VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

No zoom, no nothing. It looks out but the ball is sphere. So it is not 100%.

This is difference from Arsenal game. When it comes to us, We never get 50/50 decision.
 
MrMarcello said:
Doesn't FIFA use some sensory technology in their tournaments? If so, why hasn't the EPL adopted such? Don't want to spend any funds to better the in-game officiating?
Click to expand...
To be honest I think it is out but it’s strange to make calls like that when you need pinpoint to the CM technology to make similar calls for offside and goal line technology.
 
It looked out of play but the two angles didn't make it obvious. Looked out in one angle and in in the other so how do they come to the conclusion its out if its not definitive?
 
Looks out with the daylight, but obviously with it being a sphere its impossible.
 
The angle from behind Rashford didn't look like it went out but obviously they didn't check that one 12 times.
 
Wasn’t clear from the 2 camera angles.

Hard to call it a clear and obvious error.

But it’s a United so we aren’t allowed to complain.

Just score twice in the second half so it doesn’t matter.
 
AnotherLondonManc said:
Unnecessary though. That case was clearly too close to call. Not a clear and obvious error, and no advantage given to the attacking side.

Dreadful decision, no matter how you look at it
Click to expand...

It's boring having to repeat this in the fifth season of VAR but the "clear and obvious" test only applies to subjective decisions such as foul or not, yellow or red, etc.

Offsides, out of play, handballs (contact immediately before scoring) are objective checks, i.e. did it happen or not?
 
LARulz said:
It looked quite clearly over the line from the angle we saw I thought. Would be fuming if that counted against us
Click to expand...

Hey, Japan scored one against Spain like that last year. FIFA's own tech gave a solid explanation at the end of the day.

That being said, the Premier League looks like a pub league with VAR still using obsolete methods this year. How many more controversial calls must be made until the whole VAR system is upgraded to international standards?
 
Devil_forever said:
The other angle shows it’s clearly in. It’s a sphere, surely the benefit of the doubt should be given when they did the same for West Ham against us last season? We’ve been robbed two weeks in a row.
Click to expand...

Correct.


There can be a visible gap between the bottom of the ball and the line, without the ball being out of play. They disallowed the goal because of that visible gap, in a blurry freeze frame. The only way to know for certain whether or not the widest part of the ball is clipping the line is a view from directly above, looking straight down. Which obviously isn’t possible.

If they’re going to use technology for these decisions at all then they need to use the goal line technology for the whole end line. Or don’t use VAR at all My preference is, obviously, binning VAR. It’s fecking horrible and is ruining the sport
 
Clearly out of bounds. You're all foaming over the frame before Rashford makes contact. It goes out

Penalty on Hojlund and onside from Garnacho. Those are the kind of calls that are problematic.
 
F6J6dsiWEAA2I-B


I realise there's extreme bias at play but even still, if anyone is seriously complaining that this was deemed to be out of play then there's something actively wrong with you.

If that goal was allowed against us, we'd be screaming conspiracy. You can't complain about every decision.
 
It is basically the same as the Japan goal from the WC which was ruled legit. People are judging it from the base of the ball, but it depends on whether any part of the ball is on the line, which it probably is.

In any case, there is not enough evidence to rule out the goal.
 
Nowadays whenever there is VAR review, I feel that 90% of time it will be against us. There are some angles that showed out and some that showed in. If that was the case, I dont think VAR should overturn the original decision. But let's face it, we are not liVARpool who is on the other extreme of decisions.
 
So you’ve got behind Rashford which made it look in and then a thousand different angles where it looks out and in.

Which is definitive and which do you use to make this decision? Does it need to be clear and obvious?
 
sullydnl said:
F6J6dsiWEAA2I-B


I realise there's extreme bias at play but even still, if anyone is seriously complaining that this was deemed to be out of play then there's something actively wrong with you.
Click to expand...

Nah, the widest part of the ball could definitely be clipping the line if you’re looking from directly above. We’re not looking at it from directly above, so don’t know if it is or not. There is absolutely no way of being 100% certain in a tight call like that without that view.
 
You literally cannot be 100% sure it's out... It's impossible to tell

Seems like nothing was learned from the Japan WC incident
 
sullydnl said:
F6J6dsiWEAA2I-B


I realise there's extreme bias at play but even still, if anyone is seriously complaining that this was deemed to be out of play then there's something actively wrong with you.

If that goal was allowed against us, we'd be screaming conspiracy. You can't complain about every decision.
Click to expand...
Edge of the ball is over the edge of the line.

The whole image shows that the camera is at an adverse angle too. We shouldn't be able to see the post of the goal if camera is aligned but we clearly can.

If adjusting for that, it's clearly in play.
 
Phil said:
So you’ve got behind Rashford which made it look in and then a thousand different angles where it looks out and in.

Which is definitive and which do you use to make this decision? Does it need to be clear and obvious?
Click to expand...

This is where referees piss people off in this league. Unless it's a clear and obvious error, the decision must stand; it's a fundamental law that stands across team sports.
 
sullydnl said:
F6J6dsiWEAA2I-B


I realise there's extreme bias at play but even still, if anyone is seriously complaining that this was deemed to be out of play then there's something actively wrong with you.

If that goal was allowed against us, we'd be screaming conspiracy. You can't complain about every decision.
Click to expand...
Looks clearly out. People just love to moan. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot
 
The white line of the touchline bulges because of the curvature of the ball. It could be touching. Why else is the white line not perfectly symmetrical where the ball is? The ball has indented the extremity of the touchline.

There is not enough evidence to rule the goal out but Brighton have got the benefit of the doubt because refs don't want a TalkSport led witch-hunt for an entire week.
 
More annoyed about the lack of any lengthy check on Hojlund being ‘offside’ at the end of the half when it could’ve been a red.
 
Garnacho's Shoelaces said:
It's boring having to repeat this in the fifth season of VAR but the "clear and obvious" test only applies to subjective decisions such as foul or not, yellow or red, etc.

Offsides, out of play, handballs (contact immediately before scoring) are objective checks, i.e. did it happen or not?
Click to expand...

Well, first off, this clearly is a subjective decision. So for VAR to overturn it, they have to be sure an error has made. There simply is not the proof.

Offsides are reviewed in exactly the same way. If it was so close as to be inconclusive, the goal would be given.

Regardless of the clear and obvious terminology, this descion shouldn't have been overturned.

Second, yellow cards aren't even reviewed by VAR.
 
paulscholes18 said:
Japan’s goal vs Spain looked clearly out, but it wasn’t
Click to expand...

Except that also looked much closer to the line than ours regardless.

Fi7cMKFXEAEy-Vv


Just because a ball that looked to have crossed the line didn't, that doesn't mean that every ball ball that looks to have crossed the line might not have.
 
AnotherLondonManc said:
Well, first off, this clearly is a subjective decision. So for VAR to overturn it, they have to be sure an error has made. There simply is not the proof.

Offsides are reviewed in exactly the same way. If it was so close as to be inconclusive, the goal would be given.

Regardless of the clear and obvious terminology, this descion shouldn't have been overturned.

Second, yellow cards aren't even reviewed by VAR.
Click to expand...

No, it's an objective decision as it is binary. The ball is either in or out. You are either onside or offside. The ball strikes your hand or it doesn't.

The 'clear and obvious error' test applies to decisions which are subjective and require judgment.

VAR believe the ball went out of play which gives them the intervention right. The error here is the absence of reliable evidence to arrive at that decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.