VAR Decisions - PL 19/20 Season

[Sandikan]

Key issue in both decision, which is consistent, is that Pawson was wrong both times. Both were textbool fouls

Yep, pretty worrying when a Premier league ref, 10 years away can't see an obvious player jumps into goalie situation. They frustrate us those decisions on keepers, but it's how football has been for at least a decade or two.

 

[giorno]

That they're fouls on the gk doesn't matter. They'd still be fouls if it were an outfield player

 

[MikeKing]

The worst part is if we didn't act crazy towards the ref, they would never have overturned it. Because of the same reason the ref made the decision to not blow his whistle, twice against DDG. They don't play the rules they play the narratives. The narrative is that DDG is weak in duels, not the best anymore and that he makes huge mistakes. So when a ref sees Van Djik go up he believes he has as much of a chance to win the duel as De Gea, which obviously is horseshit. DDG also received a yellow card and the team will probably get a fine for how we reacted.

You could see it throughout the game. Fred won plenty of tackles cleanly but because the ref don't expect him to win that many balls against a class player like Salah, they give the soft freekick every time. On the flipside of that, if Liverpool wins a ball going in too hard they are awarded for their relentless press because it is in line with the narrative.

 

[Anustart89]

It's not even necessary to bring up the goalkeeper aspect.

If a player was standing with his foot ready to receive the ball and an opponent kicked his receiving foot away (while being half a yard away from the ball and never touching it) to make the opponent miss the ball, wouldn't that be a free kick?

 

[montpelier]

The worst part is if we didn't act crazy towards the ref, they would never have overturned it. Because of the same reason the ref made the decision to not blow his whistle, twice against DDG. They don't play the rules they play the narratives. The narrative is that DDG is weak in duels, not the best anymore and that he makes huge mistakes. So when a ref sees Van Djik go up he believes he has as much of a chance to win the duel as De Gea, which obviously is horseshit. DDG also received a yellow card and the team will probably get a fine for how we reacted.

You could see it throughout the game. Fred won plenty of tackles cleanly but because the ref don't expect him to win that many balls against a class player like Salah, they give the soft freekick every time. On the flipside of that, if Liverpool wins a ball going in too hard they are awarded for their relentless press because it is in line with the narrative.

It's an interesting insight into how they think.

I think I said before. I don't mind Mike Dean, except when he's lost it completely, I think he gives stuff at both ends as it were.

 

[InterFan1998]

Interestingly watch the half-time report firnsime studio Van Persie seemed convinced it was a goal and not a foul.

 

[Klopper76]

Interestingly watch the half-time report firnsime studio Van Persie seemed convinced it was a goal and not a foul.

Wouldn’t surprise me if most ex players who played up front share that opinion. I’m sure they think goalkeepers get too much protection.

I did think that Van Dijk fouled De Gea. His body moves into De Gea forcing the latter to not handle the ball properly. I wasn’t surprised when it was overturned.

 

[Mb194dc]

Not sure if it's a foul. VAR shouldn't overrule the referee though. They can send him to the screen to check his descison, that is all. Totally undermined his authority.

Wrong procedure still being used. De Gea lucky not to get a red for the reaction, can't agressively put your hands on the ref like that. Can see the players have zero respect for the officials, they can see how poor the officiating is as well.

Overall the incident just another nail in the coffin of premier league refereeing quality.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Not sure if it's a foul. VAR shouldn't overrule the referee though. They can send him to the screen to check his descison, that is all. Totally undermined his authority.

Wrong procedure still being used. De Gea lucky not to get a red for the reaction, can't agressively put your hands on the ref like that. Can see the players have zero respect for the officials, they can see how poor the officiating is as well.

Overall the incident just another nail in the coffin of premier league refereeing quality.

It is a clear foul and thus VAR has to step in... If we're worried about undermining the refs authority then VAR can never be used, which would be daft.

