But those are red cards. Thats the trade off for taking away double jeopardy. Thats not on VAR.
Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
Soj
Southampton goal was offside and VAR never gave the Martial pen?
What do you mean? Surely no defender should be sent off for accidentally tripping someone up? Yes, it’s a foul but a red card? Makes no sense. Or am I missing something?
Was it though? I literally can’t see it, but I might be wrong.
The Martial one was a clear dive though. Upon review of the replays on the screen Mike Dean should have clearly noticed he got that wrong and actually reversed the penalty decision.
Instead after consulting VAR they've compounded the error by giving the player a red card. Of course there is debate to whether it's a foul, IMO and many others that was a clear dive from Martial, he's going down before any contact was made and the contact is very minimal.
Likewise I can't actually see any contact in the Luiz one at all? Might just be me but the forward seems to just throw himself to the ground. I don't think either are penalties and that's what many are up in arms about online and the pundits etc.
It's just a mess and VAR is further complicating it.
I dont know how you would rule on that though. If you dont get sent off for trying a tackle and dont get sent off for not tackling then there will never be another pen and red card given ever again? That would leave it open for explotion surely?
I know theres some argument about Martials but the ref did think the defender caught him. Isnt that a red pre VAR as well? You didnt foul a player 5 yards from the goals line very often and get away with it
The only issue is if they change the rule to so that accidental challenges won't get you a red card and a penalty, I think you will see more clumsy 'accidental' fouls happening in the box in similar scenarios. I think the current rule is harsh but defenders know the rules and when chasing a man from behind, defenders have to be careful.
But VAR didnt give the pen. It was the ref. Its a weird arguement to make that its ruining the game when it was the ref who gave it and allowed the ref who gave it the chance to review the decision.
Without VAR its a pen. With VAR its a pen (thanks to Dean)
Well they checked it twice which was weird to me. As if the VAR ref was looking for it to be a goal. Its either reliable or not, I dont see why he would check it a second time.Was it though? I literally can’t see it, but I might be wrong.
If it said goal first time around I bet it wouldn't have been checked a second time
Having looked closely at the Luiz replays, it does appear to be slight contact between Luiz's knee and underneat Jose's heel.
It's accidental and the red is harsh. But following the rules it is a correct decision, and since theres visibly contact (albeit very minimal) its hard for VAR to overturn it.
It's accidental and the red is harsh. But following the rules it is a correct decision, and since theres visibly contact (albeit very minimal) its hard for VAR to overturn it.
I thought the decision to overturn the penalty Cavani won was wrong. On the line is in am I right? If so, the penalty award should have stood. I'm fine with the offside law as it is at the moment and I'm also fine with the offside is offside adage. However, I'd love to know what part of Che Adams body was beyond the last defender.
On the line is considered "in", you're right.
They decided that the foul didn't happen on the line though.
Last edited:
Debatable
That is not even mentioning the smaller decisions like the yellow cards that Dean was loving waving around.
Matter of opinion but that isn’t really the point. There’s considerably more to a game of football than refs making the right decision.
The red card for Bednarek strikes me as a classic example of a situation where the wording of the rule isn’t being interpreted correctly.
The wording that says it’s a red card if there is not a genuine attempt to play the ball is clearly intended to cover the scenario where a player deliberately takes out the attacker with no attempt to play the ball.
In this case, Bednarek doesn’t try to foul Martial. He realises he isn’t going to get there and attempts to pull out. However, he does still make some contact with Martial accidentally (whether it’s enough to cause him to go down is, of course, more questionable). Common sense should apply there, as there isn’t an obvious deliberate attempt to foul the player to stop him scoring. A penalty is sufficient punishment and there shouldn’t be double jeopardy.
The wording that says it’s a red card if there is not a genuine attempt to play the ball is clearly intended to cover the scenario where a player deliberately takes out the attacker with no attempt to play the ball.
In this case, Bednarek doesn’t try to foul Martial. He realises he isn’t going to get there and attempts to pull out. However, he does still make some contact with Martial accidentally (whether it’s enough to cause him to go down is, of course, more questionable). Common sense should apply there, as there isn’t an obvious deliberate attempt to foul the player to stop him scoring. A penalty is sufficient punishment and there shouldn’t be double jeopardy.
There was plenty of marginal calls last night and in fairness, Mike Dean got most right on the pitch.
Southampton asking for him to be removed from all their matches moving forward is laughable though. It was 4-0 before anything close to questionable cropped up, so the hysteria over that particular game I find strange.
Southampton asking for him to be removed from all their matches moving forward is laughable though. It was 4-0 before anything close to questionable cropped up, so the hysteria over that particular game I find strange.
The issue is defenders are smart and will try to make things like that look an accident. Take the David luiz example, it’s easy to run behind a striker and accidentally clip their boot while pretending like you’re just trying to chase them. Is that then an intentional red or a yellow?
In that situation he’s beaten already and it’s clumsy, for me that’s a red.
Compare that to AWB today and his tackle on Danny ings. He’s last man and makes a risky slide tackle - if he doesn’t get the ball there then it should be a pen and a yellow as he IS trying to tackle for the ball.
Bednarek gets his positioning wrong, he’s unfortunate as martial is through on goal but he does kick his ankle, if he didn’t do that I think he would have got away with it.
You can't make something up to suit your point. Football only uses it for goals, penalties, offside and red cards.
