VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

gaffs said:
No ifs or buts required. No paradox. Fact is, Maguire was involved in the play and he was in an offside position.

If he was onside would that have changed the outcome? Maybe not, but as soon as he makes an effort to play the ball, and potentially prevents the defender reaching it, he is involved in the play.

Contrary to what you said, the defender is looking at the ball...

6e6sWFX.jpg


He then looks to play the ball but can't because Maguire has him blocked out....

Sf92Vrg.png


Why has Maguire got the defender blocked out? Because he is trying to get the ball first, therefore involved in play.

Really not a difficult one to understand.
Click to expand...

Would this have not been deemed to have occured during the second phase of play after Garnacho who was onside received the ball?
 
gaffs said:
No ifs or buts required. No paradox. Fact is, Maguire was involved in the play and he was in an offside position.

If he was onside would that have changed the outcome? Maybe not, but as soon as he makes an effort to play the ball, and potenially prevents the defender reaching it, he is involved in the play.

Contrary to what you said, the defender is looking at the ball...

6e6sWFX.jpg


He then looks to play the ball but can't because Maguire has him blocked out....

Sf92Vrg.png


Why has Maguire got the defender blocked out? Because he is trying to get the ball first, therefore involved in play.

Really not a difficult one to understand.
Click to expand...

Potentially? Otherwise known as guesswork so basically we are ruling out a goal because we are guessing that maybe the offside player has stopped the defender from getting to the ball or maybe not. But it is a paradox because would that defender even be in that position to potentially play the ball if the offside player wasn't there?

Its very subjective, I can understand how the ref and VAR came to the conclusion that they did based on the current wording of the rules. But should we really be ruling out a goal on the very unlikely chance that Maguire's actions have actually stopped the defender playing the ball.

If Maguire pulls out and doesn't lunge for the ball would the defender definetley get there to clear it? At the very most it's 50/50. If we can't be sure how can we possibly rule the goal out?
 
I think the Newcastle goal should have been a foul but it’s not a blatant error.

Arteta and Arsenal have been rather dramatic about it tbh.
 
Does anyone remember when Lindelof (I think it was) had an attacker grab him by the face and then win the header and score? Anyone recall what match that was, couple of years ago.
 
I think people are hugely missing the point about our disallowed goal.

The real grievance is that it was in no way a clear and obvious error. No Fulham player was complaining that Maguire was offside and interfering play.

Even with VAR, it took 3 minutes to decide whether it was an offside, and in the end it was the refs subjective opinion. And for most of these 3 minutes nobody knew what we were looking for.
This sort if application of VAR is killing the game. What’s the point of disallowing a goal for an offside by a toe. It’s against the spirit of the law
 
Longshanks said:
Potentially? Otherwise known as guesswork so basically we are ruling out a goal because we are guessing that maybe the offside player has stopped the defender from getting to the ball or maybe not. But it is a paradox because would that defender even be in that position to potentially play the ball if the offside player wasn't there?
Click to expand...

Of course, it is potentially, because he didn't get to the ball. Maguire was in the way of him so prevented his chance.

Why was Maguire in the way? Because he too was going for the ball, thus involved in the play.


Longshanks said:
Its very subjective, I can understand how the ref and VAR came to the conclusion that they did based on the current wording of the rules. But should we really be ruling out a goal on the very unlikely chance that Maguire's actions have actually stopped the defender playing the ball.
Click to expand...

You are right, the ref came to the conclusion based upon the rules. As they should be doing.

Read the rules....

2. Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
  • interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
  • interfering with an opponent by:
    • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
    • challenging an opponent for the ball or
    • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
    • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Longshanks said:
If Maguire pulls out and doesn't lunge for the ball would the defender definetley get there to clear it? At the very most it's 50/50. If we can't be sure how can we possibly rule the goal out?
Click to expand...

That didn't happen, so kind of irrelevant.

But if somehow Maguire miraculously realizes he was an inch offside and stops before getting in the player way, or getting near the ball, then he wouldn't be involved in play, so goal would have stood.

We see it with strikers. They will deliberately stop, sometimes put their hands on their heads to make it clear they are not trying to get involved in player.

Ask yourself honestly, if Fulham had scored this very same goal, what would your thoughts be on it?
Im guessing you would have been pissed that an offside Fulham player was blocking one of our defenders path to the ball.
 
Zed is not dead said:
I think people are hugely missing the point about our disallowed goal.

The real grievance is that it was in no way a clear and obvious error. No Fulham player was complaining that Maguire was offside and interfering play.

