Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

[dannyrhinos89]

Seems like whiner klopp got his wish.

Kevin "liverpool" friend is blatantly letting it get to him. Since that comment he's been involved in many piss poor decisions against us.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Rodri was too far from the ball to matter is my guess

I'd guess, though we see flags go up for offside when a striker is chasing a ball down that's 20 yards in front of him... Should it matter that he's going away from goal?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

So by this standard you can just have your striker stand behind the last defender, someone pass the defender the ball, and then tackle him as soon as he touches it.

Bit daft really.

It’s beyond daft. Plus the rules say he’s offside if he “challenges for the ball”. Standing beside someone and nicking the ball of them as soon as they control it is challenging for the ball, by any sane definition.

 

[cyberman]

So then you could argue that the player behind him affected him and his touch passively making him offside? Not sure he knew he was there though.

I think I’m reaching slightly but I find the debate interesting!

Itd the other way. Him not caring about Rodri points to Rodri not affecting his play. He just fecked it up.
Itd like Karius v Benzema when he threw it right to him and scousers said he was stopping the keeper making a pass. The keeper had the chance to make that pass and he fecked it up.
Its the same principle here. Or not, who am i really.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Itd the other way. Him not caring about Rodri points to Rodri not affecting his play. He just fecked it up.
Itd like Karius v Benzema when he threw it right to him and scousers said he was stopping the keeper making a pass. The keeper had the chance to make that pass and he fecked it up.
Its the same principle here. Or not, who am i really.

back to the game for me! Thanks for talking with me.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I think that is spot on.

One of the things that VAR has done is highlight areas where the laws of the game are simply not fit for purpose.

IFAB has been fairly interventionist recently and their overarching principle is to bring the laws into line with what football expects. As this incident clearly has the majority of people thinking it should be offside and the others arguing simply why it isn't I can see it being changed shortly.

Let's just hope they do it more successfully than hand ball.

 

[bosnian_red]

It’s another classic VAR induced frustration. In real time there’s no problem with the ref missing that. They can almost sense whether or not Fred has been fouled. Even the sound of the challenge can help an experienced ref make a judgement call. Was there enough contact to knock him over? Or is he trying to make a meal out of minimal contact? And most sensible fans would have absolutely no problem with the decision, one way or another.

But in the VAR era, where every big call gets the scrutiny of multiple slo mo replays then that has to be a penalty. So it’s fecking infuriating that it’s not.

I know I’m like a broken record about VAR but it’s such a load of bullshit. I like football a lot and this wankery is ruining the game, it really is. Every bloody game we play has maddening incidents in them. It’s not right.

Yup 100%. I was all for it at the beginning. But 2.5 years in, I hate it. Every goal you hesitate on celebrating, look with a microscope in case there might be an offside somewhere, in case somebody nicked somebody with a marginal foul, nicked a hand, whatever. Penalties you get infuriated over because now that VAR is here, you expect it to be 100% accurate. The ridiculous offside calls where they're decided by a guy on a monitor hand drawing lines that he picks out manually (human error) to decide if someone's toe nail or sleeve is 1 cm offside. The assistants delaying to flag anything offside, which is fine for tight calls, but ignoring the blatant ones too just because they are scared of making a mistake. Refs letting the play run because they don't want to make a mistake and have VAR to lean on, but the irony there being that random VAR refs will only chime in if it's an obvious error (so the original intention of the ref letting it run to get a 2nd look basically goes to waste).

It's been a complete disaster in the prem. I'm not sure how it is around Europe, all indications seem to point to much less controversy/more acceptance, so I'm pretty sure they aren't being dumb like with the offsides here, but it's been so poorly implemented in the premier league and it needs to change. As it is, I miss the days before VAR and it's not even close.

 

[giorno]

I'd guess, though we see flags go up for offside when a striker is chasing a ball down that's 20 yards in front of him... Should it matter that he's going away from goal?

I know, it's a bit of a loophole because the defender is in the way and makes a play here

It’s beyond daft. Plus the rules say he’s offside if he “challenges for the ball”. Standing beside someone and nicking the ball of them as soon as they control it is challenging for the ball, by any sane definition.

But he's not challening him when chests it down. The challenge happens after it. That's all that matters

Once again, it's a loophole and definitely should be looked at. But as it stands, the LOTG say it's not offside

 

[Pogue Mahone]

People need to think about the spirit of laws. That’s how they should be interpreted. This loophole is clearly meant to stop players being offside from a deliberate pass by a defender. So they can’t deliberately win an offside free-kick. The ball that puts them offside should be played by someone on their own team. Which is fair enough.

