VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
But that has always been the case even pre VAR. If anything now the refs can actually have a proper look & make decisions based on slow motions & multiple angles if they have to . This means that there are lesser chances of absolutely crazy howlers now .
Fact is that in the ideal world people would see that Tierney missed it on real view and then saw a clear foul on replay so overturned his decision which is exactly the point of this system but somehow people & media have become obsessed with talking about VAR so we keep going on &on about this
It's not the first time and it's fairly logical. The VAR ref is only going to ask the on-field ref to review it when he's sure an error had been made. In that scenario of course it's going to be overturned most of the time. It's not a conspiracy. If it was something like 50/50 everyone would be giving out about unnecessary reviews showing down the game.
Ridiculous carry on. Dermott tells them it's a foul even under the new interpretation and then they carry on with their back to last year nonsense and also agree it was a foul but still think the goal should have stood
He’s forgotten who’s the defence and who’s the attacker here, he’s flagged as soon as the defender come across.
Man is day dreaming and instantly knows he fecks up
US football has rules so specific that it seems like the referees should have side jobs as accountants....it doesn't help. The big players still get the calls. The big teams get the calls. The big games get the calls.
Soccer doesn't even have that. The rules are vague. The implementation is vague and always changing.
US refs do have to verbalize what the call is, and they do occasionally stop the game, huddle and then say "No call.". PL refs just make a call and then hide.
It was careless.
So many fouls In football are subjective and very few are technical. In other words it’s in the opinion of the ref. As I said yesterday I can see why the free kick was given ironically I am not alone indeed as quoted Souness for one and on BT at least one of their match day pundits likewise as did the reviewing journalist on Sky yesterday morning.
Gallagher didn’t on the basis that the ref should have had a perfect view ( we have no idea did he see it as well as the VAR that’s jut an assumption) but what Gallagher did say is that the IFAB directive is clear that if a keeper is down injured in the penalty area the ref must stop play . Now the question is was Mendy truly injured and to be honest I doubt it but then again I would apply that judgment to most players that go go claiming injury.
I don't understand the 'soft' argument that is made with fouls like the one Odegaard makes. The whole point of the game is to get the ball and not the player. If you get absolutely none of the ball and all of the player it doesn't fecking matter how soft it is, it's a foul.
Problem is that everyone associated to the PL is obsessed with referees and have considered them part of the product for the last 20-30 years. I watch an insane amount of NFL and there are loads of controversial decisions there but the broadcasters mention them tor a second & then move on. Having watched 7-8 seasons of NFL I can barely name 1-2 umpires and I would hardly be able to identify any . All the podcasts & shows I watch barely ever mention the umpires
Now compare this to premier league where every single decision is talked about for ages by the commentators, HT show , Ft show and then all the podcasts/shows. This leads to an insane amount of paranoia about refs. Like in the previous week Arsenal fans somehow were talking about Tierney & checking out his history, location etc . This has gone to extreme levels now and VAR or no VAR this is just not going to change anytime soon
Last edited:
Hmmmm. If the GK is injured the ref is obliged to stop play you say?
This still winds me up.
Should’ve shithoused him and got him sent off. I thought that this var supposed to be picked up by VAR? No wonder players dive.
No apply that logic to the Mendy one. As I said yesterday technically I can see why it was called a foul.
Drug bans, getting sent off pre-season, swearing near a camera..........They’re making it up as they go along, aren’t they?
I have, Bowen doesn't foul Mendy. Odegaard fouls Eriksen. It doesn't matter if a foul is soft or not soft, it's a foul either way. The difference in Odegaard and Bowen is that one is a foul and one isn't. Softness isn't the issue with the Bowen incident.
Problem is Bowen did try to get the ball, didn't get any of the ball but did touch Mendy, so according to your first post ot sounds like it is a foul.
I said the other day, the problem with that decision (I don't think it was a foul) Is that by Bowen leaving his foot dragging (presumably to either try and get contact) Is that he allowed the ref/VAR to make a decision. Personally, with that incident I see how it was given but don't agree with it as it falls into what you initially posted with the added GK protection they get.
Nope that’s in the IFAB
Did Bowens boot make contact with Mendy? Now we all know not all physical contact is a foul but it then becomes subjective and in the case of a GK they are afforded extra protection.
That’s my point exactly.
Gallaghers comment added to the debate about immediately stopping play when a keeper is down injured in the area.
No, because the two opponents tried to get the ball and collided with each other. It was nothing more than two opponents colliding. There is an obvious difference between the Odegaard foul and the Mendy/Bowen collision. Same for the Willock/Palace incident. Aside from Willock being pushed, he doesn't foul the keeper. He and the keeper collide.
See above.
Mendy is the one being careless. He dives at Bowen’s feet and initiates the contact. By that logic every challenge where somebody wins the ball and the opponent then touches the tackler is a foul. That’s nonsense.
Is it a recent addition? Because Arsenal scored a goal against us a season or two ago, with DDG lying in a heap on the goal line.
Mmmmmm, that didn't happen last season when De Gea was down injured and Arsenal scored.
If it is a rule, it surely has to also be applied with common sense and only after the direct phase of play has finished. Otherwise all keepers would just “do a Mendy” and writh around on the ground every time they messed up in similar circumstances.
Pretty sure he wasn’t injured though so..
@terraloo I never said Bowen played the ball. I said Mendy initiated the contact by diving at Bowen’s feet. That makes it impossible for Bowen to avoid touching him. That is not a foul. The only reckless player in that scenario is the one diving at an opponents feet.
I don't think it was a foul but how on earth is Mendy being careless? The ball is there to be saved and he gets to the ball first easily. You say he dives at Bowen's feet as if he's supposed to do something else there. He dives onto the ball as he should. Bowen tries to jump over him and lets his trailing leg catch Mendy. Also in slow motion you can tell Mendy thinks he's going to get clattered so he has a slight reaction to that seconds before Bowen skips over him, which is probably why his mishandled the ball instead of just grabbing it like a keeper normally would.
Yep. They make it up as they go along!
Mendy didn’t dive on to the ball? He punched it away? He had no intention of claiming it nor does he mishandle it. He just punches it!
I’m really surprised people are trying to justify one of the most ridiculous decisions the game has ever seen. The acknowledgment by the professional body itself that it’s an error they are reviewing should be enough.
As I said, to me it looked like he thinks he's going to get clattered and you can see his body do a little self-preservation move seconds before Bowen skips over him. I'm not trying to justify anything. I said it wasn't a foul but I was responding to a post saying Mendy was careless because he dived at Bowen's feet. That's where the ball was and got the there first, so nothing careless about what Mendy did apart from the way he handled the ball. I think if he doesn't hesitate, which he actually does twice in that whole sequence, he gets to the ball calmly way before Bowen even thinks about skipping over him.
He wasn't down injured, he was pretending to be injured, just like Mendy the other day.
Refs are shit but they got the Mendy call wrong and that De Gea one right, not the other way around.
It’s his only hope of getting to the ball but if you throw yourself at somebody’s feet and they have to jump over you to avoid being clattered it’s always a little reckless. Keepers get away with it though and maybe they should. Doesn’t make it a foul by Bowen though which is my point. Terraloo is trying to apply the laws very literally.
He parries the ball away from Bowen. I'm not sure I understand what else you expect the keeper to do there? I don't think it's a foul either, but apart from handling the ball poorly (solely from a Chelsea perspective), Mendy did nothing wrong there. Oh and the pretending to be injured. That was bad.
Any challenge for the ball that means your opponent has to jump over you to avoid being clattered is by nature reckless. The rules aren’t applied the same way to keepers though and I’m not trying to say a foul should’ve been given against Mendy. I’m pointing out that by the rules of the game the only player being careless or reckless is Mendy thus further emphasising the point it was never a foul by Bowen. It’s a reply to the literal fashion in which terraloo is trying to frame the decision.