VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

That Wolves one is ridiculous.

The goalkeeper can see the ball the whole time, there's no way he can't see the ball in the air over the Wolves players head.
 
The Madueke one is very similar to the Rashford/Walker red card call.

Apparently there wasn't 'enough' contact for Rashford to go to the ground and Walker was just 'too strong'.

What we're seeing, once again, is how interpretation depends on the player/team involved.
 
The wolves one is no more ridiculous than our goal against Burnley that was disallowed. Same ref, sent to the monitor for both…Same outcome. Don’t see the outrage except it’s not United, Wolves had that thing go against them first game of the season (that never seems to be given in any game) so the whole seasons narrative has been about it. While we continually have equally and more decisions which could be viewed as bollocks.

 
NotChatGPT said:
Doesn’t really matter, it’s not going to change anything.

The entire problem with VAR is that it can be used as a tool to ensure that the rules are applied as equally as possible between teams, but due to their daft focus on not re-refereeing matches they’ve landed in the middle of nowhere where identical situations can have completely opposite outcomes simply based on what the referee on the pitch decided in a split second. Which is obviously insane.

It’s more important to stay within the «clear and obvious» threshold and protect the decision made on the pitch than it is to reach the most correct decision. If the referee is unsure and plays on, thinking that VAR will correct any mistake, it will most likely result in VAR not getting involved because they can’t say it’s a clear and obvious mistake.

I think if you stick 100 referees in a room, they will come to very similar conclusions about the vast majority of situations. If you stick the same referees on the pitch in identical situations i think it’s going to be a bigger divide. Things happen quickly, there’s little time to evaluate and the angles usually mean that you won’t have a full overview of the situation.

just get rid of the clear and obvious threshold, turn it into much more of a co-op between the referee on the pitch and VAR, move the VAR responsibility to a select group of people that aren’t former/current refs who try to avoid making the main man look bad, we also get less nicknames and mate this mate that. It’s not a difficult job, which should be quite evident considering the morons involved.

Daft decisions standing on the account that the referee made a split second error because of the view he had of the situation is one thing, vastly different outcomes as a result of having a system that can’t get involved because of daft thresholds just makes it even more annoying. Red cards and suspensions, goals against, penalties for and against, then you see completely different outcomes in almost identical situations the next week for teams we’re competing with. Heck, you might even have two identical situations but different outcomes in the same match.
Click to expand...
They should definitely get rid of the clear and obvious threshold. It's not even used consistently, eg it can be applied so an iffy penalty stands, but the decision will be overturned if there is the most narrow offside call ever.
It's also stupid and arbitrary that VAR can't get involved in yellows, even though can lead to reds, suspensions etc and the ref can't always see when players are diving.
 
Oranges038 said:
Wolves have been screwed over so many times this season by VAR. Probably more than most teams.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Just saw a Match of the Day clip talking about it.

"It started at Manchester United earlier in the season". As always, that's the one they will bring up.

Despite the fact they've had many worse decisions against them than that.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
That Wolves one is ridiculous.

The goalkeeper can see the ball the whole time, there's no way he can't see the ball in the air over the Wolves players head.
Click to expand...

Im not sure - it’s clever because as soon as Fabianski pushes him, he becomes active and therefore offside. I’d imagine if Fabianski made no contact, it would have been given.

It’s stupid from the Wolves player, no need to be that far offside
 
Cpt Negative said:
Im not sure - it’s clever because as soon as Fabianski pushes him, he becomes active and therefore offside.
Click to expand...
I think you're giving the keeper too much credit. He pushed him, because that's what players do in that position and he didn't appear to appeal for offside, so I don't think it entered his mind. But as they said on MOTD, it might be something keepers engineer going forward, although I doubt it.
 
The Wolves one seemed an ok decision to me. The player is standing right in front of him and directly in line between the goalkeeper and the ball. It’s the type of one they nearly always give even if the keeper was unlikely to save it. Certainly not one of the most outrageous decisions this season.
 
TheGame said:
Just seen that Lamptey challenge. He clearly touches the ball first before touching Jesus so why was that given?
Click to expand...

He grazes the ball, he doesn't win it cleanly, or get a proper touch on it to change it's direction and took the player out.

It's a penalty all day long.
 
Oranges038 said:
He grazes the ball, he doesn't win it cleanly, or get a proper touch on it to change it's direction and took the player out.

It's a penalty all day long.
Click to expand...
So touching the ball isn't enough now? You have to get x amount of contact on it? When did this happen.
 
Oranges038 said:
He grazes the ball, he doesn't win it cleanly, or get a proper touch on it to change it's direction and took the player out.

It's a penalty all day long.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't get the outrage around this, if he doesn't wipe Jesus out with the follow through he is still on the ball, so the minimal touch on the ball has barely changed the situation, the only reason he is not able to continue the move is because Lamptey plows through him.
 
klayton88 said:
So touching the ball isn't enough now? You have to get x amount of contact on it? When did this happen.
Click to expand...

