VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

[Annihilate Now!]

At first I thought it was a penalty because of the second player running in, but he doesn't really do much... so no peantly for me. I think it looks worse because Rashfords arm is up in the air, so they're not going arm to arm.

As always with these things, I think - would I be annoyed if that was given against us, and I definitely would be if this was given at the other end.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It's even getting me wondering if we're talking about the same incident.

Not particularly weird, no. It would have benefited us, so...

Ah. So the obvious explanation is a conspiracy against Manchester United, with match officials, commentators, television pundits and football journalists all in cahoots against us, all playing their part in concealing this grievous injustice.

As opposed to, you know, football fans being less than objective when it comes to referees decisions about the team they support…

 

[lex talionis]

The defender’s arm was in. That’s never going to be called a pk and rarely a foul outside the box.

 

[Rossa]

At first I thought it was a penalty because of the second player running in, but he doesn't really do much... so no peantly for me. I think it looks worse because Rashfords arm is up in the air, so they're not going arm to arm.

As always with these things, I think - would I be annoyed if that was given against us, and I definitely would be if this was given at the other end.

I would say charging in like that from behind is foolish, so I would expect half of our defenders doing it and subsequently giving away a penalty. It's not a fair challenge. He takes out Rashford without being close to getting to the ball - that's a foul. I really don't think the other player has much to do with it other than making it look worse. However, you could argue that the other player makes it look as if he could get to the ball ahead of Rashford, which he wasn't, so it could be mitigating. The player barging into Rashford commits a foul - if that was Maguire, I would think "You idiot" and then go mad at the penalty, but I would still argue it is a penalty.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

I would definitely go with the absolutely mental side of the debate being those who come out with stuff like “using his shoulder as a weapon”. Or implying that pushing another player off balance is somehow against the laws of the game. It’s a nothing challenge. If he was shepherding the ball out of play nobody would make anything of it.

That bit might be valid. Defenders do seem to be able get away with pushes and shoves when 'shepherding' the ball out of play.

But, likewise, if a defender had done that to prevent a breakaway I'm sure it would often be a foul and a booking and many wouldn't argue and just say, 'clever foul, took one for the team'.

So it can be a foul, or not, depending where on the pitch it's committed for some reason. And, yeah, I think the penalty box is one where the ref often wouldn't give it. But that doesn't mean that's necessarily right, or that it's not actually a foul. And I'm sure plenty more 'neutrals' would be saying that's a penalty had it been us defending it as it's one of those that could go either way in the penalty box - it's a foul in most areas of the pitch, but will a ref be brave enough to give it? I'm pretty sure if he had, VAR wouldn't have overturned it as an error.

 

[Josep Dowling]

I'm not fussed about the Rashford penalty. The Felipe red card though, I cannot work out how a referee could see a replay and decide it doesn't warrant at least a yellow. I wonder if Bruno started rolling around on the floor would Felipe get booked? Is it any wonder players play act when referees don't make decisions that obvious.

 

[tomaldinho1]

People seeing this and sticking to their guns of "it's shoulder against shoulder" or "good physical defending" are absolutely mental. It's a very clear foul.

It's one that should be a foul but often they aren't given. The strangling incident is the really bizarre one, there is no room for any kind of alternate view, he just walked up to him and choked him.

 

[Bubz27]

I'm not fussed about the Rashford penalty. The Felipe red card though, I cannot work out how a referee could see a replay and decide it doesn't warrant at least a yellow. I wonder if Bruno started rolling around on the floor would Felipe get booked? Is it any wonder players play act when referees don't make decisions that obvious.

A. They can't give a yellow through VAR can they?

B. Will Hughes didn't roll around when Casemiro grabbed his collar. In fact, he didn't make any deal about it whatsoever. So it really is the refs looking to give something or looking not to give something.

Nicholas Jackson also didn't get a red for this by the way.

 

[Grylte]

I would definitely go with the absolutely mental side of the debate being those who come out with stuff like “using his shoulder as a weapon”. Or implying that pushing another player off balance is somehow against the laws of the game. It’s a nothing challenge. If he was shepherding the ball out of play nobody would make anything of it.

You understand what i meant when i used the word weapon. He used that part of his body to push Rashford.
But you already decided i was mental a while back, so i shouldn't even bother

Ah. So the obvious explanation is a conspiracy against Manchester United, with match officials, commentators, television pundits and football journalists all in cahoots against us, all playing their part in concealing this grievous injustice.