It’s obviously not intended to keep Rodri onside when he sneaks up behind a player and tackles him the moment he controls it. Fecking madness that there isn’t room for common sense here.

Of course, I blame VAR.

 

[ReddBalls]

Not sure how that Fred one wasn't called back for a pen, it's blatant.

Kevin Friend is in the VAR room according to the Norwegian broadcaster of the game.

 

[giorno]

People need to think about the spirit of laws. That’s how they should be interpreted.

I agree, but refs are told to apply the LOTG, not their spirit

As always i blame IFAB

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Read it again. It specifically mentions affecting the defender's line of sight or challening him for the ball. Rodri does neither. The challenge happens after Mings has made a deliberate play

I read it the first time thanks.

I don't think (or not sure) that Ming's playing the ball should nullify Rodri challenging Ming's coming from an offside position.

I get the rule about a defender touching the ball (I don't agree with it but I get it) but if Rodri can instantly challenge him (even if after Ming's touches the ball) after coming back from an offside position, I've got no idea how someone wrote that rule and thought this was an acceptable scenario.

I think it was written for situations where a defender plays a ball to an opponent who was in an offside position but by deliberately playing it, it's ok ... presumably to stop defenders seeing a player behind them and going "I'll just kick the ball backwards and the ref has to give me a freekick for offside" while the opponent (jogging back) says "what was I supposed to do ref?"

 

[padr81]

I read it the first time thanks.

I don't think (or not sure) that Ming's playing the ball should nullify Rodri challenging Ming's coming from an offside position.

I get the rule about a defender touching the ball (I don't agree with it but I get it) but if Rodri can instantly challenge him (even if after Ming's touches the ball) after coming back from an offside position, I've got no idea how someone wrote that rule and thought this was an acceptable scenario.

I think it was written for situations where a defender plays a ball to an opponent who was in an offside position but by deliberately playing it, it's ok ... presumably to stop defenders seeing a player behind them and going "I'll just kick the ball backwards and the ref has to give me a freekick for offside" while the opponent (jogging back) says "what was I supposed to do ref?"

Thats the thing though, the rule itself is a joke. No ones arguing that. What we're arguing is the rule stupid and all as it is was applied correctly tonight. Just like half the stupid handballs earlier in the season.

 

[giorno]

I read it the first time thanks.

I don't think (or not sure) that Ming's playing the ball should nullify Rodri challenging Ming's coming from an offside position.

I get the rule about a defender touching the ball (I don't agree with it but I get it) but if Rodri can instantly challenge him (even if after Ming's touches the ball) after coming back from an offside position, I've got no idea how someone wrote that rule and thought this was an acceptable scenario.

I think it was written for situations where a defender plays a ball to an opponent who was in an offside position but by deliberately playing it, it's ok ... presumably to stop defenders seeing a player behind them and going "I'll just kick the ball backwards and the ref has to give me a freekick for offside" while the opponent (jogging back) says "what was I supposed to do ref?"

Most likely they didn't really think of this scenario when the law was written. It's a loophole

But by the LOTG, that's how it works. And as i've said, refs are told to apply the LOTG, not their spirit

 

[VorZakone]

I just watched a clip of the moment. Wow that's hard to judge.

But I'm leaning towards it being onside. In this particular situation IMO it's Mings' responsibility to know there is somebody still behind him.

 

[Rossa]

Fred should have had a pen, right?

 

[Berbaclass]

 

[Zlatan 7]

So because he touches it, it’s deliberate. What is he supposed to do? Leave it go by him? Catch it? What has he got to do there, there’s a player offside behind him

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Even explaining the rule, his own words (and he was a ref) sound contradictory.

He said "Rodri wasn't gaining an advantage by being where he was, that's the law and the fact that Mings makes a deliberate play on the ball, negates the fact that the player was in an offside position."

Just read what he says... the player is (quote) "in an offside position" but even though he tackles a player and sets up a goal, he (quote) "wasn't gaining an advantage"

I'm trying to think of another rule/situation where a player goes outside of a law, gains an advantage but something else that happened after the law breach, negates it and a goal is allowed.

I get the law, I don't blame City or the ref, I get why VAR didn't say anything but it's the stupidest rule I've heard.

We're watching VAR draw lines on a pitch and say a players sleeve or armpit or the inside of his knee meant he was offside but this isn't.