Even with VAR, it took 3 minutes to decide whether it was an offside, and in the end it was the refs subjective opinion. And for most of these 3 minutes nobody knew what we were looking for.
This sort if application of VAR is killing the game. What’s the point of disallowing a goal for an offside by a toe. It’s against the spirit of the law
Click to expand...
Dermott Gallagher on SKY said the reason the goal wasn’t overturned was lack of clear evidence to prove two decisions (ball out and offside) wrong but in the case of the push (which amazingly he said it was… I’ve never seen him disagree with officials before), it wasn’t referred to the ref because it was a subjective opinion and NOT a clear mistake.

So, how was the McT goal ruled out for (quote) “subjective offside”? They pick and choose their reasons, they’re consistently inconsistent.

THIS is what Ten Hag should be mentioning in the next PL press conference. I’m not a fan of managers moaning per se but we’ve been on the end of some sh!te decisions and I’d like him to (carefully) mention it.
 
Longshanks said:
Its a paradox, if Maguire wasn't in that exact location would the defender actually be there? Wherever Maguire is the defender follows because he is quite clearly man marking him.

You can't just imagine Maguire isn't there he will be somewhere. If he makes his run more into the centre the defender will follow him. Meaning he would definetley not be able to play the ball.

The defender doesn't try and play the ball he doesn't look at the ball, he doesn't try and get round Maguire or try and stop the ball getting to garnacho he just tries to make Maguire's life difficult from behind. If you take Maguire out of the equation the defender wouldn't be there.
Click to expand...

Spot on, and no one knows what the defender would have done, if Maguire had made an other run or just stood still. The defender is only there, because Maguire made that run.

But the question is also whether it was a clear and obvious mistake by the referee that he did not see the situation and awarded a goal?
 
Hester_manc said:
Spot on, and no one knows what the defender would have done, if Maguire had made an other run or just stood still. The defender is only there, because Maguire made that run.

But the question is also whether it was a clear and obvious mistake by the referee that he did not see the situation and awarded a goal?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that’s not in the law though. Its not up to Maguire as to where the defender goes
 
Ref Watch is strange

Can’t believe some people think Havertz was a yellow.

Additionally Bruno G - apparently yellow would have been correct.

Both blatant red cards. Bruno deliberately smashed someone in the head with his forearm FFS.
 
Zed is not dead said:
I think people are hugely missing the point about our disallowed goal.

The real grievance is that it was in no way a clear and obvious error. No Fulham player was complaining that Maguire was offside and interfering play.

Even with VAR, it took 3 minutes to decide whether it was an offside, and in the end it was the refs subjective opinion. And for most of these 3 minutes nobody knew what we were looking for.
This sort if application of VAR is killing the game. What’s the point of disallowing a goal for an offside by a toe. It’s against the spirit of the law
Click to expand...
This explains how I feel about it too. But it's the way it has now become.
 
I think the level of variance for every decision is my primary issue with the whole thing. Feels like you can make an argument for anything to be inside or outside the rules.
I wish they'd lock the rules down to more objective measures. Just dump the last 20 years of offside and go back to if anyone is off, its offside. More black and white, less interpretation, it'd be relatively easy to automate that.
Same with tackles and handballs and all the rest. Lock it down to a specific measures - player needs to be at least 3 feet from ball for handballs to count and everything past that is a handball - intention, natural position, bad luck and all the rest be damned. Easy to police, clear and objective rules.
 
Zed is not dead said:
I think people are hugely missing the point about our disallowed goal.

The real grievance is that it was in no way a clear and obvious error. No Fulham player was complaining that Maguire was offside and interfering play.

Even with VAR, it took 3 minutes to decide whether it was an offside, and in the end it was the refs subjective opinion. And for most of these 3 minutes nobody knew what we were looking for.
This sort if application of VAR is killing the game. What’s the point of disallowing a goal for an offside by a toe. It’s against the spirit of the law
Click to expand...

Sorry but have to disagree.

The clear and obvious error starts with HM not being given offside in the first place . If the ref didn’t know he was in an offside position ( the asst ref didn’t give it ) why would it even be possible for him to consider did he , Maguire, become active primarily and then the second question is did his actions impact. The fact was he viewed the incident as it happened assuming HM was onside.

So the ref now has to view the incident again knowing for a fact that there was the player in an offside position and does the ref now knowing that fact has to make a subjective decision
 
Longshanks said:
Its a paradox, if Maguire wasn't in that exact location would the defender actually be there? Wherever Maguire is the defender follows because he is quite clearly man marking him.

