VAR and Refs | General Discussion

Annihilate Now! said:
That was a ridiculous decision then - highlighted by the fact that similar things have rarely been given as a pen since.
Click to expand...
Buts it not a rule is it? If the players getting the ball or not? If it is, it'd be a shocking thing to rule.
 
Bubz27 said:
Buts it not a rule is it? If the players getting the ball or not? If it is, it'd be a shocking thing to rule.
Click to expand...

That was Shearer said on MOTD. Anthony Taylor apparently saw the holding but the rationale was that it was 'of no consequence', which Shearer disagreed with, given how long the players shirt was being pulled for.
 
Red in STL said:
WTF are you on about?
Click to expand...

I was just being silly tbh. I missed the incident at the time so I was going by what people saying in here about De Ligt being wrong because the picture looked quite bad.

However having watched the highlights, I agree with you and have no idea why people would blame De Ligt. He barely stooped and at that point of the pitch I think you have to give more benefit to the defender than the attacker, especially when they're both contesting a loose ball with those respective parts of their body.
 
Vidyoyo said:
I was just being silly tbh. I missed the incident at the time so I was going by what people saying in here about De Ligt being wrong because the picture looked quite bad.

However having watched the highlights, I agree with you and have no idea why people would blame De Ligt. He barely stooped and at that point of the pitch I think you have to give more benefit to the defender than the attacker, especially when they're both contesting a loose ball with those respective parts of their body.
Click to expand...
Fair enough
 
This Kaveh Solhekol guy on Sky is presumably an Arsenal fan? Suggesting it shouldn’t have been a red card yesterday because Saliba could have got back (erm, if the last man fouls the attacker then it doesn’t matter if they are Usain Bolt if no one else can cover) and also trying to argue Rice shouldn’t have been sent off.
 
NotChatGPT said:
Not really sure. It was pretty much on the halfway line and the ball was high up in the air, Evanilson still had a lot to do in terms of controlling it and it’s not like Saliba was that far behind him with no time to make up the distance. Normally they factor in distance to goal and if the player has the ball under control, so i’m a bit surprised that VAR gets involved and recommends the referee to check it on the monitor.
Click to expand...

It's a mistake by VAR (again), way too far away from goal to be denying the goal scoring chance. Not as bad as the Terry one v City in 2008, but in a similar vane. I imagine they'll admit it was a mistake and that red will be overturned like Bruno's was in the next few days.
 
I dont think distance from goal is relevant in DOGSO. Dont think it should be either, too light a punishment for denying too good a chance for a yellow to be sufficient punishment.
 
Mb194dc said:
It's a mistake by VAR (again), way too far away from goal to be denying the goal scoring chance. Not as bad as the Terry one v City in 2008, but in a similar vane. I imagine they'll admit it was a mistake and that red will be overturned like Bruno's was in the next few days.
Click to expand...

They won't. He was the last man and nobody was on the cover.

Also, for Bruno's one the VAR went with the refs incorrect on-field decision, while on this the VAR directed the ref to the monitor and after viewing it back he then overturned his original on-field decision. It would be farcical in the extreme to rescind the card and go back to the original on-field decision.
 
Any tackle above waist height with foot, knee whatever would be a foul. Just because he stoops doesn’t make it legal. If he hadn’t stooped and been kneed in the chest, stomach, balls etc etc it would still be a foul. Match officials consider shin height to be a foul worthy of a red as evidenced by the recent Bruno debacle, surely chest height is the same.


Timing of the challenge is the only thing the officials can potentially hide behind, but a knee around chest height is still endangering and we all know (Rashford) that endangering is a foul and occasionally a red.
 
Withnail said:
They won't. He was the last man and nobody was on the cover.

Also, for Bruno's one the VAR went with the refs incorrect on-field decision, while on this the VAR directed the ref to the monitor and after viewing it back he then overturned his original on-field decision. It would be farcical in the extreme to rescind the card and go back to the original on-field decision.
Click to expand...

Without the ball White will be able to make the ground up before he can shoot. So yellow was correct. Attacker is fouled in the centre circle and got 30+ yards to go.
 
