one of those incidents that if the ref gave the goal, VAR wouldn't overrule it either. I don't think that makes VAR right, but the issue was more with the ref I believe.
I think most here would say that it was a clear an obvious error. You get contact like that 90% of the time people go up for headers. Maguire had a good run at it and was (literally) head and shoulders above the defender who was never getting to the ball.
The Shaw one I can understand, yellow was the correct decision imo, despite getting the ball it was a dangerous challenge.
If I understand the rules correctly (does anyone?) then this doesnt make sense to me:
Situation A
A player is seen as being offside during an attacking phase but play is allowed to continue. If that phase then results in a goal VAR will decide on the offisde. However, if a situation occurs during that phase after the offside call then a player could still commit an offence which would result in a red card, and that decision will stand even if the offside decision is upheld and play is bought back. Its foul play and a free kick awarded
Situation B
Shaw tackles an opponent but play continues, and is followed by an attacking phase in which a defender commits an offence which should result in a red card. VAR reviews and judges Shaws tackle as foul play and a free kick awarded. The offender not only escapes further review but also has his yellow card rescinded
I'm not sure I understand how those two incidents are different. If a player can commit and be held accountable for a red card offence in situation A, why not in situation B?
Situation A
A player is seen as being offside during an attacking phase but play is allowed to continue. If that phase then results in a goal VAR will decide on the offisde. However, if a situation occurs during that phase after the offside call then a player could still commit an offence which would result in a red card, and that decision will stand even if the offside decision is upheld and play is bought back. Its foul play and a free kick awarded
Situation B
Shaw tackles an opponent but play continues, and is followed by an attacking phase in which a defender commits an offence which should result in a red card. VAR reviews and judges Shaws tackle as foul play and a free kick awarded. The offender not only escapes further review but also has his yellow card rescinded
I'm not sure I understand how those two incidents are different. If a player can commit and be held accountable for a red card offence in situation A, why not in situation B?
I have grave concerns at the moment with Bruno clearly placing the ball outside the corner quadrant markings when taking corners. It was evident last night a couple of times which the TV cameras picked up... It's only a matter of time before we get a goal ruled out due to his placement of the ball.. 
Red cards in relation to denying a goalscoring opportunity are treated differently to other reds (such as for serious foul play or violent conduct). The former depends on it being a legit goalscoring opportunity, so can be cancelled out in a situation where a foul occurred beforehand that should see the attack disregarded. Because if it wasn't a legit opportunity, the defender shouldn't be punished for stopping it. That doesn't apply to the latter types of red cards though, as they're offences independent of whether the attack was legit or not.
So had Brady been judged to have committed violent conduct say, the Shaw foul wouldn't have mattered and he could still have been sent off. But because they were looking at a red for DOGSO, it does.
According to the explanation tweeted higher up, Brady could have been sent off for reckless/violent play even though the game would restart with a freekick for Burnley with play basically stopping at the point of the Shaw foul. But he can’t get sent off for DOSOG.
I suspect this is something that’s changed after the Van Dijk injury. If the guidance they allegedly followed yesterday was in place in Liverpool vs Everton then Pickford should have been sent off. Yet another example of VAR causing goalposts to be moved with the season already underway. And another piece of evidence for “most unfair PL season ever”. Caused by a technology that was supposed to make the game fairer. Go figure.
Last edited:
Did the ref break the VAR rules for Shaw's yellow? I thought that you can use VAR only to give red cards, not yellows. So, if Shaw wasn't a red card, then it should have been ignored and give the red card to S'oton player for stopping Cavani as the last man.
Don't get me wrong, this is just a technacility. Shaw deserved the yellow card.
Don't get me wrong, this is just a technacility. Shaw deserved the yellow card.
Don't think so. As far as I'm aware the rules were the same at the time of VVD injury, the VAR just outright fecked up. They should have looked at the penalty shout (and ruled it out for offside) and then separately looked at it for a possible red card (which would have stood regardless of the offside). But instead they only did the penalty review and skipped the red card part.
Oliver: "We got sucked too much into going step by step as opposed to thinking of the bigger process, which was considering the challenge as well and not just the fact it can’t be a penalty. We should have restarted with the offside, as we did, but with a different punishment for Jordan Pickford.”
That went through my mind too.
That's not really true. Var can't review standard yellow cards. Once play is stopped for something else though, whatever it may be, and the referee had a better view of it, he is then within his right to issue additional yellow cards, and I don't see why he shouldn't.
Ah. Ok. I would get annoyed by that if it was any other team than Liverpool affected. As it was them who got fecked over I’m going to find it hilarious. I’m warming to VAR already!
Ah, this makes sense then.
It's such a weird one for me. Shaw's tackle is definitely a foul in today's game, and some refs would have sent him off.