The refs are humans and can make mistakes and I think everyone accepts that...i don't think their egos are that fragile that they would mind if their decisions are corrected

 

[Ibi Dreams]

I thought it was obviously a foul, it was weird hearing Gary Neville saying it wasn't. Keepers always get those calls, but outfield players often do too. A player jumping for a ball and then another player jumps into them is normally a foul.

 

[sullydnl]

It is a clear foul and thus VAR has to step in... If we're worried about undermining the refs authority then VAR can never be used, which would be daft.

The refs are humans and can make mistakes and I think everyone accepts that...i don't think their egos are that fragile that they would mind if their decisions are corrected

It's worth noting that Pawson was the VAR who didn't overturn Everton's goal against us in similar circumstances. Which makes me wonder if he would have overturned this one either if it was left up to him.

Mistakes happen and I wouldn't be overly harsh on a ref for making one but being out of step with most other refs when it comes to how you interpret the game is another matter. I'm not entirely sure the latter wasn't the issue here rather than the former.

 

[RedC]

You can't just turn your back and jump into a keeper. In a normal situation between 2 players, that is what the player who knows he's going to lose the header does, to try and stop the other player from getting clean contact. It doesn't matter as much in that situation, because the player heading the ball only has to get a head on it(so it's never really called as a foul), but with a keeper trying to catch it, it clearly completely impedes him, without ever having a chance to win the ball for the player jumping into him.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

It's worth noting that Pawson was the VAR who didn't overturn Everton's goal against us in similar circumstances. Which makes me wonder if he would have overturned this one either if it was left up to him.

Mistakes happen and I wouldn't be overly harsh on a ref for making one but being out of step with most other refs when it comes to how you interpret the game is another matter. I'm not entirely sure the latter wasn't the issue here rather than the former.

Yeah... I'd be very very interested to hear Pawson discuss why he didn't (and presumably still doesn't) think it's a foul... Either he is looking at these incidents incorrectly or, as you say, isn't aware of the rules

The official VAR line (according to Sky) was that they were "very surprised by the original onfield call" ... which is telling.

 

[Mb194dc]

Yeah... I'd be very very interested to hear Pawson discuss why he didn't (and presumably still doesn't) think it's a foul... Either he is looking at these incidents incorrectly or, as you say, isn't aware of the rules

The official VAR line (according to Sky) was that they were "very surprised by the original onfield call" ... which is telling.

Me too, I'm even more interested in why he's accepted the VAR decision without checking it ( or demanding to check it) himself on the monitor. The whole point of the current VAR regulations is that the referee on the pitch is still in charge of the game. Not a pawn for the PGMOL minions at stockley park. By all means let the ref have a look at it and change his mind if he sees something different to the first call.

It's not like an offside, where VAR can overall the linesman because it's a matter of fact, where the offside line is. This is a subjective call.

PGMOL / The EPL got the way VAR is meant to work totally wrong again, as far as I can see.

 

[giorno]

VAR overturns it directly because it's not a subjective situation, it's an objective one. De Gea has possession of the ball at the moment of contact. Can't challenge a gk who has possession of the ball

Pawson actually put the whistle in his mouth, i think he thought it was a foul but wasn't 100% sure of it, saw the ball fall to a defender anyways and kinda froze and let the play go on because it either wouldn't matter anyways or VAR could could intervene if it ended up mattering(as it did)

 

[Number4.]

It is a clear foul and thus VAR has to step in... If we're worried about undermining the refs authority then VAR can never be used, which would be daft.

The refs are humans and can make mistakes and I think everyone accepts that...i don't think their egos are that fragile that they would mind if their decisions are corrected

the very fact that there is debate over it means it is not Clear and Obvious. A foul in my opinion, but as soon as Pawson played on VAR has broken it's own rules by reversing it. It's nonsense & inconsistent.

While it didn't change the outcome yesterday, the biggest issue is games would have different outcomes depending on what weekend they are reffed on

 

[Annihilate Now!]

the very fact that there is debate over it means it is not Clear and Obvious. A foul in my opinion, but as soon as Pawson played on VAR has broken it's own rules by reversing it. It's nonsense & inconsistent.