Mb194dc said:
It's a mistake by VAR (again), way too far away from goal to be denying the goal scoring chance. Not as bad as the Terry one v City in 2008, but in a similar vane. I imagine they'll admit it was a mistake and that red will be overturned like Bruno's was in the next few days.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is what I thought. The whole “last man” rule was dismissed a long time ago and there’s been many incidents where the last man was near the half way line and it didn’t reach the bar because it was way too far away and left the attacker far too much to do which is the same in this case.

The bar for red card using that rule was where the ball was on its way into goal or all the player was left to do was put it in the back of the net.
 
If I was an arsenal fan, id feel the rice red card was stupid and deserved, but both trossard one and saliba were harsh.

Trossard kicks the ball a fraction of a second after Oliver blows and it's different to the rice one.

I think yesterday's was so far from goal and white had lots of opportunity to get back or at least mean it's not a simple 1 v 1.
 
Mb194dc said:
Without the ball White will be able to make the ground up before he can shoot. So yellow was correct. Attacker is fouled in the centre circle and got 30+ yards to go.
Click to expand...
White had an extra 15 yards to make up to reach the ball (Sky measured it). He didn’t have a hope in hell of making the distance before Evanilson had a clear shot at goal. He would have had to cover the ground at twice the speed as Evanilson to catch him up by the time he approached the edge of the box. Even Usain Bolt in a pair of spikes wouldn’t have made it.
 
Gio said:
White had an extra 15 yards to make up to reach the ball (Sky measured it). He didn’t have a hope in hell of making the distance before Evanilson had a clear shot at goal. He would have had to cover the ground at twice the speed as Evanilson to catch him up by the time he approached the edge of the box. Even Usain Bolt in a pair of spikes wouldn’t have made it.
Click to expand...

It was a bit silly of Saliba really. It was so early in the game that even if they had have gone one goal down you'd back them to win the game.
 
Withnail said:
Because the still is carefully chosen at the moment that makes it look as bad as possible for the Brentford player and isn't actually representative of what happened.
Click to expand...
You can choose pictures in every case and make argument for it. If you choose that picture you can see that contact knee - head happened over at least 1m in hight. If you watch the game without choosing that picture, it shows exactly same thing. Knee is way high. It is not that DeLigt is doing Phil Jones impression playing on his stomach.

Even if he makes contact with the ball, he is danger to the other player. We have seen so many tackles player taking ball and then making contact with other player resulting in cards. So how is this different? Even minimal or non existent contact have been cards like Fernandes last week. How do we explain this?
 
whitbyviking said:
Any tackle above waist height with foot, knee whatever would be a foul. Just because he stoops doesn’t make it legal. If he hadn’t stooped and been kneed in the chest, stomach, balls etc etc it would still be a foul. Match officials consider shin height to be a foul worthy of a red as evidenced by the recent Bruno debacle, surely chest height is the same.


Timing of the challenge is the only thing the officials can potentially hide behind, but a knee around chest height is still endangering and we all know (Rashford) that endangering is a foul and occasionally a red.
Click to expand...

The issue I have with that is that he didn't tackle De Ligt. He played the ball and it's not like he followed through into a stationary De Ligt either which probably would have been given as a foul the other way.

I've watched it back on MOTD a few times this morning and De Ligt was late, slightly late, but late in any case. He also isn't really looking at where he's putting his head because he's stooped down.

The Brentford player plays the ball as De Ligt stoops and makes the forward movement which results in the collision, at which point the ball was gone.

He's mistimed it and headed the other players knee.

The real controversy is whether he should have been sent to the sideline in the last 30s when we were defending a corner. For me it didn't appear that he was actively bleeding at the time.
 
90 + 5min said:
You can choose pictures in every case and make argument for it. If you choose that picture you can see that contact knee - head happened over at least 1m in hight. If you watch the game without choosing that picture, it shows exactly same thing. Knee is way high. It is not that DeLigt is doing Phil Jones impression playing on his stomach.

Even if he makes contact with the ball, he is danger to the other player. We have seen so many tackles player taking ball and then making contact with other player resulting in cards. So how is this different? Even minimal or non existent contact have been cards like Fernandes last week. How do we explain this?
Click to expand...

I've pretty much given my thoughts on that question in the post below yours. From the replay, it's De Ligt that starts a forward motion as the ball is played which causes the collision. It's small margins but he got his timing wrong in my view.
 
90 + 5min said:
So, kneeing somebody in the head is not dangerous play? But giving imaginary red cards to our players, like Fernandes against Tottenham is?

