Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

The Firestarter said:
But at the same time, there is kind of a need for it. I mean, if Shar stops the ball turns around and passes it to Watkins, is it still offside ? Clearly, there are different phases of play , but the question is how to properly delimit them.
Click to expand...
But that's completely different imo. He has it firmly under control in your scenario. Now I don't know if Watkins was actually offside (some were saying the angle made him look off just) but if VAR claim that Schars touch counted as the start of a new phase of play them we may as well all go home.
Also, the Mings situation against City was less obvious than Schars as he nearly had it fully under control but he still was pressurised massively due to Rodri's positioning which he gained from being offside.
 
That Villa goal is utterly ridiculous IF Watkins was offside (which on the eye test he appears to be). The defender is having to try and desperately reach a difficult ball because he knows he has to deal with it to prevent the player behind him having a chance on goal. If someone was able to tell him that the player was offside, he’d just leave it. Dreadful rule or dreadful interpretation - one or the other.
 


If correct (not a journalist I'd particularly trust) then what we saw in the City game would no longer happen but the Watkins goal in the subsequent game would. Which seems right to me.
 
So surprise surprise, after all that they agreed it was incorrectly given :lol: what a joke. As I argued with many of you after the incident, it was obvious that the player interfering from an offside position should always take precedent. @padr81 @Berbasbullet @arnie_ni

Ridiculous how City have been gifted 2 points more than they deserved from that match, could be all the difference come the end of season.


It states: 'Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials should prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offside offence of "interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent's ability to play the ball" should be penalised.'

In plain terms, that means that from now on, players repeating Rodri's trick would be penalised. However, goals such as that scored by Villa's Ollie Watkins, in which he came from an offside position to seize on an attempted clearance by Newcastle's Fabian Schar earlier this month, would stand as he did 'not impact Schar's ability to play the ball'.
 
Last edited:
I guess we can't really complain when they update guidance to reflect what everyone thinks should be the right intepretation. Lindelof's handball at the start of the season would no longer be given, though we obviously suffered because at the time that was the guidance.

Football really, REALLY shouldn't be this complicated to govern.
 
Was a joke that goal was allowed. It has always been treated as if it was offside, one set of refs decided to go rogue once and it led to this. Funny how they said it was the right call at the time but now guidance suddenly changed to make it offside... thats just another way to say the ref fecked up and it shouldve been offside, but making it sound like it's a new situation that never happened so it was a grey area. feck that.
 
bosnian_red said:
Was a joke that goal was allowed. It has always been treated as if it was offside, one set of refs decided to go rogue once and it led to this. Funny how they said it was the right call at the time but now guidance suddenly changed to make it offside... thats just another way to say the ref fecked up and it shouldve been offside, but making it sound like it's a new situation that never happened so it was a grey area. feck that.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They quickly spread the lie that it was "SUPPOSED" to be refereed like that to keep everybody quiet, but they knew deep down it was complete BS.

Nobody has ever deemed that as playing the ball, playing the ball has always meant passing the ball - essentially to make it that if players stand in an offside position and a defender does a back pass, the player can carry on. I remember Rooney scoring a similar goal in the CL match once.

To think that a player can stand offside and then charge at a defender from behind is allowable is just plain stupid.
 
Adam-Utd said:
Exactly. They quickly spread the lie that it was "SUPPOSED" to be refereed like that to keep everybody quiet, but they knew deep down it was complete BS.

Nobody has ever deemed that as playing the ball, playing the ball has always meant passing the ball - essentially to make it that if players stand in an offside position and a defender does a back pass, the player can carry on. I remember Rooney scoring a similar goal in the CL match once.

To think that a player can stand offside and then charge at a defender from behind is allowable is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...
Yep I completely agree, really frustrating that suddenly now they have made this statement. Could be the difference maker.
 
adnando said:
I'm curious to see if this situation will provoke a change in the rules.
Click to expand...

Was bound to happen.

Do you think that it is the scrutiny VAR brings that leads to the changes in the rules? This being the second rule change this season.