While it didn't change the outcome yesterday, the biggest issue is games would have different outcomes depending on what weekend they are reffed on

The debate is insane... there should be no debate. By the letter of the law it is a clear foul... I haven't heard one coherent argument as to why it wouldn't be a foul.

 

[Mb194dc]

Don't agree he has possession of the ball, it's definitely a judgement call.

Jumping for the ball with the goalkeeper is not always a foul. It's a judgement by the referee.

Here it is again:



Looking forward to this arrising in any other league using VAR.

100% Certain they won't make the on pitch referee look like a total chump like VAR does above.

 

[cyberman]

the very fact that there is debate over it means it is not Clear and Obvious. A foul in my opinion, but as soon as Pawson played on VAR has broken it's own rules by reversing it. It's nonsense & inconsistent.

While it didn't change the outcome yesterday, the biggest issue is games would have different outcomes depending on what weekend they are reffed on

Its a debate by people who dont know the rules of the game.
I wish the phrase clear and obvious was never uttered

 

[SteveTheRed]

De Gea has his hands on the ball, and VVD hits his arms making him spill it - a clear foul for me but other think you are allowed to go for it?

If a player was going to control the ball with his foot and you slide into the back of his leg causing the ball to fly off, it's a foul. Clear as day.

 

[Number4.]

Its a debate by people who dont know the rules of the game.
I wish the phrase clear and obvious was never uttered

Don't patronise - "Clear and Obvious" is directly referenced in the rules for applied to Goal decision:

"For subjective decisions such as a foul or a handball, VAR can be used to overturn if a “clear and obvious error” has been identified. "

The point is, this decision is grey, Pawson, incorrectly in my opinion, went one way & VAR ignored it's own rules by reversing it

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Don't agree he has possession of the ball, it's definitely a judgement call.

Jumping for the ball with the goalkeeper is not always a foul. It's a judgement by the referee.

If players were allowed to jump into the goalkeeper without touching the ball, then no keeper would ever be able to claim a cross again... as they'd just have a striker run and jump into them.

Not only that, but since when have footballers been allowed to challenge for the ball, not make any contact with it, and the result of their challenge takes the opponent - who has won the ball ahead of them - off their feet? This has literally never been a thing.

 

[roonster09]

Don't patronise - "Clear and Obvious" is directly referenced in the rules for applied to Goal decision:

"For subjective decisions such as a foul or a handball, VAR can be used to overturn if a “clear and obvious error” has been identified. "

The point is, this decision is grey, Pawson, incorrectly in my opinion, went one way & VAR ignored it's own rules by reversing it

For you the decision is grey, for VAR ref its clear and obvious error.

I think ref was also about to whistle but played on just like offside decisions where they can rule it our using VAR if it's a clear foul.

 

[RobinLFC]

VAR overturns it directly because it's not a subjective situation, it's an objective one. De Gea has possession of the ball at the moment of contact. Can't challenge a gk who has possession of the ball

Pawson actually put the whistle in his mouth, i think he thought it was a foul but wasn't 100% sure of it, saw the ball fall to a defender anyways and kinda froze and let the play go on because it either wouldn't matter anyways or VAR could could intervene if it ended up mattering(as it did)

De Gea never had possession of the ball.

 

[roonster09]

Jumping for the ball with the goalkeeper is not always a foul. It's a judgement by the referee.

If you barge GK when he is collecting the ball, it's always foul and it is given all the time. Just watch Burnley vs Leicester game, Burnely player barely touched Schmeichel when he was punching the ball, it was called foul and rightly so.

 

[RobinLFC]

If players were allowed to jump into the goalkeeper without touching the ball, then no keeper would ever be able to claim a cross again... as they'd just have a striker run and jump into them.