For once, we reacted. Showed some kind of passion and that they cared. Reacted because we went behind because we got our player thrown out and because first half should have been over long before that corner.

Just because we won this game, we should not forget decisions against us.
Click to expand...
Where's he meant to put his knee? He's played the ball forward and De Ligt terribly mistimes his weird attempt at a header, had he done the same with his leg it could be a red, as it is, free kick and defend better
 
Why always excuses, teams and players sometimes need to look at themselves. Saliba knew they were in trouble and committed a foul as last man, what might have happened after that is irrelevant, a real world class defender lets the guy go there as early in the game and 50/50 at best if he scores. De ligt horribly mistimes his attempt to head the ball, it's well gone, just poor defending that resulted in him catching the player after the ball is gone.
 
Did INEOS cut down on bandages and physio equipment? Why the feck didn't they tape that up?
 
LochGormanAbú said:
Where's he meant to put his knee? He's played the ball forward and De Ligt terribly mistimes his weird attempt at a header, had he done the same with his leg it could be a red, as it is, free kick and defend better
Click to expand...
This is the complete opposite of the reality of the incident. Had the Brentford player kicked the ball with his foot at chest height and caught De Ligt on the follow through he would be punished with a yellow or possibly a red for endangering an opponent. A foot, or knee should not be playing the ball at chest height.

It’s not overly complicated and ultimately it was a minor incident that didn’t impact the result, but there’s some bizarre takes it.
 
Withnail said:
I've pretty much given my thoughts on that question in the post below yours. From the replay, it's De Ligt that starts a forward motion as the ball is played which causes the collision. It's small margins but he got his timing wrong in my view.
Click to expand...
Small margins. Agree with you. It is fast game and every second counts. What I don’t agree with people is that this is only on DeLigt.

LochGormanAbú said:
Where's he meant to put his knee? He's played the ball forward and De Ligt terribly mistimes his weird attempt at a header, had he done the same with his leg it could be a red, as it is, free kick and defend better
Click to expand...
If Brentford player made same move but with studs, would it be DeLigt or him who should get freekick/card? With ”where is he ment to put his studs”. See. It is not that easy.
 
Mb194dc said:
Without the ball White will be able to make the ground up before he can shoot. So yellow was correct. Attacker is fouled in the centre circle and got 30+ yards to go.
Click to expand...

It’s weird. At full speed from the right angle you can see that White may have made up the ground. The ball wasn’t long and straight it was looped high. It would have required a word class touch or too to carry on at a pace that saw him one on one. White is on the ball by its second bounce.

It’s a red by the letter of the law but there’s a lot more grey than the freeze frames are suggesting.
 
Things to consider for denying a goal or clear goal-scoring opportunity are:

-Distance between the offence and the goal
-General direction of the play
-Likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
-Location and number of defenders
 
Withnail said:
The issue I have with that is that he didn't tackle De Ligt. He played the ball and it's not like he followed through into a stationary De Ligt either which probably would have been given as a foul the other way.

I've watched it back on MOTD a few times this morning and De Ligt was late, slightly late, but late in any case. He also isn't really looking at where he's putting his head because he's stooped down.

The Brentford player plays the ball as De Ligt stoops and makes the forward movement which results in the collision, at which point the ball was gone.

He's mistimed it and headed the other players knee.

The real controversy is whether he should have been sent to the sideline in the last 30s when we were defending a corner. For me it didn't appear that he was actively bleeding at the time.
Click to expand...

That’s why, I think, I was careful to reference the endangering thing. We see it a lot where a player can’t expect to make an attempt to tackle/play the ball in isolation. If they raise their foot/leg/knee and win the ball fairly they can still be pulled up for the consequences, just a risk they seem to have to take.

Didn’t see the last minute with the refs sending him to the sideline, sounds dodgy. Were they being clever because of blood on his face/shirt or something?
 
Anybody who doesnt think this league is corrupt is mad. Forget about the offside decision, there was a clear foul at the edge of the city box not given. Then Kavanagh goes to the screen, and sticks with his onfield decision, after not going to the screen for an absurd decision against fernandes.

Silva has impacted the play theres no question, while the ball hits stones head, sa is still dealing with silva.

There is no team in history that has gotten such lopsided decisions, i can think of maybe one or two against them.
 
No one is bent or taking backhanders, they're all just shit at doing their jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.