Also, Sheriff Fatman ref needs to learn common sense. He can see Rodri WAS yards behind Ming's and I assume he either knows the rule or trusts VAR. Go over to Dean Smith and say "Dean, I know it looks wierd, VAR have checked, there's a reason it was allowed. I don't want to send you off so calm down and look at it after the game".

No...

 

[Tony247]

Fred should have had a pen, right?

Yeh. Time for Ole to start moaning.

 

[Dan_F]

Fred should have had a pen, right?

It was pretty clear. I don’t even know under what circumstances VAR tells the ref to go to the monitor any more. Surely it doesn’t have to be clear and obvious to tell the ref to go and have a look. There just has to be doubt, and if there isn’t doubt when taking out Fred’s standing leg, I’m not sure when there would be.

 

[Anustart89]

It's quite obvious that it was a pen, and we would've rightly had it given if it had happened before Klopp made our penalties a national talking point.

 

[RUCK4444]

Fred should have had a pen, right?

Feckin right! Those are given time and again, if that was given against us I wouldn’t even question it.

It’s a foul anywhere else on the pitch.

 

[padr81]

Even explaining the rule, his own words (and he was a ref) sound contradictory.

He said "Rodri wasn't gaining an advantage by being where he was, that's the law and the fact that Mings makes a deliberate play on the ball, negates the fact that the player was in an offside position."

Just read what he says... the player is (quote) "in an offside position" but even though he tackles a player and sets up a goal, he (quote) "wasn't gaining an advantage"

I'm trying to think of another rule/situation where a player goes outside of a law, gains an advantage but something else that happened after the law breach, negates it and a goal is allowed.

I get the law, I don't blame City or the ref, I get why VAR didn't say anything but it's the stupidest rule I've heard.

We're watching VAR draw lines on a pitch and say a players sleeve or armpit or the inside of his knee meant he was offside but this isn't.

Also, Sheriff Fatman ref needs to learn common sense. He can see Rodri WAS yards behind Ming's and I assume he either knows the rule or trusts VAR. Go over to Dean Smith and say "Dean, I know it looks wierd, VAR have checked, there's a reason it was allowed. I don't want to send you off so calm down and look at it after the game".

No...

120% this, a bit of common sense, there is the argument Villa should know the rules but in a situation like that where they've defended like lions against 28 shots by throwing themselves in front of the ball all the ref has to do is say "Calm down Dean, I don't like the rule but thats the rule, maybe even explain it to him".

 

[charlenefan]

yeah that obscure MLS goal was definitely the one you had in mind when you said tons.

 

[Bubz27]

Rodri doesn't affect his ability to make the play

Forget the rule for a second, this is utter nonsense.

 

[padr81]

Forget the rule for a second, this is utter nonsense.

Not really, if he was worried about Rodri he'd have headed it away. Rodri has zero effect on his first play of the ball which is his chest control. We all know he has a big effect just after but the stupid rule deems his first play the only one that matters.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Forget the rule for a second, this is utter nonsense.

yes, it’s one of those that, played to the rule it’s correct - but clearly the rule is bollocks. What happened should not have been allowed.

you are penalising the defender for trying to play the ball. If he missed it, or consciously let it run, then the city player couldn’t have made a play for the ball. Madness.

it’s all made worse by the fact you can’t rely on the linesman to put their flag up for even the most obvious offsides.

 

[Bubz27]

Not really, if he was worried about Rodri he'd have headed it away. Rodri has zero effect on his first play of the ball which is his chest control. We all know he has a big effect just after but the stupid rule deems his first play the only one that matters.

An opposition player two yards away from you always has an affect on the play. I'm sure you've played football and know there's a huge difference between recieving the ball under pressure or not.

The difference here is Mings thought Rodri was offside so couldn't get involved. Just by that alone, he's affecting the play. That's why he wasn't "worried" about Rodri and didn't just head it away.

 

[Bubz27]

yes, it’s one of those that, played to the rule it’s correct - but clearly the rule is bollocks. What happened should not have been allowed.

you are penalising the defender for trying to play the ball. If he missed it, or consciously let it run, then the city player couldn’t have made a play for the ball. Madness.

it’s all made worse by the fact you can’t rely on the linesman to put their flag up for even the most obvious offsides.

I'm no expert but I saw someone else saying if Rodri then challenges for the ball then he is offside. And no one can say Rodri didn't challenge for the ball.

 

[padr81]

An opposition player two yards away from you always has an affect on the play. I'm sure you've played football and know there's a huge difference between recieving the ball under pressure or not.

The difference here is Mings thought Rodri was offside so couldn't get involved. Just by that alone, he's affecting the play. That's why he wasn't "worried" about Rodri and didn't just head it away.