Normally I would look at a situation and think it's just a common mistake and you can't eliminate human error, but now that the refs are able to look at it again they seem to be more conservative in their judgement, leaning on the exact wording of the rules instead of just calling it out as intended. Without VAR this probably wouldn't be a discussion, as I'm sure that the ref would judge that as offside without it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oates
adnando said:
Was bound to happen.

Do you think that it is the scrutiny VAR brings that leads to the changes in the rules? This being the second rule change this season.

Normally I would look at a situation and think it's just a common mistake and you can't eliminate human error, but now that the refs are able to look at it again they seem to be more conservative in their judgement, leaning on the exact wording of the rules instead of just calling it out as intended. Without VAR this probably wouldn't be a discussion, as I'm sure that the ref would judge that as offside without it.
Click to expand...
I think the biggest issue is they don't even really know the rules themselves.

If you watched on BT Sport in England they have a referee who sits there ready to explain decisions.

He immediately said offside, they've got it wrong. About 10 minutes later once his mates had text him he suddenly changed his tune quoting this mysterious "played the ball" clause :lol:

The funny thing is they repeated it so many times they decided to believe it - and then it happend in Italy the same night and was given offside. FIFA have told them they're completely wrong and need to fix it.

The FA and the premier league offcials are absolute idiots of the highest order. Only they could give the same handball decisions they were doing early this season, and then decide to change it again a few months after!
 
Adam-Utd said:
Exactly. They quickly spread the lie that it was "SUPPOSED" to be refereed like that to keep everybody quiet, but they knew deep down it was complete BS.

Nobody has ever deemed that as playing the ball, playing the ball has always meant passing the ball - essentially to make it that if players stand in an offside position and a defender does a back pass, the player can carry on. I remember Rooney scoring a similar goal in the CL match once.

To think that a player can stand offside and then charge at a defender from behind is allowable is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

There are lots of stupid laws in football and it usually takes high profile instances to highlight them. It's been happening for years and everyone and their dog could have predicted that this would be another example of it.

The idea that it's a conspiracy to avoid admitting the referees made a mistake or that the explanations that were given were 'lies' or 'complete BS' though is a stretch. The laws of football are extraordinarily poorly written and there's plenty in there which is out of keeping with what fans expect should happen. The guiding principles for several years has been to bring them into line with what 'football expects' (often with disastrous results such as handball) and when such a high profile incident so clearly highlights that there is a discrepancy they're bound to be brought closer.
 
Last edited:
City gifted points. What a joke.

I said it in the Villa-City Matchthread itself that the PL would be forced to address this "loophole" immediately and voila, there it is. And there were some people fiercly defending that offside call :wenger:
 
Adam-Utd said:
So surprise surprise, after all that they agreed it was incorrectly given :lol: what a joke. As I argued with many of you after the incident, it was obvious that the player interfering from an offside position should always take precedent. @padr81 @Berbasbullet @arnie_ni

Ridiculous how City have been gifted 2 points more than they deserved from that match, could be all the difference come the end of season.


It states: 'Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials should prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offside offence of "interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent's ability to play the ball" should be penalised.'

In plain terms, that means that from now on, players repeating Rodri's trick would be penalised. However, goals such as that scored by Villa's Ollie Watkins, in which he came from an offside position to seize on an attempted clearance by Newcastle's Fabian Schar earlier this month, would stand as he did 'not impact Schar's ability to play the ball'.
Click to expand...
What are you doing tagging me mate? I said it should be offside.

Absolute shit show. Anyone with common sense knew it was offside
 
arnie_ni said:
What are you doing tagging me mate? I said it should be offside.

Absolute shit show. Anyone with common sense knew it was offside
Click to expand...
Just a few people I was having the discussion with that's it incase you hadn't seen it - not pointing fingers.
 
Adam-Utd said:
Just a few people I was having the discussion with that's it incase you hadn't seen it - not pointing fingers.
Click to expand...
I think I remember @padr81 arguing that it was obviously the right decision and just repeating it’s in the rules adamant it was correct. When really it was shocking all along
 
Zlatan 7 said:
I think I remember @padr81 arguing that it was obviously the right decision and just repeating it’s in the rules adamant it was correct. When really it was shocking all along
Click to expand...
He's going to be bias so I can sort of give him a pass, but some of the other lads on here trying to argue it's a new phase of play and technical bollocks like that :lol:

The stupid thing is the PL have made people genuinely think this was a real thing - if it was allowable teams would have been standing offside reverse pressing for years.
 