My mate hilighted this to me. Not sure if it is just a Savage thing but every time we scored, it felt like he would come up with a scenario that could make the goal be disallowed. Some were outlandish like Martial’s second that he controlled with his chest but Savage wanted handball to be considered. It was just bizarre and probably a microcosm of the way high level football has gone with the use of VAR.
I don't understand how they're getting worse. Why can't they do offside like a normal human? I can even understand the drawing of the lines but why push that logic when you can barely even see the difference. Don't know why the VAR ref is going against all logic and instinct to make a controversial decision.
Same is the case with the Bednarek and Luiz red, if the player isn't fouling a player with the sole intent to deny a goal scoring opportunity and it is going to be a penalty, then as per the double whammy rule, why were they sending them off? Both of them tried to get away, contact was minimal in both, what is the point in a sending off? Genuinely felt sorry for Bednarek there.
On the other hand, our penalty seemed quite nailed on, and the reversal seems harsh, but it was still more of a case than the Southampton decisions. But the referees need to be more decisive and use common sense in their decisions. Random interpretation of laws (Rodri against Villa?) isn't making sense anymore.
Same is the case with the Bednarek and Luiz red, if the player isn't fouling a player with the sole intent to deny a goal scoring opportunity and it is going to be a penalty, then as per the double whammy rule, why were they sending them off? Both of them tried to get away, contact was minimal in both, what is the point in a sending off? Genuinely felt sorry for Bednarek there.
On the other hand, our penalty seemed quite nailed on, and the reversal seems harsh, but it was still more of a case than the Southampton decisions. But the referees need to be more decisive and use common sense in their decisions. Random interpretation of laws (Rodri against Villa?) isn't making sense anymore.
But isn't that the same for a slide tackle? A defender could know full well he's not going to get the ball, but so long as it vaguely looks like he'll get away with it he'll scythe someone down
Ultimately you're still getting a penalty out of it, so does the red card really matter?
Am I on my own in thinking that the accidental/intentional rule is far too lenient on defenders anyway? If you've stopped a clear goal scoring opportunity, accidental or otherwise, then you should be off in my opinion. I don't think there was anything wrong with the rule and I don't know why they changed it. It's created a lot of controversy regarding somehing I think is cut and dried.
Note "the DFB tweet out explanations for all VAR decisions". God forbid the PL explain themselves like that.
You don't think a penalty is enough punishment?
An accidental, genuine attempt to get the ball that fails shouldn't result in the game being practically over (depending when it happens of course) in my opinion
Pretty pointless request from Southampton. Imagine the can of worms that would be opened if they were successful in having removed from their games.
I thought Che Adams was onside, does VAR have a different angle more in line with play than we see?
I don't, honestly. I think we just have differing opinions on this.
The linesman would have to flag before it goes to VAR for VAR to determine if it is an obvious error in my opinion.
In the case of Che Adams, VAR should have gone with the onfield decision because it was so close.
I don't think it actually was *that* close.
Looks to me like the red and blue lines aren't touching? In which case I think it would be given even under the Dutch league's margin of error. There have certainly been tighter calls where that wouldn't be the case.
The current offside laws make no sense, you can be 1mm offside but you can also stand 10 yards past the defensive line and end up onside because a defender makes an attempt to intercept a ball that is intended for you.
Yeah, a lot of laws don't really hang together.
For example, if I'm reading that right then David Luiz would have been less likely to be sent off if he had actually tackled the player rather than accidentally make contact while running behind him? Rather counterintuitive.
And then there's the handball law, which is its own mess.
Looks to me like that line is below his elbow.
They definitely need to bring a margin of error in here, there’s nowhere near enough accuracy. And trying a couple of times on defensive points to try and allow the goal is meaningless if where you’ve put the line on the attacker is out.
In the same way that the ref has to decide whether there has been an attempt to play the ball, they can equally decide on whether it was a deliberate clip. If in doubt, I’m fine with the defender getting the benefit of the doubt where there is double jeopardy anyway.
Even in that image Fred's knee looks to be playing him on. The is a close decision and I don't think anyone watching it thought it was offside until they started drawing lines.
It makes no sense. Making a defender react whilst in an offside position is surely interfering with play, and that interference should surely supersede any touch of the ball the defender makes which then plays an attacker onside.
Any influence and reaction caused by a player in an offside position just has to be offside.
Why go with his upper arm when that image shows his knee as the furthest forward part of his body?
Agreed. It would be much more palatable to fans if we weren't obsessing over offside lines that only a computer can see and which take a minute or more to resolve. This is a crap and enthusiasm-sapping experience for the fans and is driving a lot of the frustration.
I would set a deadline of 5 seconds to make the decision and it's simply based on a camera shot from the side of the pitch. That removes all the uncertainty over shoulder thresholds and the margin of error from the exact moment the pass is released. If it can't be determined within a few seconds, it's likely too minor to be consequential and it's certainly too minor for fans to feel justified that is has been rightly ruled off in keeping with the spirit of the law.
Certainly that photo shows the foul takes place outside the box.
The other point is that unlike last year where they could use the armpit line as a consistent measuring point for offsides, now they have to use an imaginary spot on the arm instead because of the change to the handball rule. So these offside calls have been made more subjective and less accurate since last season even. Which is stupid.
I'm really struggling to grasp how any person in the world can think the kind of discussions we're having now are improving the game. Yesterday was another horror show for VAR. The game would have been completed with less controversy, less annoying interruptions and more correct decisions without it. It's been here for a while now and it's not getting any better despite constant changes to the rules and the use of VAR. Scrap it and bring the game back.