As opposed to, you know, football fans being less than objective when it comes to referees decisions about the team they support…

I would've had the same opinion if it was against another team, even Liverpool, it's a clear penalty for me.
It has nothing to do with being biased. Many are going too hard the other way, they try so hard to not be biased towards their own team that they're becoming the opposite, like Gary Neville is in many situations when he's commenting.
It is in fact possible to think your team have had many decisions go against them, look at the Casemiro red vs the one against Bruno yesterday, without thinking it's a conspiracy.
The inconsistency in PL refs is crazy, there's been so many incidents this year where one player gets sent off, gets a penalty, etc. but in other matches nothing is done with identical situations.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

[QU

You understand what i meant when i used the word weapon. He used that part of his body to push Rashford.
But you already decided i was mental a while back, so i shouldn't even bother



I would've had the same opinion if it was against another team, even Liverpool, it's a clear penalty for me.
It has nothing to do with being biased. Many are going too hard the other way, they try so hard to not be biased towards their own team that they're becoming the opposite, like Gary Neville is in many situations when he's commenting.
It is in fact possible to think your team have had many decisions go against them, look at the Casemiro red vs the one against Bruno yesterday, without thinking it's a conspiracy.
The inconsistency in PL refs is crazy, there's been so many incidents this year where one player gets sent off, gets a penalty, etc. but in other matches nothing is done with identical situations.

I fully agree with you about the inconsistency. It’s maddening. And there was an excellent example of this last night, with the throat grab incident. It wasn’t very violent and I don’t think it merits a red card but how can it exist in the same officiating universe as the one which saw Casemiro being sent off for an identical offence? I do think the inconsistency is down to incompetence, though, rather than bias or malice.

 

[Withnail]

It's a bit of a myth this. Look at the ESPN guide,
How VAR decisions affect each Premier League club in 2023-24 - ESPN

Liverpool and Wolves (both -3) and Sheffield United (-4) have had more decision's go against them this season than other clubs.

That doesn't tell the full story at all. They only looked at decisions where VAR over-ruled the ref which is small % of all decisions. It says nothing about all of the decisions where VAR went along with the ref.

 

[Grylte]

I do think the inconsistency is down to incompetence, though, rather than bias or malice.

Yes, agree, but you'd think that would be the whole point of VAR.

 

[duffer]

A. They can't give a yellow through VAR can they?

B. Will Hughes didn't roll around when Casemiro grabbed his collar. In fact, he didn't make any deal about it whatsoever. So it really is the refs looking to give something or looking not to give something.

Nicholas Jackson also didn't get a red for this by the way.

One on the neck = just handbags, no probs.

Two hands on the neck = strangulation, red card.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I would say charging in like that from behind is foolish, so I would expect half of our defenders doing it and subsequently giving away a penalty. It's not a fair challenge. He takes out Rashford without being close to getting to the ball - that's a foul. I really don't think the other player has much to do with it other than making it look worse. However, you could argue that the other player makes it look as if he could get to the ball ahead of Rashford, which he wasn't, so it could be mitigating. The player barging into Rashford commits a foul - if that was Maguire, I would think "You idiot" and then go mad at the penalty, but I would still argue it is a penalty.

To me it looks very much a side on challenge, it just looks worse then it is because Rashford's arm is in the air (if it was by his side it would be arm to arm and I don't think people would be as strong calling for a pen).

Antonia Valencia used to do this about 10 times a game!

 

[Vault Dweller]

There’s also an irony in the way Bruno is perceived by the British press/fans as a diving, cheating foreigner but the main reason further action wasn’t taken was because he didn’t overreact. If he’d Harry Kane’d himself to the ground, grabbing his throat in agony, chances are it would have been a red card.

I agree with that and was guilty myself of it on the replay at the weekend. But that really was atrocious last night, and that's definitely true where if he made a meal of it then it probably would have been a red.

Wasnt it about 10 seconds before the ref blew the final whistle?

It shouldn't but I bet that made a difference (along with the massive conspiracy to feck over Man United of course).

Aye maybe a minute or so before the end I think, and yeah maybe.

Nah it's definitely the conspiracy (searches for the tin foil)

 

[Bubz27]

One on the neck = just handbags, no probs.

Two hands on the neck = strangulation, red card.

Actually makes sense.

 

[whitbyviking]

Doesn't have to be a grand conspiracy to make biased decisions. If the referees know in the back of their mind they will get more grief for giving a decision to United rather than against (which is definitely the case in the UK media and no conspiracy to say so) then they are going to be sub-consciously pre-disposed to do that which gets them the least grief. That is just human nature.

