This post implies that VAR will always result in the correct decision and will be used in a consistent manner. As we've seen, that hasn't been the case so far.
VAR Decisions - PL 19/20 Season
- Thread starter edcunited1878
- Start date
This post implies that VAR will always result in the correct decision and will be used in a consistent manner. As we've seen, that hasn't been the case so far.
It's only the correct decision because they've specifically changed the rules to accommodate the introduction of VAR. Last season that goal would have stood even if the referee saw it come off Laporte's hand as it happened.
VAR as it is now is going to detract from football rather than add to it. I said it when they gave offside to Sterling last week and I said it when they let Aguero retake his penalty. It's sucking emotion and spontaneity out of the game. It's already at the point where I'm not celebrating goals with the same passion because I'm not sure if it's going to stand. When Jesus scored I was worried he was offside so didn't go crazy.
Handball rule is fine, if it didn't hit his arm then the ball wouldn't have landed in Jesus' feet. It's the clear and obvious rule that should be discussed here, in the modern game that's a penalty.
The problem with this tweet is that VAR today has literally used incorrect decisions to decide who wins the game.
A referee making a mistake is actually a lot less dangerous than a referee sitting in a room full of cameras DECIDING which mistakes he wants to correct.
And it was taken away from them. In the future people are going to be reluctant to celebrate.
dems the rulesCorrect decisions
How was it worse for Tottenham fans?
There is also now the possibility that a ball can accidentally hit a defending player's hand, bounce onto an attacker's hand, the attacking team then scores, and VAR disallows it because the first handball is not a foul but the second one is. Even if both are accidental and in natural positions. It's a rule which penalises the attacking side.
Swear it’s like the same type of people that say vaccinations don’t work all the time.
Just take the vast majority of proven positive results. Jesus feck
I don't have a problem with the handball, but, laporte hand was pulled by the spurs player, so is that not a foul?
One is a subjective call the other is an objective call.
It's been explained already.
People are desperate to shit on VAR, spin all kinds of bullshits. Now rules are changed to fit the system, nope, rules are changed because those who changing rules and making decisions trying to push everything possible in VAR area and hide behind it. If they wanted they could make a decision to stick to few things at start for like 3 seasons and slowly progress towards introducing more things, so the whole thing evolves.
Seems thats not in interest of many, VAR this VAR that, killing emotion ( yea right ), 0 or 100 nothing in between. Imagine technology developing like that.
Seems thats not in interest of many, VAR this VAR that, killing emotion ( yea right ), 0 or 100 nothing in between. Imagine technology developing like that.
It's also a rule you can't grab a player in the opposition box like Lamela did to Rodri but VAR decided that didn't merit intervention. I'm not even annoyed about that because in my view it wasn't obvious enough to merit VAR overturning it but if we're going to use it for it flicking off an attacking player's hand accidentally then we can use it when a player puts his hand round an opponent and drags them back.
The Laporte one was not a foul. He went down far too easy.
Spurs mate not City. Spurs fans celebrated like they had scored a goal
Laporte didn't go down, his hand was pulled in the lead up to the goal which resulted in his arm touching the ball
This is the issue I have, seems odd to rule a goal out for it striking the hand, when the hand is being grabbed by the opposition player
Thats not really an explanation. The handball was a handball and the penalty incident was a foul. There wasn't anything subjective or objective about it. Those are the rules.
Picking and choosing when VAR should interfere is much worse than not having it. Because of subjective VAR City will now end the season with 2 less points than they should and Spurs 1 more.
If that ends up deciding a title or champions league space you have an entire season that a ref sitting in a room has manufactured the outcome of.
Remember when we thought VAR would have fit rid of Controversy after a football match and all will be boring.
I think its subjective call because you think its foul, but VAR ref didn't think it is, or at-least not enough for giving penalty.
I personally think VAR should not check in corners, or we will be in situation where in every game we will have penalty decision from corner, and more time wasting for checking every penalty incident.
The issue is that VAR isn't being asked whether it was a penalty/handball. It is being asked whether the referee made a clear and obvious mistake in not awarding the penalty/handball.
In the case of the handball, that's a clear yes under the new rules. If it hit the player's hand, the referee made a clear and obvious error in not awarding a penalty. Handball in this instance is an objective call. Once VAR see it touch the hand, their decision is made for them.
That isn't the case in the Laporte incident as we know that referees allow a certain amount of pulling and dragging at set pieces. The fact that this is an area where referees show subjectivity and discretion makes it harder for it to meet the threshold VAR requires to overturn the referee's decision.
This is what VAR is here for. It’s a definite handball and was correctly disallowed. So instead of getting a dodgy three points a robbing Spurs, they deservedly only get the one.
One is a fact. It hit his hand, that's not allowed, the goal is not given.
One is opinion. The referee has seen it and in his opinion, it's not a penalty. VAR can't determine that it was a clear and obvious error by the referee because he's seen it, it's his opinion so they don't overrule.
Every team will have decisions to contend with over the season and it'll become an accepted part of the game
One is opinion. The referee has seen it and in his opinion, it's not a penalty. VAR can't determine that it was a clear and obvious error by the referee because he's seen it, it's his opinion so they don't overrule.
Every team will have decisions to contend with over the season and it'll become an accepted part of the game
Ah right, sorry thought you were on about when he hand his hand held and threw himself down. Yeah, makes it even more frustrating.
That's literally not how VAR works.
I totally get where you're coming from, and I have sympathy for your view. But I think if you take all football watchers as a whole with their opinions evened out over a season, VAR will come out as a positive.
There's also a possiblity that opponents such as yourself will eventually get used to it the same way that tennis fans did with hawkeye.
In the long term, I think this will be seen as a good development for the game.
