VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

Longshanks said:
If they are given fouls for Luis Diaz, diogo Jota and Bruno Fernandes. Then yes it's a foul.

Realistically speaking I'm not sure i would give it as a foul, players are allowed to move around off the ball I think it's up to Trafford to be stronger there I'm not convinced he was getting there either and just bought the contact.

But in the current climate of there being consistent it's should be given as a foul.
Click to expand...

Agree with this!

Never a foul in a million years.

Players can stand and move where they want. They are not obliged to move out of the way to allow other players to get the ball. Especially not players who aren’t getting to the ball anyway.

One of those fouls that I’d be upset about if it was against us but I’d probably eventually admit that it wasn’t a foul.

Not worth a discussion IMO
 
Karel Podolsky said:
I think it's a foul , more abvious than Akanji (?) on Allison a few weeks ago.
Click to expand...
It is genuinely amazing that every controversial decision these days has a comparable Liverpool scenario which had the exact opposite outcome to benefit the Scouse wankers:
  • a goal ruled out for an attacking infringement one week? Liverpool goal given the next
  • a stone-wall penalty denied last week? Liverpool get two non-penalties the very next gameday
  • a player receives TWO yellow cards for dissent and thus a red? Liverpool players and management can abuse officials with impunity
  • a player gets punished for a ‘tactical foul’ one week? Liverpool players - en masse - perform cynical fouls incessantly but are rarely, if ever, booked accordingly
An absolutely farcical situation and one which seriously tarnishes the integrity of the league.
 
Longshanks said:
If they are given fouls for Luis Diaz, diogo Jota and Bruno Fernandes. Then yes it's a foul.

Realistically speaking I'm not sure i would give it as a foul, players are allowed to move around off the ball I think it's up to Trafford to be stronger there I'm not convinced he was getting there either and just bought the contact.

But in the current climate of there being consistent it's should be given as a foul.
Click to expand...
K Stand Knut said:
Agree with this!

Never a foul in a million years.

Players can stand and move where they want. They are not obliged to move out of the way to allow other players to get the ball. Especially not players who aren’t getting to the ball anyway.

One of those fouls that I’d be upset about if it was against us but I’d probably eventually admit that it wasn’t a foul.

Not worth a discussion IMO
Click to expand...

Game of opinions and all that but disagree with the above.

The player clearly backs in to obstruct the keeper. He makes no attempt to win the ball and is even facing the wrong way.

Probably one of the more clear and obvious incidents of this nature you’ll see all season.
 
TheReligion said:
Game of opinions and all that but disagree with the above.

The player clearly backs in to obstruct the keeper. He makes no attempt to win the ball and is even facing the wrong way.

Probably one of the more clear and obvious incidents of this nature you’ll see all season.
Click to expand...
People obstruct and put blockers on each other in the box on every single free kick. I’m not convinced this is much different.
 
Berbasbullet said:
People obstruct and put blockers on each other in the box on every single free kick. I’m not convinced this is much different.
Click to expand...

For me it is. What makes it obvious is there’s zero attempt for the ball and he backs in whilst facing away from goal. It’s not a coming together based on both meeting in the middle.
 
AndySmith1990 said:
Another game overshadowed by a controversial refereeing decision.

Make it stop already
Click to expand...

This one would be controversial either way. Without VAR the ref has to make a call.
I can see both sides of the debate but I'd give that as a foul.
Player obstructs GK.
 
TheReligion said:
For me it is. What makes it obvious is there’s zero attempt for the ball and he backs in whilst facing away from goal. It’s not a coming together based on both meeting in the middle.
Click to expand...
Again though, players are constantly deliberately blocking each other off with no aim to play the ball at all.

I get your point though! But it’s not enough for me.
 
AndySmith1990 said:
Another game overshadowed by a controversial refereeing decision.

Make it stop already
Click to expand...
The very same thing was being said ad nauseum pre-VAR. And the constant analysing from an increasing number of angles of every decision, and subsequent criticism of officials after every game, was the main reason why Football eventually went down the technology route.