You can't just imagine Maguire isn't there he will be somewhere. If he makes his run more into the centre the defender will follow him. Meaning he would definetley not be able to play the ball.

The defender doesn't try and play the ball he doesn't look at the ball, he doesn't try and get round Maguire or try and stop the ball getting to garnacho he just tries to make Maguire's life difficult from behind. If you take Maguire out of the equation the defender wouldn't be there.
Click to expand...

Also the fact that multiple times its been explained that the offside rule requires someone to be "directly" interfering with play, and that the way officials interpret this is the offside player has to play the ball or obstruct someone from playing it.

This has been brought up on numerous occasions to justify why goals WEREN'T ruled out as being the correct decision. Including one of our own goals against City where Rashford had the ball passed directly to him and then ran after it for ages causing multiple defenders to have to run after him, but wasn't interfering (even though he was) because he didn't physically kick it. I mean I'd have even taken this strangely anti common sense way of approaching it, if they stuck with it. Now all of a sudden though its swung from this ridiculously idiotic extreme, all the way to the equally ridiculously idiotic extreme at the other side of the spectrum, where you're still interfering even if the ball is never passed to you, and you don't touch the ball, and couldn't possibly have influenced anyone who could have/did.

I don't think they get to use the subjective excuse for stuff like this, because subjective decisions should exist within a spectrum of accepting what a reasonable way to interpret and apply the rule is. You wouldn't send someone off for a push in the chest one week and then give a yellow for a right hook/uppercut combo to the face the next. If one official has a wildly different view on how a rule works to another, that is what directives and guidance are for. Failing that you discuss it as a team and agree how you will apply it consistently so you aren't all just making it up as you go along....this is what any semi competent team of people would do.

I also think when it comes to situations with outfield players, its quite an easy rule to be consistent with, because there are very few scenarios where it isn't clear if someone touched the ball/obstructed someone/influenced the position of players who might have played the ball. The only time it gets murkey is if someone's stood between a shot on goal and the keeper because then you're working out if someone's vision is blocked rather than looking at a direct action (or lack of)
 
Last edited:
Withnail said:
More nonsense from this clown :lol:
Click to expand...
Seriously.

I can't think of many other people who's livelihood depends on us being shite. Basically most of his viewers are rival fans. I get sent his rage clips every time we lose.
 
Berbaclass said:
I mean is it actually nonsense. All 3 names mentioned have a relationship with Howard Webb.
Click to expand...

Well yeah it is because Arteta made a tit of himself and pundits have a duty to point that out. Maybe they should be more consistent with that though. Only a few weeks back Neville and Carragher were basically egging Klopp on when his agenda seemed to be to make it against the rules for officials to allow Liverpool to lose.
 
With respect to other teams it is important that you don't forget the way we are being treated.
 
I have no idea why people are still going on about the Maguire offside. When i first read there was a controversial decision i thought it was going to be another VAR feckup, but an offside Maguire is competing with a Fulham defender for the ball. Again, Maguire is offside and competing with a Fulham defender to get a touch on the ball. If there wasn't a Fulham defender there then odds are the goal would've stood.

We'd be fecking livid if that was given against us, and it probably would
 
NotChatGPT said:
Strange they didn't bother to do something similar in regards to the goal VAR disallowed for us against Brighton.
Click to expand...

And of course, no mention of it here in this clip either. We have been absolutely pillaged by VAR this season and you don't hear boo about it.

I actually respect Arsenal and Liverpool for making a fuss about it. We just sit there like timid cats.
 
YikesSchmeics said:
And of course, no mention of it here either
Click to expand...

The main point being overlooked is that the VAR has used two very different approaches. Newcastle against Arsenal, they can't clearly identify if the ball has gone out or not so they stick with the linesman decision. Us against Brighton, there is no way they can clearly say the ball is over the line from the angle they have, the margin of error makes it extremely difficult, yet they overrule it instead of stating they can't prove it and revert to the linesman original decision.
 
That goal would have been offside if it would have been us. Player in offside position infront of keeper.
 
NotChatGPT said:
The main point being overlooked is that the VAR has used two very different approaches. Newcastle against Arsenal, they can't clearly identify if the ball has gone out or not so they stick with the linesman decision. Us against Brighton, there is no way they can clearly say the ball is over the line from the angle they have, the margin of error makes it extremely difficult, yet they overrule it instead of stating they can't prove it and revert to the linesman original decision.
Click to expand...


Oh completely agree, there is absolutely no consistency, zero.

VAR is actively looking to cast doubt instead of giving the benefit of the doubt, its a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.