Not only that, but since when have footballers been allowed to challenge for the ball, not make any contact with it, and the result of their challenge takes the opponent - who has won the ball ahead of them - off their feet? This has literally never been a thing.

I'm surprised that people, let alone actual "pundits", try to claim that it isn't a foul. If Pawson blows his whistle, not a single soul with a bit of objectivity would claim that it was the wrong decision.

For what it's worth, we got a similarly shocking decision against us last season when a Burnley player obviously impeded Alisson and a corner went straight into the back of the net.

 

[roonster09]

If players were allowed to jump into the goalkeeper without touching the ball, then no keeper would ever be able to claim a cross again... as they'd just have a striker run and jump into them.

Not only that, but since when have footballers been allowed to challenge for the ball, not make any contact with it, and the result of their challenge takes the opponent - who has won the ball ahead of them - off their feet? This has literally never been a thing.

GKs should use Neuer technique of punching the ball or catching.

 

[roonster09]

VAR overturns it directly because it's not a subjective situation, it's an objective one. De Gea has possession of the ball at the moment of contact. Can't challenge a gk who has possession of the ball

Pawson actually put the whistle in his mouth, i think he thought it was a foul but wasn't 100% sure of it, saw the ball fall to a defender anyways and kinda froze and let the play go on because it either wouldn't matter anyways or VAR could could intervene if it ended up mattering(as it did)

Yeah he thought it was foul and was about to blow whistle but then stopped as he wanted VAR to make decision in case there wasn't any foul.

 

[Mb194dc]

If you barge GK when he is collecting the ball, it's always foul and it is given all the time. Just watch Burnley vs Leicester game, Burnely player barely touched Schmeichel when he was punching the ball, it was called foul and rightly so.

Jump and barge are very different. Barge is a foul obv.

If a player stands next to GK and jumps in his own space on the pitch, it's not a foul.

Nothing says player needs get out of the GK way. Same as any aerial challenge on the whole pitch.

Just can't move in to his space, as in barge.

Up to the referee to judge it.

Anyone got another example of the referee being overruled, having clearly seen the incident perfectly, without the ref checking himself on the screen, in the way this was from any other league?

 

[roonster09]

Jump and barge are very different. Barge is a foul obv.

If a player stands next to GK and jumps in his own space on the pitch, it's not a foul.

Nothing says player needs get out of the GK way. Same as any aerial challenge on the whole pitch.

Just can't move in to his space, as in barge.

Up to the referee to judge it.

Anyone got another example of the referee being overruled, having clearly seen the incident perfectly, without the ref checking himself on the screen, in the way this was from any other league?

He wasn't in his space. He didn't head the ball but barged GK. In any game or league it's a foul.

Anyways you are free to feel whatever you want to. IMO it's ridiculous that there is even debate on this.

 

[cyberman]

Don't patronise - "Clear and Obvious" is directly referenced in the rules for applied to Goal decision:

"For subjective decisions such as a foul or a handball, VAR can be used to overturn if a “clear and obvious error” has been identified. "

The point is, this decision is grey, Pawson, incorrectly in my opinion, went one way & VAR ignored it's own rules by reversing it

Its not grey though. The keeper had the ball in his hands and VVD couldnt get there but crashed into David causing hin to lose the ball. You cannot challenge the keeper when hes in the air with the ball in his hands. That is the law. It just is.
My issue with clear and ovious is thats being used when clear and obvious isnt an issue and when people dont know the laws so cant even have a valid opinion on what clear and obvious even is.

 

[montpelier]

Its not grey though. The keeper had the ball in his hands and VVD couldnt get there but crashed into David causing hin to lose the ball. You cannot challenge the keeper when hes in the air with the ball in his hands. That is the law. It just is.
My issue with clear and ovious is thats being used when clear and obvious isnt an issue and when people dont know the laws so cant even have a valid opinion on what clear and obvious even is.

Yeah, clear and obvious is a complete red herring. To take away from that's its actually about "my subjective view" or "your subjective view"

It was a highly unusual decision to allow the Firmino goal initially though surely?