But it should have been obvious to everyone that it could only work for line decisions like offsides and goal-line technology. So many of the other rules are completely subjective and all technology can do is to give images for humans to still come to different subjective conclusions. It was never going to somehow create a scenario where everyone thought alike and so all agree with the many subjective decisions each game.

Incidents like yesterday's late equaliser are inevitably going to be controversial, and disagreed with by a large number, whichever decision is reached. Had it been ruled out, many would complain about keepers being over protected, how VAR looking to rule out goals has spoilt the late drama, etc. But allow it, and then you get the opposite criticism: how can that count when so many fouls on the keeper are penialised? What's the point of VAR if it's not going to spot that? Etc.

Debating all the subjective, can go either way calls, is a huge part of football for fans and media - and was only ever going to be increased, not removed, once VAR was added to the mix.
 
That Luton nudge on the Burnley keeper at first looks an obvious foul.
But is it just me thinking he wouldn't have got the ball anyway?
 
K Stand Knut said:
Agree with this!

Never a foul in a million years.

Players can stand and move where they want. They are not obliged to move out of the way to allow other players to get the ball. Especially not players who aren’t getting to the ball anyway.

One of those fouls that I’d be upset about if it was against us but I’d probably eventually admit that it wasn’t a foul.

Not worth a discussion IMO
Click to expand...
The keeper runs into him more than him backing into the keeper.
 
The debate in here further proves VAR as it’s currently used is pointless, it’s slowing the game down, killing celebrations to make decisions on things people will never agree on anyway. I don’t know why it’s interfering with decisions that are not black and white. Football challenges are far to subjective
 
TheReligion said:
Game of opinions and all that but disagree with the above.

The player clearly backs in to obstruct the keeper. He makes no attempt to win the ball and is even facing the wrong way.

Probably one of the more clear and obvious incidents of this nature you’ll see all season.
Click to expand...

Like you say, game of opinions. More to the point, this is why VAR should not be used for the majority of refereeing decisions. They are all subjective and having two referees coming away with the same decision is exceedingly unlikely

If that happened on the halfway, which it does all the time, it’s not given and nobody cares.

Not a foul IMO but can understand the argument the way and could understand it being given.
 
Zlatan 7 said:
The debate in here further proves VAR as it’s currently used is pointless, it’s slowing the game down, killing celebrations to make decisions on things people will never agree on anyway. I don’t know why it’s interfering with decisions that are not black and white. Football challenges are far to subjective
Click to expand...
Yep. That was my thinking before it was introduced, and pretty much everything has confirmed that.

It was often said before, as an argument against it being introduced, that so many rulings are subjective and if you put 100 referees or players, managers or fans into a room and showed them footage of most subjective calls, you'll get a real mix of opinions and little blanket agreement. So how was it going to realistically clear much up beyond debate?

All of that has played out as expected. VAR should work for line decisions - offsides and goal line technology. Though obviously, with offsides, whether the footage actually shows a goal to be on or offside depends more on the rules at that time, rather than with the technology itself. But extending its use to all the subjective decisions was clearly going to leave it just as open to that murky 'open to many different interpretations' dilemma.
 
K Stand Knut said:
Agree with this!

Never a foul in a million years.

Players can stand and move where they want. They are not obliged to move out of the way to allow other players to get the ball. Especially not players who aren’t getting to the ball anyway.

One of those fouls that I’d be upset about if it was against us but I’d probably eventually admit that it wasn’t a foul.

Not worth a discussion IMO
Click to expand...
They can stand where they want, they can’t always move where they want… that’s when obstruction might come in.

Not sure why you think the goalie is never getting that ball anyway. He’s moving towards the ball (as the guy who scores is) and in two steps will jump and has a chance (not a certainty) of punching it… has the advantage of arms as extra height.

I don’t think the Luton player DEFINITELY stops the goalie (not many fouls are 100%) but it’s obstruction for me which clearly stops the goalie having a chance (which he would have had) of punching that ball.