But, how far back are we going to go when reviewing other incidents? Are they going to do this for everything? Who decides? I think back to last season when Romeu decided he'd had enough of Greenwood and tried a leg breaker - barely even got a look in. What is a 'phase of play'? If it was City and they held the ball for 6 minutes, but fouled to win it initially, would VAR have to watch the whole damn thing?
But, how far back are we going to go when reviewing other incidents? Are they going to do this for everything? Who decides? I think back to last season when Romeu decided he'd had enough of Greenwood and tried a leg breaker - barely even got a look in. What is a 'phase of play'? If it was City and they held the ball for 6 minutes, but fouled to win it initially, would VAR have to watch the whole damn thing?
The Shaw yellow is correct. If he hadn't won the ball it would have been red. That was actually good refereeing in fairness and how VAR should be used.
Brady's one is a red for me, it's just an awful challenge. For balance it's more clumsy than malicious so maybe a yellow is 'ok' but I was surprised that wasn't red.
Maguire's header is a joke decision - basically any defender who knows they are mismatched or out of position just needs to back in, go down and make sure there is some kind of contact from the attacker. Awful use of VAR and also just shows a real lack of refereeing ability/understanding of the game.
Brady's one is a red for me, it's just an awful challenge. For balance it's more clumsy than malicious so maybe a yellow is 'ok' but I was surprised that wasn't red.
Maguire's header is a joke decision - basically any defender who knows they are mismatched or out of position just needs to back in, go down and make sure there is some kind of contact from the attacker. Awful use of VAR and also just shows a real lack of refereeing ability/understanding of the game.
The entire length of the pitch, apparently.
I think it's until their is a break in possession, or about 20 seconds or so (on the ref's discretion)... don't quote me on that though
Yesterday there were 2 passes and about 10 seconds between the Shaw tackle and the Brady foul, so definitely the same phase.
Brady wasn't serious foul play so when play was pulled back a red can't be given. It's also why the yellow was rescinded
The funny thing is, if Mee had been say, 2 yards in front of Brady... I don't think Friend would have gone to the monitor as the Brady challenge wouldn't have been reviewed as a red card and the VAR had already determined there wasn't an obvious error in the Shaw one... so we'd have just got a free kick.
So if Friend had decided to send Shaw off, that would have been - in a roundabout way - solely due to the fact that Brady committed a red card offence.
So if Friend had decided to send Shaw off, that would have been - in a roundabout way - solely due to the fact that Brady committed a red card offence.
Dermot Gallagher said on Sky that Shaw decision was correct. If Brady wasn't in the same phase of play it would've been a red card and the Maguire goal should've stood.
Ok understood. That actually makes sense in fairness. Really then, the big error is with Maguire's header only.
VAR/The ref didn't think this was worthy of a red yesterday... and this challenge is all magnitudes worse then Shaw's in my opinion.
That should have been a red... I think between this and the Shaw challenges there's a good illustration of - from similar contacts - what's a yellow and what's a red.
That should have been a red... I think between this and the Shaw challenges there's a good illustration of - from similar contacts - what's a yellow and what's a red.
That's a horrible tackle nowhere near the ball basically stamps on him with intent, How has he got away with that?
The biggest issue for me with VAR is 'the clear and obvious' nonsense, so much get missed because it's not 'clear and obvious' when it actually is but its not clear and obvious enough.
For me if the ref gives a pen/redcard/disallows a goal he should review the footage iregardless just to sense check himself.
And then if the VAR spots something he has clearly missed a bad tackle/possible penalty etc then again he should be told to review the footage himself and make the decision.
The should remove the idea of using VAR for clear and obvious errors and instead use it to make sure the ref is 100% happy with his decision, unless the VAR ref is 100% convinced the on field ref has made the right call he should be encouraged to have second look.
Van Dijk handballs the ball, hoofs it to Lallana, ball drops to Mané who scores. Officials say "too far back to overturn".
I've given up celebrating goals like I once did. I'm waiting for a VAR check every time to see if there was a foul 30 seconds before or a boot lace is offside. I genuinely cannot remember when I last celebrated a goal as and when it was scored. By the time I find out that it has stood it's too late to have any kind of reaction like I used to.
This video is errant, self canceling nonsense from start to finish and narrated by someone who appears to be Microsoft Sam's cousin. "Sadio Main"; "the technology awarded". Where have you found this?
It was literally the first video I found describing the incident. Disregarding the video, which I agree is shit, the point is that a hoof from the middle of the pitch that immediately leads to a goal isn’t counting as “leading to a goal” and “too far back” in some instances but in others the action where the ball is won is, which just highlights the massive inconsistency on a game-by-game basis.
Straight red whether accidental or not.
Very similar to the one that cnut from Southampton did on greenwood last season.