 

[cyberman]

Yeah, clear and obvious is a complete red herring. To take away from that's its actually about "my subjective view" or "your subjective view"

It was a highly unusual decision to allow the Firmino goal initially though surely?

Pawson is a terrible ref though. Hes the VAR ref who let the Everton foul on DDG to stand. He obviously has an issue with is understanding of that rule.

 

[RobinLFC]

Its not grey though. The keeper had the ball in his hands and VVD couldnt get there but crashed into David causing hin to lose the ball. You cannot challenge the keeper when hes in the air with the ball in his hands. That is the law. It just is.
My issue with clear and ovious is thats being used when clear and obvious isnt an issue and when people dont know the laws so cant even have a valid opinion on what clear and obvious even is.

De Gea never had the ball in his hands. I don't even know why anyone would suggest that if they've looked at the footage longer than 5 seconds.

 

[cyberman]

De Gea never had the ball in his hands. I don't even know why anyone would suggest that if they've looked at the footage longer than 5 seconds.

Maybe because VVD fouled him? You cannot charge the keeper in the air.

http://www.asktheref.com/Soccer Rules/Question/26710/

Just how it is

 

[RobinLFC]

Maybe because VVD fouled him? You cannot charge the keeper in the air.

http://www.asktheref.com/Soccer Rules/Question/26710/

Just how it is

Read my other reply on this page, I never said it wasn't a foul - it obviously was one. De Gea simply never had possession of the ball. Even though it was a "foul", i.e. almost nothing in it but you can't touch the keeper when he's in the air, has been like that since forever, I thought it was pretty poor by De Gea. You should still be able to catch that ball with a slight nudge like that imo - it certainly wasn't "barging into the goalkeeper" like some suggest.

His yellow card was fully justified as well - you can't react to the referee like that, no matter if you're right or wrong. I really wish referees would simply give a yellow each time they have a player in their face, no matter how light the protest. It would quickly die down just like in other sports. The hounding of the ref has become ridiculous in football.

 

[cyberman]

Read my other reply on this page, I never said it wasn't a foul - it obviously was one. De Gea simply never had possession of the ball. Even though it was a "foul", i.e. almost nothing in it but you can't touch the keeper when he's in the air, has been like that since forever, I thought it was pretty poor by De Gea. You should still be able to catch that ball with a slight nudge like that imo - it certainly wasn't "barging into the goalkeeper" like some suggest.

His yellow card was fully justified as well - you can't react to the referee like that, no matter if you're right or wrong. I really wish referees would simply give a yellow each time they have a player in their face, no matter how light the protest. It would quickly die down just like in other sports. The hounding of the ref has become ridiculous in football.

Yeah, you cant have players abuse refs and get away with it because they were right.
Plus they know VAR is in play anyway and it will be lookes at from all angles. If anything its stupidity

 

[Number4.]

Yeah he thought it was foul and was about to blow whistle but then stopped as he wanted VAR to make decision in case there wasn't any foul.

The other point on this is that VAR doesn't (Based on it's own rules) have the jurisdiction to review the incident. The ball fell to Lindelof & thus recycled into a different phase of play. I know it's going down rabbit holes in one sense, but again it's VAR being selectively used.

 

[roonster09]

The other point on this is that VAR doesn't (Based on it's own rules) have the jurisdiction to review the incident. The ball fell to Lindelof & thus recycled into a different phase of play. I know it's going down rabbit holes in one sense, but again it's VAR being selectively used.

It's not different phase.

 

[montpelier]

The other point on this is that VAR doesn't (Based on it's own rules) have the jurisdiction to review the incident. The ball fell to Lindelof & thus recycled into a different phase of play. I know it's going down rabbit holes in one sense, but again it's VAR being selectively used.

I wondered that too without completely agreeing it is a new phase of play - I mean that in a "take your pick" sense rather than as an argument.