It happened a long long time ago, he barely touches the ball, the touch doesn't change the direction of the ball or stop Jesus from playing it after, he's not in control of it either and takes the player out.

If that wasn't given as a penalty to Utd you'd have people in here complaining about it for the next 10 years.

Bobski said:
Yes, I don't get the outrage around this, if he doesn't wipe Jesus out with the follow through he is still on the ball, so the minimal touch on the ball has barely changed the situation, the only reason he is not able to continue the move is because Lamptey plows through him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if he gets good contact and the ball goes away out of the box, or for a throw or a corner then it's not a foul.
 
POF said:
Definitely. Just saw a Match of the Day clip talking about it.

"It started at Manchester United earlier in the season". As always, that's the one they will bring up.

Despite the fact they've had many worse decisions against them than that.
Click to expand...
They never mention that we should have two penalties that game. How beautifle from media to pick and choose.

We have been even more badly treated this year but because it is ManUtd it is always silence about that.
 
90 + 5min said:
They never mention that we should have two penalties that game. How beautifle from media to pick and choose.

We have been even more badly treated this year but because it is ManUtd it is always silence about that.
Click to expand...

Disallowing the McT goal against Fulham for Maguire “interfering” was a far worse decision to the Wolves one yesterday and I don’t recall any commentators being bothered by that. I also don’t recall any issue when Evans had a goal disallowed which was near identical to the Wolves one against Burnley. It does feel that it’s one rule for us and a different one for everyone else at times (the Dalot double yellow been my favourite example of that this season).
 
klayton88 said:
So touching the ball isn't enough now? You have to get x amount of contact on it? When did this happen.
Click to expand...
I think it’s always been the rule? I agree that it’s a pen because the player doesn’t ’win’ the ball as such. I might be wrong though!
 
TheGame said:
Just seen that Lamptey challenge. He clearly touches the ball first before touching Jesus so why was that given?
Click to expand...
Because it was a foul. Seriously, rules are pretty clear on that. It wasn't a dubious or contentious situation at all. Very clear penalty
 
giorno said:
Because it was a foul. Seriously, rules are pretty clear on that. It wasn't a dubious or contentious situation at all. Very clear penalty
Click to expand...

Don’t think it was very clear. What happened to all those times in 1 on 1s when GKs have got a slight touch on the ball but taken the player out. I’ve never seen pens given for that.
 
TheGame said:
Don’t think it was very clear. What happened to all those times in 1 on 1s when GKs have got a slight touch on the ball but taken the player out. I’ve never seen pens given for that.
Click to expand...
Ball gets deflected away from the attacker's ability to play it = no foul
Ball remains within the attacker's ability to play it = foul

Been like that since forever
 
NotChatGPT said:
The goal we had disallowed was in line with the current rules, blame the rules not the decision.

Haven’t seen the Wolves situation.
Click to expand...

Been a topic of conversation for me and a few friends as Tony Harrington is the cousin of one of them.

Seems to me that he applied the rules. Apparently he's sat down with Howard Webb last night and they're happy that the rules were applied correctly.

Maybe I'm getting it wrong here, but the player was deliberately stood, directly in front of the keeper, obviously to obstruct his view, and (as I understand it) is offside once the ball is touched by his team mate.

On Match of the Day the pundits (three strikers, by the way) say the keeper should have moved. By that analogy, can you stand 4 players directly in front of the keeper at a corner and then just have someone attack the corner and head it in? How can you not be interfering with play from that position?

I take the point that on the face of it, the keeper looks like he can move but the rule doesn't say that you're not offside if the keeper can move to see it. Maybe the rule needs changing.

On a general point, O'Neil said nothing post match about the soft goal West Ham had chalked off.
 
Seen the wolves disallowed goal too. Again I don't get what all the fuss is about. Attacker standing right in front of the gk as the ball is struck? How did he not impact the play
 
Garnacho's Shoelaces said:
Slides in with no contact made. Elliott then steps onto AWB to force contact before the theatrical dive. It's simulation, yellow card and United free kick. I understand why it was given in real time but it's a screen review all day long.
Click to expand...
I agree.

He starts going down, offloads the ball, only then is there any contact.
 
Amir said:
VAR always views it, but obviously they don't act upon it unless they feel it was a clear refereeing error.
Click to expand...
I simply remember far less controversial penalties being reviewed for minutes whereas we’ve had 3 pens in 2 games where there was almost no time taken for a review
 
Zed is not dead said:
I simply remember far less controversial penalties being reviewed for minutes whereas we’ve had 3 pens in 2 games where there was almost no time taken for a review
Click to expand...

There definitely was time taken for review for Chelsea's second penalty. I think it took about three minutes until it was taken.
 
Well that should be a red.

Edit: Damn, wrong thread.
 
Last edited:
In every other country thats a straight red to Casemiro but nah in England the referee see things differently..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.