Yes but that wasn't even given as a free kick so I suppose this wasn't either. PL refs
Well the farcical delivery and phrasing is an indicator that the person isn't the sharpest tool, but I'd have to question the veracity of the claims as well. When he says "VAR say" I'm not asking that he should meet some author date standard, but he can at least make something akin to a journalistic reference where you'd know when was this said and by whom. Because VAR don't normally come out and explain their every decision. This could just as well be some random bloke on twitter interpolating his own explanation like the one quoted by doctor Mahone et al. earlier. I have to ask whether that was given as explanation at all.
It makes absolutely no sense to simultaneously argue that the evidence for the handball is inconclusive (which is how I remember the incident too) and also that the passage of play was "too far back", because the former renders the latter completely irrelevant. It would take an idiot to explain how he arrived at a decision in those terms, and I doubt an actual referee made those claims.
I could see a valid complaint about consistency in so far as the referee wasn't made to go to the monitor in that instance, because I don't think the whole ritual of doing so was a thing back when that happened. The way they do it now, he would probably go to the monitor himself to see if it's a handball or not.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/29/refe...n-dijk-handball-liverpool-vs-wolves-11973534/
Let's just go with this article so the discussion doesn't end up being about whether the guy doing the video is a tool or not.
The 'inconclusive handball' was with regards to Lallana, not van Dijk. As the article states, the van Dijk handball wasn't even checked due to them missing it (don't remember it myself). But if the evidence was inconclusive then, shouldn't they have gone with the call on the pitch, which was to disallow the goal?
Goal sequence starts at 30 seconds in this video.
With regards to this, there was ample time for Burnley to reset, but they chose not to do so in order to remonstrate with the referee. After the tackle, the ball went backwards to our centre half who then played it out wide left before the ball went to Cavani, so how that's the "immediate phase" whereas a long ball that directly leads to a headed assist is not "the immediate phase" is confusing, to say the least.
Oh man, I have to disable ad blocker for this. It saddens me deeply.
Alright, so it's one explanation according to Sky and another according to beIN sources, given to Wolves staff informally, and not as an official explanation (given by a man who didn't even make the decision). Not exactly what I would "VAR say".
Don't think we can conclude anything about their consistency in measuring what constitutes a passage of play from that little.
Don't think we can conclude anything about their consistency in measuring what constitutes a passage of play from that little.
I never said that "VAR says", so again you're arguing against the guy in the video that I posted and not against the point that I was making. The referee in the game had given his explanation to the Wolves bench, that's about as official as it gets, isn't it?
Regardless of which, the facts are this
1) Van Dijk has the ball accidentally hits the ball at the half-way line, plays the ball over the Wolves defence to Lallana who ends up assisting Mané for a goal. The handball is not checked with the closest explanation as to why being that it's "too far back to check".
2) Luke Shaw tackles the Burnley player ten yards outside of our box. Referee waves play on. The ball goes backwards to our centre half, who plays it out wide to the wing. Then the ball is played to Cavani who is then hauled down. This is judged as being the immediate attacking phase (see below for PL explanation, they limit it to the immediate phase).
Premier League says with regards to attacking phases
"‘The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession. ‘Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack." (emphasis mine)
Now, I think this is a clear inconsistency in that one incident that leads to the ball being played forward as a second assist is not an attacking phase whereas a tackle 30 yards further back on the pitch that leads to the ball going backwards and ends up in attack after two passes. If you don't think that's inconsistent, then that's fair enough and we'll just agree to disagree.
It's an informal explanation given (allegedly) by a man who didn't even make the decision (possibly to placate a bunch of angry blokes after a game). Perhaps that's really as official as it gets, but that's far from ideal, especially as the other alleged explanation is completely contradictory to it. You just can't see them trying to walk the cat back in such a brainless fashion, were they given a chance to explain themselves instead of a trial in absentia.
As far as my memory serves me, I'd say the two incidents are remarkably similar, and I agree that anyone with a modicum of consistency would either deem both the same attacking phase or neither.
But it's not clear that inconsistency regarding the phase of play is what made them arrive at different decisions rather than the fact that Shaw's was an obvious foul, whereas the same couldn't be said about either of the handballs.
Regarding the bit you've bolded. The key word there is "necessarily" which doesn't mean "never will". If the moment of winning the possession was eons ago it would be a pretty difficult letter of the law to abide by in every instance. I haven't watched the Liverpool incident again, but ours is 11 seconds between the two tackles, which is why the outcries of 'how long will they go back!?' seem ludicrous to me. They are perfectly within their rights to deem it as the same attacking phase.
The ability of defence to reset and 'momentum' seems like standard fare nebulous wording so as to give interpretative leeway, so you can't be in breach of that by definition.
The only valid consistency complaint has to do with them changing horses midstream in regards to whether the ref goes to the monitor or not.