It's easily understandable that you have the opposite with Liverpool, since they are a media darling and Klopp calls people out. Referees see that they get more grief for not giving the decision and hence are sub-consciously pre-disposed to give them. Not saying it is every time, it clearly isn't, but they got a lot of soft decisions after the phantom goal and it is not a stretch to say there is the chance of some referee overcompensation after the media fire storm.

This kind of scenario plays out at every level of life, it's part of how you learn as a kid, so it's well within the realms of possibility that it continues into adulthood.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

It doesn't look like rahsfords shoulder though, it's more his chest area.

Ahuh. Think the hip is key too.

Ive got no issue at all with the defender with the beard (right as we look)… THAT’S good defensive positioning.

The other defender is an NHL block.

Again, I get there are opinions in football which is great but I can only think people who see this challenge as fine either don’t get current rules or on an agenda.

In work, two Liverpool, one Everton, one Chelsea fan…. ALL said def pen.

Still can’t believe there were posters in the match day thread who thought this was a shoulder charge.

Clearly goes in with an arm and a hip and makes zero attempt to play the ball, he’s not even looking at it.

A United defender does that and I’d think “you idiot”.

 

[Powderfinger]

Exactly - it's a fair duel where a stronger player can outmuscle a faster player for instance. Barging into someone from behind is not a shoulder to shoulder challenge.

True, but the defender doesn't run into Rashford from behind. He is contacting Rashford in front of the shoulder, closer to the chest/armpit.

Its debatable whether it would be a foul elsewhere on the pitch but you almost never see a penalty called in this situation.

 

[Grylte]

True, but the defender doesn't run into Rashford from behind. He is contacting Rashford in front of the shoulder, closer to the chest/armpit.

The one on the right does what you're saying, the one on the left (from our pov) comes from behind and barges into him.

 

[Anustart89]

It's a bit of a myth this. Look at the ESPN guide,
How VAR decisions affect each Premier League club in 2023-24 - ESPN

Liverpool and Wolves (both -3) and Sheffield United (-4) have had more decision's go against them this season than other clubs.

The only thing that statistic says is that the referee has made 3 clear and obvious errors favouring Liverpool on the pitch which have then been reversed by VAR. What does that tell you about anything?

In that statistic, where’s the incident where Jota gets a minimal touch on his calf, takes two steps and falls over and VAR doesn’t overturn the penalty? It’s +/- 0 for the purpose of that calculation, and if VAR had overturned it it would’ve put Liverpool at -4, which would’ve led some dumb people to believe that they were shafted by the refs once again, when in reality it’s a sign that on-field refs are so scared of making the correct calls against them which helps them massively with the high bar the PGMOL have put in place for VAR interventions.

 

[Rossa]

To me it looks very much a side on challenge, it just looks worse then it is because Rashford's arm is in the air (if it was by his side it would be arm to arm and I don't think people would be as strong calling for a pen).

Antonia Valencia used to do this about 10 times a game!

Regarding Valencia, I was at Old Trafford when he did a shoulder charge against Leighton Baines - boy did Baines fly. Quite funny. But it was Baines who tried to stop Valencia though.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Regarding Valencia, I was at Old Trafford when he did a shoulder charge against Leighton Baines - boy did Baines fly. Quite funny. But it was Baines who tried to stop Valencia though.

Opposition players trying to engage in a test of strength against Valencia (and inevitably losing) was always a genuine highlight.

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

It's one of those ones that's more likely to be called as a foul the closer you get to your own goal.

If that happens just outside our box as he tries to start a counter, the ref probably blows for a free-kick.

Rodri contact was enough for a penalty in the derby then so is the Rashford one.

Same principle with Casemiro / Filipe red cards.

Handball decision versus Spurs not given for us but given the following week.

I could go on.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

 

[Shane88]

I noticed this too. It just confirms that publicly moaning about refs and making official complaints works. Liverpool and Klopp have gone after Tierney on multiple occasions and it paid off today with him giving them that decision.

 

[WeePat]

For some reason was it was a drop ball for Liverpool and they simply refused to give the ball back. I don’t understand why the drop ball wasn’t given simply given to Forest considering they were in clear possession of the ball.

Not that I think any of this matters anyway. Forest weren’t close to scoring with their possession and possession changes hands a few times after with Forest passing up multiple opportunities to clear their lines.

 

[Alex99]

For some reason was it was a drop ball for Liverpool and they simply refused to give the ball back. I don’t understand why the drop ball wasn’t given simply given to Forest considering they were in clear possession of the ball.