Surprise surprise, there's now a near unanimous opinion that it was an absolutely disgraceful call that gifted them 3 points
 
Adam-Utd said:
He's going to be bias so I can sort of give him a pass, but some of the other lads on here trying to argue it's a new phase of play and technical bollocks like that :lol:

The stupid thing is the PL have made people genuinely think this was a real thing - if it was allowable teams would have been standing offside reverse pressing for years.
Click to expand...
Ha, yeah fair, I just remembered the one as I think we may have replied to each other.
I tend to easily forget reading posts where people try to come across all knowledgable about something that’s clearly bollocks
 
sullydnl said:


If correct (not a journalist I'd particularly trust) then what we saw in the City game would no longer happen but the Watkins goal in the subsequent game would. Which seems right to me.
Click to expand...


Pretty much what every sane football fan in the world would have given for both of those goals before this unnecessary clarification
 
They haven't closed a loophole, nor has 'guidance been added' it was already there in black and white, the incompetence here is off the scale.

The so called loophole states that where the offside players Recieves The ball via a deliberate act they are adjudged to have not gained an advantage at no point does Rodri recieve the ball from mings he quite obviously challenges mings from an offside position which is quite obviously interfering with play and quite clearly offside.

It was a farce at the time, the attempted explanation was a farce and the complete and utter fraud of making out that they have changed something (they havent) is also a farce.

If I was Aston Villa i would be looking at legal action if its at all possible.
 
Im kind of gutted. I had visions of Jose doing this to the scousers. Would be the exact kind of shithousery Jose would love
 
Did the referee blow his whistle for offside before Cancelo scored? If he did, that's another scandal on their hands. It looked like WBA stopped playing.
 
ReddBalls said:
Did the referee blow his whistle for offside before Cancelo scored? If he did, that's another scandal on their hands. I looked like WBA stopped playing.
Click to expand...

Nope. He waited until the ball went in. WBA stopped playing when they saw the assistant flag. A good few seconds between flag going up & Cancelo’s strike.
 
ha_rooney said:
Nope. He waited until the ball went in. WBA stopped playing when they saw the assistant flag. A good few seconds between flag going up & Cancelo’s strike.
Click to expand...

OK. But they're not supposed to raise the flag, are they?
 
Redcy said:
Im kind of gutted. I had visions of Jose doing this to the scousers. Would be the exact kind of shithousery Jose would love
Click to expand...

I for one am fecking, fecking relieved because Kane doing that against us would stand all day long. That bearded Muslim does it and Egypt would be bombed by March. Definitely relieved. :(

Thank feck City got the points first though.
 
That is another absolute joke a decision for the cancelo goal. The assistant has absolutely shafted West Brom, no way that should count yet again!
 
I hate it.

The fundamental principal that two identical things can happen on the pitch and one is a goal and one isn't just because some moron made two inconsistent decisions is all sorts of stupid.
 
I’m absolutely seething about those two decisions
 
NinjaFletch said:
I hate it.

The fundamental principal that two identical things can happen on the pitch and one is a goal and one isn't just because some moron made two inconsistent decisions is all sorts of stupid.
Click to expand...

This isn't vars fault though! Var showed both incidents perfectly and in slow motion. It's the officials
 
They’re either both fouls or neither are fouls. You can’t allow one & disallow the other. The lack of consistency is stupid.
 
NinjaFletch said:
I hate it.

The fundamental principal that two identical things can happen on the pitch and one is a goal and one isn't just because some moron made two inconsistent decisions is all sorts of stupid.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself. The sooner they get rid of the clear and obvious error the better. It's either right or wrong, who cares what the on-field ref feels?
 
CLASSIC VAR feckery there. Minor irritation without VAR. Referees are human after all. Incandescent rage with VAR.

The stupid fecking poxy load of shite has ruined goal celebrations in return for supposedly getting rid of obvious unfair decisions like that. It really is ruining the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.