VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
One of the big differences, of course, being the Ederson gets cleaned out just as much as he cleaned the attacker. Which obviously is not true at all for the Onana one. Another one is that Onana punches (or whatever you want to call it) the Burnley player in the face, which also doesn't happen here. A third one is that it's fundamentally a different situation as the Burnley player engages with the defender and Onana arrives a second late, whereas the Forest player engages with Ederson in case the defender doesn't get the ball and they clatter together with roughly the same force. It's only similar if the only thing you're looking for in this situation is "keeper colliding with attacker after ball was cleared by defender".
In one of the stills it looks like Oliver has the body language of someone who has just seen a man kicked in the nads. There is no way he can have missed that. Maybe he didn't believe it.
It's a contact sport, so if it's a foul or not depends on level of contact.
The Chelsea disallowed goal is a fairly obvious and easy one, the Sterling one isn't. Imo, Sterling is a bit too far ahead for the flight of the ball, feels a nudge and just collapses to the pitch.
Ederson didn't clean out the attacker, the attacker doesn't clean out Ederson. They're both jumping towards each other before the ball is cleared. If the defender didn't clear the ball it would be a case of who gets the ball first, Ederson or the attacker, in order to decide who fouls who.
It's not similar incidents.
Is this an official rule?
Yet Coventry were award a penalty for the exact same thing at Wembley...
What? I'm just explaining how the situations differ.
If true, does that mean conspiracy against United as the poster was suggesting... ?
Why must all referees be of the same nationality as the league they operate in? It doesn't make any sense considering we're able to have players, managers, owners, staff etc. from anywhere in the world - but somehow the officials can only be from that country? It must be one of the only professions in the world where this is the case surely?
If we were to do away with the rule, it should increase the quality overall (through having a larger pool to draw the very best from) and do away with the boys club mentality (you would hope) but it would also help avoid any conflict of interest like the Forest/Luton situation.
If we were to do away with the rule, it should increase the quality overall (through having a larger pool to draw the very best from) and do away with the boys club mentality (you would hope) but it would also help avoid any conflict of interest like the Forest/Luton situation.
There is no rule, Jarred Gillett is Australian and was a referee there for nearly a decade before moving to England.
Almost undoubtedly
Sounds like a guy who really can't be arsed doing his job today.
Bollox that's a tussle. The forest player plays the ball and the defender comes through the back of him. What a bizarre interpretation that is.
I think ‘comes through the back of him’ is hardly an accurate way to describe it. But I’d also say ‘tussle’ is wrong. Tussle implies upper body to me, if it’s foot on foot contact then it’s not really a tussle.
Well, fair enough, but I mean he attempts to get the ball and kicks the attacker foot Israel instead..
It's one error that they can 100% say for sure was the wrong call. They're not going to give out statements that say that 4 out of 5 times they'd probably give the foul and think the decision was correct.
Howard Webb was saying they would have preferred and intervention on this one i.e. yes VAR got it wrong. But hang on... This was the game where Forest tried to raise concerns that the supposed Luton fan was on VAR?
Dodgy as hell.
Dodgy as hell.
I agree with them that the first two were 50/50 calls that could have and could have not been given and the third was a penalty. No problem. Have your 2-1 defeat Forest instead.
I think it's a funny one, because Anthony Taylor says that he (Young) plays the ball, so does the assistant ref.
Which he clearly doesn't. Taylor interpretation of the situation is wrong, so i don't see why he isn't sent over to the monitor.
Their whole description of the situation is a bit bonkers, imo.
"mutual engagement between them before playing the ball but it's more of a tussle"
It's what now? They're both going for the ball, Ashley Young has his eyes on it and so does the Forest player, it's more of a 50-50 but it's about who comes first, they aren't tussling for the ball. Young comes in behind the Forest player and desperately sticks out his leg in an attempt to cut off the pass, but the only thing he connects with his the foot of the Forest player which bring him down.
If there is now clear evidence that the guy in the chair has no idea what the hell is he looking at then surely he should be in some intense training programme before he is allowed to impact the outcomes of other games moving forward. Or is that too much to ask?
For people in the media to present this as "Only one of the decisions was wrong" is mad too.
Yeah. It is a really really poor decision by VAR and Atwell should really be taken off it or given training due to that but still not buying the conspiracy stuff.
There is a tussle though. Separate to the foot contact. Look at the way they link arms. That could be construed as Young dragging the Forest player to the ground but the VAR guys is making it clear that it’s just a 50:50 tussle to get to the ball.
The weird bit is how he seems to think they both get a foot to the ball at the same time.
When the ref on the pitch has said that he thinks that the defender has got a foot on the ball and then the video evidence shows that he clearly didn't, should this not be the most open and shut case of "clear and obvious error" anyway? Why does the "tussle" even come into the decision making process, seems to only cloud the issue unnecessarily.