Sigh.. here I go.
The Luke Shaw decision is something that has been bothering me and something I have been sensing in the undercurrent of the VAR wave that hasn't been explored yet. I'm going to try to put it into words.
Lets first look at what happened: Luke shaw went for a 50-50 with the Burnley player, got some of the ball, and the ref who was in full view of it, did not deem it to be a foul.
Then he looks at it in slo-mo and thinks, "Hang on! I see studs coming to contact with leg. Therefore, it is a possible red card offense!".
There seems to be an assumption that looking at an incident in slow motion is necessary for the referee to make a decision. It seems sensible on the face of it. If you see something happening slowly, you have more time to process whats happening and parse through what actually happened with all the knowledge possible. HOWEVER, what seems to be never really discussed and factored into the VAR protocols is that there's a ton of very relevant information lost when we watch an incident like that in slow motion. Things like "momentum" and "speed of action" are very important in determining things like "excessive force" or "potential to cause injury". So when the referee looks at the slo-mo especially with the additional emphasis on the frame where the studs meet the leg, he basically had no choice under the rules but to say its a at least a possible red card offense. Whereas in real time, he saw that as soon as Shaw got the ball he pulled out of the challenge and while the studs did meet the leg, the potential to cause injury was not as extreme as it looks.
Note here that Shaw did NOT get a red card!
Why? Because the ref knows instinctively the tackle was not that dangerous and not worthy of a red. However, by the letter of the law it really should have been a red. (I have seen Shaka Hislop of ESPN FC, among others, argue just that).
So, what are the bigger implication of this?
I think all in all, Kevin Friend probably did the right thing. However, he's getting shit on by everybody for it both ways. And therefore, I think this is an unsustainable situation. Either we take this seriously and properly contextualize the use of slow motion replays on VAR, or we risk falling to the opposite extreme where over time literally any contact between studs on player regardless of context would be red card.
I dunno, maybe people think thats for the better, but I would argue it would make football a lot more methodical, and a lot less fun.
TLDR: slo-mo replays are paradoxically less accurate depictions of an incident and should be used with care in VAR
The Luke Shaw decision is something that has been bothering me and something I have been sensing in the undercurrent of the VAR wave that hasn't been explored yet. I'm going to try to put it into words.
Lets first look at what happened: Luke shaw went for a 50-50 with the Burnley player, got some of the ball, and the ref who was in full view of it, did not deem it to be a foul.
Then he looks at it in slo-mo and thinks, "Hang on! I see studs coming to contact with leg. Therefore, it is a possible red card offense!".
There seems to be an assumption that looking at an incident in slow motion is necessary for the referee to make a decision. It seems sensible on the face of it. If you see something happening slowly, you have more time to process whats happening and parse through what actually happened with all the knowledge possible. HOWEVER, what seems to be never really discussed and factored into the VAR protocols is that there's a ton of very relevant information lost when we watch an incident like that in slow motion. Things like "momentum" and "speed of action" are very important in determining things like "excessive force" or "potential to cause injury". So when the referee looks at the slo-mo especially with the additional emphasis on the frame where the studs meet the leg, he basically had no choice under the rules but to say its a at least a possible red card offense. Whereas in real time, he saw that as soon as Shaw got the ball he pulled out of the challenge and while the studs did meet the leg, the potential to cause injury was not as extreme as it looks.
Note here that Shaw did NOT get a red card!
Why? Because the ref knows instinctively the tackle was not that dangerous and not worthy of a red. However, by the letter of the law it really should have been a red. (I have seen Shaka Hislop of ESPN FC, among others, argue just that).
So, what are the bigger implication of this?
I think all in all, Kevin Friend probably did the right thing. However, he's getting shit on by everybody for it both ways. And therefore, I think this is an unsustainable situation. Either we take this seriously and properly contextualize the use of slow motion replays on VAR, or we risk falling to the opposite extreme where over time literally any contact between studs on player regardless of context would be red card.
I dunno, maybe people think thats for the better, but I would argue it would make football a lot more methodical, and a lot less fun.
TLDR: slo-mo replays are paradoxically less accurate depictions of an incident and should be used with care in VAR
Ive just seen replays od Maguires goals and Shaws could....the goal shouldve stood. Nothing wrong with IT. Also yellow seems fair for the challenge.
The implication here is that he only watches the slow motion, as if parachuted from Neverland or something, having experienced a total recall. Were that the only thing available to him, fears of information loss would be much more understandable.
What I would hope he actually does is to just use the slow motion as the supplement piece of the jigsaw in retention. He would have seen the incident in real time just a couple of minutes ago and surely still remembers things like speed and momentum. He then just adds the zoomed in, slow motion information, and then tries to reconstruct the incident in his head.