Aguero and Pep making up before VAR stole the reason for their emotional rapprochement brings a new aspect of profundity to the technology. It has the capability to perplex hearts.
In my opinion, they should have a challenge system. Each team should get 2-3 challenges per match, and if they're wrong then they lose one. And you can challenge absolutely anything, but the play has to reach a natural conclusion before the challenge takes place.
That way, no-one could ever complain ever again about an incident going against them, because if you didn't challenge it then it's your own fault. And if you believe a legitimate goal had been scored against you, particularly early in a game, then you'd have to weigh up whether or not you challenge it, like plumb LBWs in cricket.
There is always the possibility that managers would save their challenges for goals, but if they did this then they can't ever legitimately complain about other decisions that have gone against them, because they could have challenged them. Equally, if you've got a challenge left at the end of a game then you might as well use them on anything; this happens in other sports.
It wouldn't be perfect, but it would largely, or possibly completely, prevent unfair inconsistencies, and every single goal being checked. Managers would soon stop challenging every goal when they lost a challenge, and then couldn't challenge something that went against them later in the game.
You could also show replays in the stadium, as happens in other sports, and this would negate the, I believe justified, complaints about the match-going experience being ruined. And there wouldn't be any argument about 'VAR looks at this, but not at this', you could challenge everything via replay, but you'd have to be discerning in the way that you did it.
By implementing this, everything gets looked at, if you don't get consistency with officiating then it's your own fault, any stinkers should be ruled out, and if they aren't then its the fault of the coaches, and supporters could be more involved in the whole process. It would arguably also stop dissent against officials, as if you really 100% as a player believe that foul play has occurred then you could advise your manager to challenge it.
I think this would be massively preferable to the current scenario, where every single goal gets looked at, and you never know if it's going to count or not, but then other stuff isn't even considered, and VAR regulates over certain scenarios far, far more than others.
That way, no-one could ever complain ever again about an incident going against them, because if you didn't challenge it then it's your own fault. And if you believe a legitimate goal had been scored against you, particularly early in a game, then you'd have to weigh up whether or not you challenge it, like plumb LBWs in cricket.
There is always the possibility that managers would save their challenges for goals, but if they did this then they can't ever legitimately complain about other decisions that have gone against them, because they could have challenged them. Equally, if you've got a challenge left at the end of a game then you might as well use them on anything; this happens in other sports.
It wouldn't be perfect, but it would largely, or possibly completely, prevent unfair inconsistencies, and every single goal being checked. Managers would soon stop challenging every goal when they lost a challenge, and then couldn't challenge something that went against them later in the game.
You could also show replays in the stadium, as happens in other sports, and this would negate the, I believe justified, complaints about the match-going experience being ruined. And there wouldn't be any argument about 'VAR looks at this, but not at this', you could challenge everything via replay, but you'd have to be discerning in the way that you did it.
By implementing this, everything gets looked at, if you don't get consistency with officiating then it's your own fault, any stinkers should be ruled out, and if they aren't then its the fault of the coaches, and supporters could be more involved in the whole process. It would arguably also stop dissent against officials, as if you really 100% as a player believe that foul play has occurred then you could advise your manager to challenge it.
I think this would be massively preferable to the current scenario, where every single goal gets looked at, and you never know if it's going to count or not, but then other stuff isn't even considered, and VAR regulates over certain scenarios far, far more than others.
Just watched the VAR decision for that disallowed City goal. Seems incredibly harsh, and I'm saying that as a United fan and as someone who has always wanted video refereeing in some format.
Watched City vs Spurs highlights (switched off game around 70th min), the ending was so good, it was like someone wanted the replay of CL game. Jesus dance
I agree want Gary Neville said in the post match, city should not feel injustice about the goal. However harsh it may be, VAR did the right thing in getting the right call.
But they have every right to be pissed off at the penalty call. I mean if a professional ref looks at that and thinks it’s not a foul, I am sorry, no amount of tech would improve the game.
And people on here defend that it was somehow a subjective call, seriously??
But they have every right to be pissed off at the penalty call. I mean if a professional ref looks at that and thinks it’s not a foul, I am sorry, no amount of tech would improve the game.
And people on here defend that it was somehow a subjective call, seriously??
It is a subjective call. That sort of physicality on the box at set pieces happens in every game across the country. Refs are often a bit lenient with them. Otherwise there would be penalties every match from holding in the box.
Horrible decision.
His arm deflect the ball so Sterling receive it and score a goal. According to the rules that is not a goal.
People call it unfair, incorrect. One thing is for sure, it's correct and would it be fair for City to get that goal?
People call it unfair, incorrect. One thing is for sure, it's correct and would it be fair for City to get that goal?
It is harsh but I think I like the new rule. It takes out any ambiguity.
It would be for a few weeks, then defenders would stop cheating once they know they can't get away with it anymore.
The hilarious bit is that on the new rule City would have beaten Spurs in the CL as the ball touched Lorente's hand for his goal and on the old rule City would have beaten Spurs yesterday as Laporte's handball was unintentional. It's cruel for City fans but fate has made them enough favours already, from their rich owners to having Guardiola. You can't have everything.
I agree but it's one of those things that has had such a weird middle ground that I believe refs have just agreed to let them go a bit.
One great thing about the VAR controversy is how many people it's exposed as not knowing the rules. How can you complain about a system enforcing the rules if you don't even know the rules?
All this talk about elbows and fingernails being offside and last night's accidental handball etc. I don't like the new handball law, I think the accidental handball bit should only apply to the goalscorer himself, but I think VAR's doing what it says on the tin.
All this talk about elbows and fingernails being offside and last night's accidental handball etc. I don't like the new handball law, I think the accidental handball bit should only apply to the goalscorer himself, but I think VAR's doing what it says on the tin.