When Mings started to control the ball he didn't even know Rodri was there (thats the argument by most posters on here for why the rule is stupid). If he knew Rodri was there and within 2 yards he's not chesting that ball in a million years. Which is an example of why the rule is stupid.

 

[padr81]

I'm no expert but I saw someone else saying if Rodri then challenges for the ball then he is offside. And no one can say Rodri didn't challenge for the ball.

Only if he challenges for the ball while Mings chests it, once Mings has chested it its fair game as Mings has played the ball and started a new phase of play, the City pass doesn't count anymore so Rodri can do as he likes.

Edit: When I say fair game, I mean fair game in terms of the rules as its painfully obvious its not fair on Mings.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

I'm no expert but I saw someone else saying if Rodri then challenges for the ball then he is offside. And no one can say Rodri didn't challenge for the ball.

don’t think anyone is an expert!

It appears if he challenged for the long ball from the city player, he’s offside. But the second Mings (consciously) touched the ball, it’s fair play to tackle him - even if coming from behind when 10 yards offside. Bonkers.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

When Mings started to control the ball he didn't even know Rodri was there (thats the argument by most posters on here for why the rule is stupid). If he knew Rodri was there and within 2 yards he's not chesting that ball in a million years. Which is an example of why the rule is stupid.

100% agree. A defender in that position shouldn’t need to be looking behind him in case someone’s loitering

 

[Nick7]

I'm no expert but I saw someone else saying if Rodri then challenges for the ball then he is offside. And no one can say Rodri didn't challenge for the ball.

if Rodri challenged for the ball before Mings controlled it, he would have been offside. But as soon as Mings controls the ball, Rodri is no longer in an offside position and is free to tackle.

when the opposition have control of the ball you cannot be in an offside position.

 

[Tomuś]

Seems like whiner klopp got his wish.

Kevin "liverpool" friend is blatantly letting it get to him. Since that comment he's been involved in many piss poor decisions against us.

My first thought. I mean, the decision was so ridiculous that I didn't know if to be amused or angry.

 

[Bubz27]

When Mings started to control the ball he didn't even know Rodri was there (thats the argument by most posters on here for why the rule is stupid). If he knew Rodri was there and within 2 yards he's not chesting that ball in a million years. Which is an example of why the rule is stupid.

That's conjecture. Me or you has no idea Mings didn't know. Unless Mings has come out and said it?

And I've already said, it's very possible he did know and made the decision to bring it down knowing Rodri was 15 yards offside when the ball was played. If it was marginal and Rodri was on his back and it wasn't clear whether he was offside or not, then sure Mings would never bring the ball down. But it wasn't so he didn't.

The rule can be interpreted to say he was onside and can be interpreted to say he was offside. That's ridiculous in and of itself. If that happened against my team I'd be absolutely fuming, and I think it's safe to assume so would every single other can in the country. Therefore I can't see the logic in anyone trying to argue that it was the right call and people should just leave it at that.

 

[MikeKing]

Why isn't there a lot of noise about the Fred penalty in the aftermath? Is it because controversial VAR decisions never gets discussed when United is involved? No. Usually they get major headlines. So why? When will the media point out the hypocrisy by Klopp who has Mané and Salah diving as a tactic and has gotten an incredible amount of soft penalties and has conspired with actual Liverpool supporters to misuse their powers because they are working on tv as pundits, so they get to put pressure on the referees to give them penalties and deny United clear goals and penalties. It's beyond unfair, it's corruption and if those comments didn't get investigated - then they need to investigate the comments and the refs now, after evidence of clear misuse of VAR to not correct clear and obvious decisions in favour of Liverpool in the chase for the title.

 

[Bubz27]

if Rodri challenged for the ball before Mings controlled it, he would have been offside. But as soon as Mings controls the ball, Rodri is no longer in an offside position and is free to tackle.

when the opposition have control of the ball you cannot be in an offside position.

If that goal was scored against United you'd be fine with it?

Rodri is offside by any logical explanation because he's two yards away from Mings when he brings it down. Anyone who's ever played football will tell you recieving the ball that close to an opposition player affects you. It's as simple as that.

 

[Bubz27]

don’t think anyone is an expert!

It appears if he challenged for the long ball from the city player, he’s offside. But the second Mings (consciously) touched the ball, it’s fair play to tackle him - even if coming from behind when 10 yards offside. Bonkers.

My argument is he affects Mings bringing the ball down. It's possible to affect the play without challenging for the ball.