It would be fun to hear the audio from the last situation.
Conspiracy theories or not, i think the optics are fairly fecking daft considering their "top dawg Atwell, as brilliant and loved as he is across Europe," royally fecked two rather easy decisions up after Forest raised concerns about him. I'd be more understanding of the situation if it was about clear and obvious, if Taylor literally said that it's a coming together and that he doesn't think there's enough in it, but Taylors view is literally that it's not a penalty because Young gets the ball.
I really think they are digging a proper hole for themselves by being overprotective. Like talking about Atwells credentials, how he's highly regarded and often used in Europe etc. You got video replays and you're not being hindered by clear and obvious, so how fecking good are you if you can't get those right then
Remember before VAR when we felt done dirty by the refs when Joe Cole got a title deciding penalty for crossing it onto Carrick's (?) hand?
Dodgy decisions that decide the match just happens almost every game now with VAR.
Incredible how the refs can actually regress within this system. VAR started out bad, but it's like it's getting worse and worse or maybe it's just the total memory of how many times VAR has failed.
Dodgy decisions that decide the match just happens almost every game now with VAR.
Incredible how the refs can actually regress within this system. VAR started out bad, but it's like it's getting worse and worse or maybe it's just the total memory of how many times VAR has failed.
Have they ever fully put a referee or VAR official on blast though? They've said they'll not be used but don't recall them every going in on them.
The officiating on the pitch is poor.. they get things wrong so VAR can poke there nose in and then they get it wrong ..
VAR is a disaster everyone thought great idea this Sky MOTD and the rest made this happen and its subjective???
Why have it! It's here to stay so it should only be used for offsides that's it.. leave the ref make the other decisions if there wrong so be it.. they poke there nose in too much
VAR is a disaster everyone thought great idea this Sky MOTD and the rest made this happen and its subjective???
Why have it! It's here to stay so it should only be used for offsides that's it.. leave the ref make the other decisions if there wrong so be it.. they poke there nose in too much
Did anyone else see the Coventry v Ipswich match yesterday when one of the goalkeepers clattered into an attacker after the ball had been cleared and the commentators did not even hint that it might be worthy of a penalty? If it had been Onana ........
Jesus, you should warn people when your link contains Michael Owen.
Last edited:
It isn't working, and they should just accept it.
Go to a challenge system, where the ref and his crew review the footage. At least that way we don't have this constant interference and the ref at least has an opportunity to overturn something he thinks he's gotten wrong.
Go to a challenge system, where the ref and his crew review the footage. At least that way we don't have this constant interference and the ref at least has an opportunity to overturn something he thinks he's gotten wrong.
What exactly did he see? I think me might be blind if he thinks the defender touched the ball first. Must be the only guy on the planet who would get that utterly incorrect.
Training isn’t going to help him if he’s fecked that one up, he needs eye surgery
Just saw highlights of the aston villa european game and don't understand why Olympiacos' first goal offside was overruled. Was broad daylight between him and the defender, and the flag went up instantly too. Commentator didn't say anything on the highlights so I have no idea what happened.
It's a clear pen for Forest on first view and many times after.
I can see how some people could interpret to give as much benefit as possible to the Everton defender, they both join and stretch for the ball, it's not a typical leg out or slide tackle across or or even hooking a player that's running away or pushing a player over.
Sometimes refs consumed so much with viewing incidents will see something else to the majority in the moment, a stone wall pen is denied as they try rationalize every aspect of it. Also it's a weird balancing act, when VAR was introduced the pens went up and they wanted to bring the number down and don't want overrule the ref.
This incident should've been looked at by the pitch ref, it's one of those big incidents that's clear and obvious and focal point of the play.
I can see how some people could interpret to give as much benefit as possible to the Everton defender, they both join and stretch for the ball, it's not a typical leg out or slide tackle across or or even hooking a player that's running away or pushing a player over.
Sometimes refs consumed so much with viewing incidents will see something else to the majority in the moment, a stone wall pen is denied as they try rationalize every aspect of it. Also it's a weird balancing act, when VAR was introduced the pens went up and they wanted to bring the number down and don't want overrule the ref.
This incident should've been looked at by the pitch ref, it's one of those big incidents that's clear and obvious and focal point of the play.
So today, one more penalty where you wonder why we don’t get those?
Not that I’m against it because I rather see Arsenal win instead of that other team in title race.
Not that I’m against it because I rather see Arsenal win instead of that other team in title race.
A perfectly good goal disallowed for Bournemouth after a lengthy VAR check. Terrible decision.
PGMOL : « only the best referees in the country work at Premier League level »
Also the best Premier league referees :
Also the best Premier league referees :