Yes I’d be p!ssed if we did it and it got disallowed but it wouldn’t be the clear cut wrong decisions we’ve had this season (and last).
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
They can stand where they want, they can’t always move where they want… that’s when obstruction might come in.

Not sure why you think the goalie is never getting that ball anyway. He’s moving towards the ball (as the guy who scores is) and in two steps will jump and has a chance (not a certainty) of punching it… has the advantage of arms as extra height.

I don’t think the Luton player DEFINITELY stops the goalie (not many fouls are 100%) but it’s obstruction for me which clearly stops the goalie having a chance (which he would have had) of punching that ball.

Yes I’d be p!ssed if we did it and it got disallowed but it wouldn’t be the clear cut wrong decisions we’ve had this season (and last).
Click to expand...

All fair points. I guess the argument if the Luton player is ‘protecting the ball’ or being obstructive.

I’ve made it clear where I stand with it but can understand both points or view.

If the referee has allowed it on the pitch, I 100% don’t think VAR should overrule it
 
TheReligion said:
How that’s not been given as a foul is amazing really.

Its quite clear the player isn’t trying try win the ball and backs in to the keeper. There’s zero attempt to win it. He couldn’t actually win it if he wanted to because he’s facing the wrong way and moving in the opposite direction to the ball.

Appalling decision.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It’s poor from the keeper as he should give himself more space to run and attack the ball. But either way the player has moved to check him off the ball - that’s always been a foul.
 
Luton goal could go either way, it does look like a foul on the keeper but as well the keeper chooses to come far out and makes a soft attempt. I don't think a keeper should have this completely protected path to the ball, he can stay on his line, come out to his six yard box or decide to get amongst the players. When you see keepers go for a cross they come out more aggressively to make it theirs and punch or catch, it's a gamble. This keeper is wanting an easy claim to the ball quite far out with a bunch of players competing.
 
I'm fine with it not being given as a foul so long as other, similar situations are judged to the same standard. They're not though. The vast majority are considered fouls. Judging this one by a different standard amounts to putting an unfair thumb on the scales, especially considering the timing and stakes involved.

If you want keepers to have less protection you start the season with that concept and run with it consistently . You don't invent a new standard in the final minutes of a game integral to a relegation battle.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I'm fine with it not being given as a foul so long as other, similar situations are judged to the same standard. They're not though. The vast majority are considered fouls. Judging this one by a different standard amounts to putting an unfair thumb on the scales, especially considering the timing and stakes involved.

If you want keepers to have less protection you start the season with that concept and run with it consistently . You don't invent a new standard in the final minutes of a game integral to a relegation battle.
Click to expand...
It's that kind of expectation of consistency with 'subjective calls' - that can be interpreted different ways by different people - that seems an impossible ask.

I watch cricket - when it comes to LBW appeals (which are actually provable one way or another now via technology) I've often heard them say over the years how such an such an umpire is a 'giver', while others are mostly 'not out' men. So, yes, you could say consistency within the individual - but there's no unfair demand of blanket consistency with every official somehow seeing and interpreting subjective things the exact same way.

That's an impossibility. Individual officials should be consistent within a match and week to week as regards their own interpretations. But I don't get expecting them all to see and think alike en masse on subjective calls, and criticising the fact that one interpreted a decision one way, while in a totally different match a totally different official interpreted a similar situation a different way (when both may be valid interpretations on 50-50 calls).
 
On the Luton goal. He hasn't moved toward the keeper with any real effect, he's just turned his back and stood his ground. Keeper was probably never getting there anyway.

Don't think it's a foul myself, keeper should have been stronger but he was all at sea anyway, but it's one that will be given as a foul on another day.
 
Re: Luton's goal. I don't think there was a 'right' or 'wrong' decision. It's just very much one of those subjective, can go either way scenarios that some will see one way, others another, others (like me) somewhere in the middle and not really adamant either way.

So of course decisions like that will lead to a lot of debate and disagreement, whatever decision the officials involved reached. It's just bad luck (or good if, like the media, you love that kind of controversy!) that it happened so late and that a subjective, 50-50 call by the team of officials was left to decide the result. There's no way of making a decision there that doesn't lead to huge debate and mix of agreement / disagreement, whatever they'd have decided.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
It's that kind of expectation of consistency with 'subjective calls' - that can be interpreted different ways by different people - that seems an impossible ask.

I watch cricket - when it comes to LBW appeals (which are actually provable one way or another now via technology) I've often heard them say over the years how such an such an umpire is a 'giver', while others are mostly 'not out' men. So, yes, you could say consistency within the individual - but there's no unfair demand of blanket consistency with every official somehow seeing and interpreting subjective things the exact same way.

That's an impossibility. Individual officials should be consistent within a match and week to week as regards their own interpretations. But I don't get expecting them all to see and think alike en masse on subjective calls, and criticising the fact that one interpreted a decision one way, while in a totally different match a totally different official interpreted a similar situation a different way (when both may be valid interpretations on 50-50 calls).
Click to expand...

I don't think you can call a scenario where analogous situations are much more frequently given than not "50-50 calls". There's always been a great deal of criticism that keepers get too much protection precisely because these scenarios have been called so often, not because it's touch and go.
 
Obvious foul on Trafford. As ever, the tech works perfectly but it seems the person using it either popped out to go to the loo or doesn't know the rules of football
 
Oranges038 said:
On the Luton goal. He hasn't moved toward the keeper with any real effect, he's just turned his back and stood his ground. Keeper was probably never getting there anyway.

Don't think it's a foul myself, keeper should have been stronger but he was all at sea anyway, but it's one that will be given as a foul on another day.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is a freekick. Why? Aren't players allowed to touch goalkeepers? Football have become to soft.

When people literally climbed on DeGea with hands and arms referees said it was ok. This is nothing. Talk at that time was DeGea being to soft. Now it is different talk. Maybe it is because of what club players represent. Something we have been familiar with. If it was allowed on DeGea which was 50 times worse, why shouldn't it be allowed with others?
 
Last edited:
Blatant foul for me. Takes a look at the goalie, steps towards him and throws his hip/arse out into him.

I try to be on the side of "could go either way" and see the other point of view where possible, but I'm really struggling here. Joke of a decision to award that.
 
Keepers are protected a lot but in this case the players intent has nothing to do with winning the ball and all to do with obstructing the keeper.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I don't think you can call a scenario where analogous situations are much more frequently given than not "50-50 calls". There's always been a great deal of criticism that keepers get too much protection precisely because these scenarios have been called so often, not because it's touch and go.
Click to expand...
True. But, as you point out yourself, a great deal of criticism about them when they're ruled out. But whenever the opposite decision is reached, there's a huge furore about that as well. So it's very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for the officials the second a situation like that arises. Whichever decision they make, there's going to be a lot of debate and disagreement and comparisons made to decisions made by different officials in different matches...
 
Just seen Anthony Taylor trending on X from Chelsea fans. Is he up there with Oliver as one of the most disliked referees?
 
LDUred said:
That Gusto tackle is a straight red all day long.
Click to expand...

Easily



Also remember all that "buckling ankle" stuff we heard around the time of the Rashford tackle? Yeah turns out that was a loads of bollocks
 
Last edited:
Annihilate Now! said:
Easily



Also remember all that "buckling ankle" stuff at heard around the time of the Rashford tackle? Yeah turns out that was a loads of bollocks
Click to expand...


Complete bottle job from Taylor. How he's a 'top ref' is mind-boggling.

Force is the most important element, way more than 'studs up' and height. It's why Calvert-Lewin had his red rescinded (and why Rashford should have also).

But in this case, Gusto has absolutely clattered into Willian with clear intent.
 
the_cliff said:
So this happened in the Asia cup today....

Click to expand...

Getting worse each week.

One of these days, a side is going to walk off the pitch… take the loss/punishment yes but at least it’ll make headlines and a point. Maybe something happens then.

The PGMOL and similar around the world have got to reinforce (1) it’s ONLY clear and obvious (2) refs should dictate what they’re shown and be reminded to only change their mind if they are sure they got it completely wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.