I don't think the Rashford one was a penalty. He jumped over the keeper and could've landed on his feet, but then tucks his feet under and 'falls' on landing.
VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
You love a VAR angle don’t you
Doesn't matter, he clearly impedes his run.
Much as people say contact doesn't equal a foul, no contact doesn't also mean it's not a foul.
You love a VAR angle don’t you
Believe me there is nothing more I would rather be doing this season than not discussing VAR. Yet here we are.
What’s your explanation for an obvious penalty not being given despite the existence of a technology we were told would put an end to obvious penalties not being given?
No they checked the offside Ten Hag confirmed that
He was offside? So we got the offside graphic for the Maguire onside but not the Rashford offside? That’s weird.
Fans always say refs are corrupt but that had me genuinely thinking has this guy just remembered he's given too many corners?
Football rules weren't used for the Garnacho/Romero penalty. It was the week after Onana/Wolves and they simply couldn't be seen to give us anything. It was decided before the match.
I agree but can you give me one example where there was no contact but a penalty was given? Or even a foul?
So this is an offside against Vinicius Jr. yesterday. Technically correct but its just so absurd to me that this - and even more marginal calls - are offside now, especially with the automated tech coming in.
What advantage has Vinicius gained there? Offsides should be made feet based at the very least.
If the attackers foot goes that close to a player’s head then it would be a foul. Free kicks are often given for it. It’s covered in the rules. McTominay’s last night was probably considered reckless. And it was. The issue is how often will it be given.
VAR is still massively hampered by “clear and obvious error” giving precedence to the referee’s onfield decision.
There is a few issues with this:
- Referee’s view incidents once from a single and often awkward angle
- The paradox that referees are likely to shirk responsibility safe in the knowledge that VAR is there to
correct themconfirm to the world that they were correct. - Often decisions are subjective so a referee’s reason for a decision might be because they misinterpreted what actually happened however a level of subjectivity might lead the VAR to decline overruling because they assume the referee had actually interpreted what happened correctly and still come to the same decision.
So on point 3, I think it’s possible that the referee determined that a foul simply did not occur, either the keeper got a touch or Rashford dived.
How VAR could have stepped in is to say that the keeper did not get a touch and no contact with Rashford should be required anyway as Rashford protected himself by evading a dangerous and reckless challenge and in doing so missed a clear goal scoring opportunity. But they probably felt it didn’t meet the “clear and obvious error” threshold because the referee was of the opinion that Rashford “didn’t need to dive to evade the challenge”. It’s a complete grey area.
You’re giving the ref too much credit here, he gave it because the boot was high. It wasn’t a dangerous tackle at all. He wasn’t out of control, he didn’t go over the ball etc. it doesn’t fit any criteria for reckless.
High boot is specifically in the rule book as a rule on its own. If it wasn’t judged by that rule then VAR should have stepped in on that alone.
If you can point to me where the excessive force even occurs then I’d be surprised
It's totally against the spirit of the game. Attackers will always be leaning forwards as they'll almost always commence their run before a defender does, with defenders often facing sideways, there are so many advantages in favour of the defender.
So this is an offside against Vinicius Jr. yesterday. Technically correct but its just so absurd to me that this - and even more marginal calls - are offside now, especially with the automated tech coming in.
What advantage has Vinicius gained there? Offsides should be made feet based at the very least.
I've already seen it a few times this season that a defender will see that a ball is about to be played to an attacker who will undoubtedly leave them in the dust due to pace, so they hop or take a step forwards just before it's kicked to play them offside. I get that it's using the rules to one's advantage, but overall such aspects harm the beauty and athleticism of the sport. It feels like taking shortcuts to win games.
It's often not a foul though and it's often not given.
McT wasn't reckless and I don't see that as endangering an opponent.
It was a cheap penalty and one which really shouldn't have been given.
We're better off having this than all of the questionable calls. That logic is like stating that the review in tennis should be made more flexible because there's no advantage when it was out by 2mm.
So this is an offside against Vinicius Jr. yesterday. Technically correct but its just so absurd to me that this - and even more marginal calls - are offside now, especially with the automated tech coming in.
What advantage has Vinicius gained there? Offsides should be made feet based at the very least.
Yes this was marginal but if it was his foot this far offside I don't think you would be complaining as much. He can play the ball with his head, he's offside.
If you want to bring the whole "benefit of doubt in favour of the attacker" thing back then you're just asking for more of everything we've been complaining about for years. Why not let everything be exact and just completely avoid doubt.
It's in the rules for a reason, so why not use it? By that logic you're just saying that because somebody is moving in a different direction they should get even more of an advantage than they already have by running at pace.
When the lines end up together next to each other with no clear separation the decision should have been advantage attackers. The automated system can now bring your nose etc into play which in the whole is nonsense. The flip side is leaving interpretation in the hands of Var leads to its own problems. In reference to a few other decisions we have seen recently every time a defender lifts his foot to clear a high ball our players should be sticking their heads in every time whether or not there is a chance of winning the ball as 9/10 it appears to be a penalty.