Not that I think any of this matters anyway. Forest weren’t close to scoring with their possession and possession changes hands a few times after with Forest passing up multiple opportunities to clear their lines.

Possession doesn't change hands in any meaningful way at all.

The reality is that play was stopped, with Liverpool's entire team back defending a corner, and with Forest in possession, right outside their box.

Play resumes with Liverpool in possession, and Forest on the back foot. It basically remains this way until the goal.

 

[Shane88]

That's just blatant cheating. Forest had the ball, so how does he not give it back to them?

I don't even care about Liverpool not giving the ball back. I wouldn't want United to either but the ref is making up rules on the spot.

 

[Remember the geese]

Not that I think any of this matters anyway.

Of course it matters. It's a really poor decision. Butterfly effect.

 

[Samid]

 

[WeePat]

Possession doesn't change hands in any meaningful way at all.

The reality is that play was stopped, with Liverpool's entire team back defending a corner, and with Forest in possession, right outside their box.

Play resumes with Liverpool in possession, and Forest on the back foot. It basically remains this way until the goal.

Forest had multiple chances to retake possession but fail to do so because they booted the ball out of play or they dilly dallied on the ball and lost possession. It’s worth noting there was a similar situation earlier in the game where Forest refused to give the ball back.

The decision to give Liverpool the drop ball despite Forest havjng clear possession is very bizarre though. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the rules can explain that one to me.

 

[WeePat]

Of course it matters. It's a really poor decision. Butterfly effect.

When I say I think it didn’t matter I simply mean I think CHO would have most likely crossed a hopeful ball in from there and Liverpool would have regained possession after that. It’s what I think would have happened.

 

[Remember the geese]

When I say I think it didn’t matter I simply mean I think CHO would have most likely crossed a hopeful ball in from there and Liverpool would have regained possession after that. It’s what I think would have happened.

Oh yeah, I doubt Forest were nicking a winner. Though I do believe that the decision was the difference between 0-0 and 0-1.

 

[Withnail]

Possession doesn't change hands in any meaningful way at all.

The reality is that play was stopped, with Liverpool's entire team back defending a corner, and with Forest in possession, right outside their box.

Play resumes with Liverpool in possession, and Forest on the back foot. It basically remains this way until the goal.

Forest were in possession of the ball, two Liverpool players collide and the gives the ball to Liverpool. How can you say possession doesn't change hands in any meaningful way when the ref gave the ball to the team out of possession?

He should have given the ball to Forest. If they then lose the ball fair enough, but you'd be fuming as a forest fan as there was feck all wrong with Konate, who got to his feet as soon as the ref blew the whistle.

EDIT: Ugh these pricks have me agreeing with Richard Keys

 

[WeePat]

Forest were in possession of the ball, two Liverpool players collide and the gives the ball to Liverpool. How can you say possession doesn't change hands in any meaningful way when the ref gave the ball to the team out of possession?

Isn't he supposed to give the ball to Forest? If they then lose the ball fair enough, but you'd be fuming as a forest fan as there was feck all wrong with Konate, who got to his feet as soon as the ref blew the whistle.

To be fair to @Alex99 he agrees with you. He said that in response to me saying possessing changes hands multiple times and therefore this incident didn’t matter a whole lot.

 

[Alex99]

Forest were in possession of the ball, two Liverpool players collide and the gives the ball to Liverpool. How can you say possession doesn't change hands in any meaningful way when the ref gave the ball to the team out of possession?

He should have given the ball to Forest. If they then lose the ball fair enough, but you'd be fuming as a forest fan as there was feck all wrong with Konate, who got to his feet as soon as the ref blew the whistle.

EDIT: Ugh these pricks have me agreeing with Richard Keys

I was replying to someone saying it changed hands multiple times after the restart.

My entire post was about how it didn't, and the only meaningful change was the bizarre decision to give the ball to Liverpool.

 

[Withnail]

Thanks for clarification both.

I'd missed that @Alex99 was quoting @WeePat('s insanity )

 

[Pogue Mahone]

For some reason was it was a drop ball for Liverpool and they simply refused to give the ball back. I don’t understand why the drop ball wasn’t given simply given to Forest considering they were in clear possession of the ball.

Not that I think any of this matters anyway. Forest weren’t close to scoring with their possession and possession changes hands a few times after with Forest passing up multiple opportunities to clear their lines.

Has anyone seen the actual drop ball? I watched the game on telly and can’t remember the restart. I don’t think they showed it? It’s not in that video.

 

[90 + 5min]

We know how Liverpool have been treated by VAR and referees last couple of years. Today was no different. We also know how we have been treated.