Waving your foot at head height is always reckless. The definition is:
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned.
Hard to argue that waving your foot at head height doesn’t qualify there. The further clue of why it was given is that he booked McTominay.
I’m not sure high foot is mentioned anywhere in the rules of the game.
That’s the issue. By the rules I believe it is a foul and should be given in all instances.
So there's two bits of the law that could cover it off, one in Direct Free Kicks, the other in Indirect...
Direct Free Kick
- Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
- Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Indirect Free Kick
- plays in a dangerous manner
A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Considering McT's foot was actually nowhere near connecting with the Copenhagen players head, you'd have to say it falls in the dangerous manner - it wasn't careless, or reckless.
Preaching to the choir here. It should be feet only.
So this is an offside against Vinicius Jr. yesterday. Technically correct but its just so absurd to me that this - and even more marginal calls - are offside now, especially with the automated tech coming in.
What advantage has Vinicius gained there? Offsides should be made feet based at the very least.
That's the only thing that matters. His shoulder, head, whatever means nothing if he doesn't move his feet.
That's the only true advantage
I don’t agree it was nowhere near the Copenhagen player’s head. You could actually see him pull back for fear of contact.
I agree that there are similarities in those rules but given he booked McTominay I think it’s safe to assume that the former rule was applied.
So would it be ok had McT tried a scissor/bicycle kick in your view?
He can score with the other parts besides his hands and arms. If this is from a cross and he scores directly from it, he has an advantage.
I just don't think they bothered checking it properly. I saw someone suggest that the foul was actually outside the box, so I think it ultimately came down to the ref not bothering to blow for it.
Defenders are free to use it, but when it increasingly becomes the go-to move to kill off what would've been a good battle or opportunity, I and many others will see our enjoyment of the game diminish as it morphs away from a spectacle of athleticism and into a game of quick references to the rulebook.
Yeah the automated system is almost a double edged-sword in that a player can be ruled offside for even more absurd reasons, but I still do prefer a (fast) automated system than the inconsistent line-drawing of VAR assistants proactively looking for a dubious camera angle to rule out a goal and justify their relevance.
No, because doing that in that situation couldn’t be anything other than reckless.
That’s just silly. A player could be 6 foot offside but for his feet and score a header if that was true
The solution is clear. Atttackers need to run whilst leaning backwards as far as they can.
My suggestion would be that they introduce limbo training, so attackers learn to run horizontally to counteract defenders that lean forward. They may even end up being able to run through the defenders legs.
Attacking players need to watch videos of how roadrunner and the coyote would start their sprints.
Lean back, take a few steps on the spot as they generate momentum then whizz forward. Tradition can help us overcome challenges of technology, it's a perfect technique.
But you’re just describing a high foot.
you really need to explain why it isn’t just a high foot when there isn’t contact. The ref doubling down in his mistake doesn’t mean much. If High foot is always reckless then there’s no need to categorise it as high foot.
If it’s not just a high foot then the contact alone for the pen is ridiculous anyway.
If he made contact with the attacker then fine but he clearly doesn’t even do that.
What gives it away was how long it took VAR to look over it imo.
Heres the law. It’s hidden under indirect free kicks
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player ... plays in a dangerous manner. Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."
that fits last night to a T.
It needs to be done like this.
Or they could just learn to bend their runs like Henry used to do.
I get the whole "enjoyment of the game thing" but when people have spent so long complaining about inconsistent refereeing, even with VAR's introduction, it seems like the best option here to just remove any doubt whatsoever. If it's down to athleticism then as I said before, if attackers just stay onside and beat their man anyway, then it's still as impressive even if they're not gaining an advantage from being offside.
He turns his head to try and get the header towards goal and did? He doesn’t pull back at all
I actually prefer the automated offside system, it's far superior to the dodgy VAR lines in that it seems to quickly deliver a perfect and evidenced decision, as opposed to the false promise of VAR. But with its introduction, the offside rules no longer seem fit for purpose in my view. Anyone can look at that image and realise that Vini does not gain any unfair advantage with his shoulder being three centimetres beyond the knee of the defender. Basically, he is objectively offside, but to me that makes the offside rule the problem.
It's his head that's offside though and surely anything you can play the ball with would be subject to this rule? So technically shoulder would be included but the rest of your arm or your hand wouldn't be.
Small technicality I know but that's what they have to stick with I think.
Where is high foot mentioned in the rules of the game?
You may be right on that. He gets to the ball first and it doesn’t really impact his ability to play the ball. I don’t know how anybody can argue that raising your foot so high you nearly kick somebody in the face isn’t reckless though. Which is covered by the rules. As I initially said, it’s the consistency with which the rules that are applied that is the issue. In isolation I think that’s a penalty.
Last edited: