VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

[TheReligion]

As a neutral, it's funny to see arguments like 'well City/Liverpool benefit from VAR all the time so it's our turn!'. Like, do you actually believe United don't benefit from it too? One of the worst VAR decisions since its introduction was Fernandes' penalty away to Villa. He also blatantly fouled a West Brom player at Old Trafford and conceded a penalty only for VAR to somehow overrule the referee. IIRC even Rio Ferdinand was bemused by it. I remember laughing at Maguire performing all sorts of wrestling moves on Azpilicueta and VAR saying no penalty. Varane clearly fouling Callum Wilson this season and no penalty.

Every team benefits from it because the referees in control of it simply aren't up to scratch.



There was plenty of uproar over that decision tbf

I mean the Newcastle game we got done over by two penalty shouts ourselves and a Ronaldo goal which should have stood… not the best game to further your argument!

Anyway yeah the standard is poor.

The goal today though is in line with the current rules though so really unsure why so much fuss.

 

[duffer]

I'll admit I don't know the rules well enough to have a strong opinion on this but it certainly seems to me like Rashford was interfering with play. The idea that part of the goalie's focus wasn't on him, even for a second is pretty silly.

Don't really care though, I'd want the goal to be given for Chelsea and disallowed if scored against us.

 

[TheReligion]

I'll admit I don't know the rules well enough to have a strong opinion on this but it certainly seems to me like Rashford was interfering with play. The idea that part of the goalie's focus wasn't on him, even for a second is pretty silly.

Don't really care though, I'd want the goal to be given for Chelsea and disallowed if scored against us.

Yeah I think everyone agrees.

The fact is though referees have applied the rules like this all season so this isn’t the first time such questions have been raised.

The award of the goal today is consistent with how referees have clearly been told to interpret it.

 

[Pexbo]

While I love that we benefitted for this, I can’t help but think we are going to be in for weeks of pain when it comes to referees and VAR to compensate.

But then that’s the position we have been in for a while so maybe it’s just a case of taking these when they come along.

 

[Edwards6]

I haven't seen that. Got a link? I'd love to read what they have to say on it.

Can you answer if you think Rashford had any impact on Ederson?

edit: Never mind, I see what you mean about PGMOL. NBC contacted them, right?



They're being a bit disingenuous here. They only comment on the defender but not the goalkeeper. Why do they think Ederson is charging off his line to narrow the angle for Rashford? Because Rashford makes an effort to chase after the ball and would be through on goal thus an offside players actions impacted the goalkeeper.

Secondly, no reason for a clear and obvious error? So why did they overturn it? I thought VAR was only to be used when there is a clear and obvious error.

Ederson charged off his line to charge towards the ball, Rashford never touched it so Ederson would of still been running towards the ball to close Bruno's shot down even if Rashford wasn't there

 

[Red in STL]

I haven't seen that. Got a link? I'd love to read what they have to say on it.

Can you answer if you think Rashford had any impact on Ederson?

edit: Never mind, I see what you mean about PGMOL. NBC contacted them, right?



They're being a bit disingenuous here. They only comment on the defender but not the goalkeeper. Why do they think Ederson is charging off his line to narrow the angle for Rashford? Because Rashford makes an effort to chase after the ball and would be through on goal thus an offside players actions impacted the goalkeeper.

Secondly, no reason for a clear and obvious error? So why did they overturn it? I thought VAR was only to be used when there is a clear and obvious error.

VAR didn't overturn it, the linesman flagged and the referee talked to him, presumably the linesman said he cocked up so the referee over ruled him which is in his remit to do so, all VAR did was say no ovbvious error, nothing to see here

 

[Pink Moon]

Ederson charged off his line to charge towards the ball, Rashford never touched it so Ederson would of still been running towards the ball to close Bruno's shot down even if Rashford wasn't there

I don't think he'd be anywhere near as far up the pitch in that instance because Walker would be covering Bruno.

Although it is Ederson who is prone to brainfarts when it comes to rushing out so perhaps.

 

[Pink Moon]

VAR didn't overturn it, the linesman flagged and the referee talked to him, presumably the linesman said he cocked up so the referee over ruled him which is in his remit to do so, all VAR did was say no ovbvious error, nothing to see here

Ah fair enough.

Not sure why the linesman would say he cocked up mere seconds after taking the time to put his flag up. He obviously knew Rashford hadn't touched it but deemed him to be interfering with the play all the same so I'd be interested to know what the referee said to him to make him change his opinion on that.

Like I said earlier, the interference law is purely interpretation so for the linesman to switch up so quickly is interesting to me.

 

[cyberman]

I haven't seen that. Got a link? I'd love to read what they have to say on it.

Can you answer if you think Rashford had any impact on Ederson?

edit: Never mind, I see what you mean about PGMOL. NBC contacted them, right?



They're being a bit disingenuous here. They only comment on the defender but not the goalkeeper. Why do they think Ederson is charging off his line to narrow the angle for Rashford? Because Rashford makes an effort to chase after the ball and would be through on goal thus an offside players actions impacted the goalkeeper.

Secondly, no reason for a clear and obvious error? So why did they overturn it? I thought VAR was only to be used when there is a clear and obvious error.

It’s not disingenuous though, it seems the issue is that you can’t quite grasp it instead of understanding the rules?
An offside player who simply distracts opposition players into playing the ball doesn’t make it an offside offence. There’s hundreds of examples of this.
Do I want it changed? I do, I’m on record here as saying I do and I won’t change now.

 

[Red in STL]

Ah fair enough.

Not sure why the linesman would say he cocked up mere seconds after taking the time to put his flag up. He obviously knew Rashford hadn't touched it but deemed him to be interfering with the play all the same so I'd be interested to know what the referee said to him to make him change his opinion on that.

Like I said earlier, the interference law is purely interpretation so for the linesman to switch up so quickly is interesting to me.

From the way he reacted I think he thought Rashford had played the ball and then realized that he hadn't and said as such to the ref, hard to say for sure but that's how it looked to me, I don't see how the referee gives it otherwise because we know VAR didn't interject except to say no obvious error

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It’s not disingenuous though, it seems the issue is that you can’t quite grasp it instead of understanding the rules?
An offside player who simply distracts opposition players into playing the ball doesn’t make it an offside offence. There’s hundreds of examples of this.
Do I want it changed? I do, I’m on record here as saying I do and I won’t change now.

I’m in the same boat as you. I think the rules are so fecking stupid. A player should only be allowed to not be offside in that situation if they actively show they’re not getting involved by stopping or retreating. But that’s never been how they apply the rules. With literally dozens of examples by now. The rules were applied perfectly today. Even though they’re ridiculous.

 

[Pink Moon]

It’s not disingenuous though, it seems the issue is that you can’t quite grasp it instead of understanding the rules?
An offside player who simply distracts opposition players into playing the ball doesn’t make it an offside offence. There’s hundreds of examples of this.
Do I want it changed? I do, I’m on record here as saying I do and I won’t change now.

Rich coming from someone who confidently stated earlier there's only two laws to take into account when discussing offsides

I grasp the argument you and a few others are putting forward. I just think it's wrong and biased.

An offside player who simply distracts opposition players into playing the ball doesn’t make it an offside offence.

Except that isn't what happened as no City player actually played the ball. That's an entirely different scenario within the current offside ruling i.e. Salah v Wolves last week or Mbappe in the Nations League.

The only discussion to be had is whether or not Rashford interfered with his movement. You think no. I think yes. Nothing more to it than that.

 

[Red in STL]

I’m in the same boat as you. I think the rules are so fecking stupid. A player should only be allowed to not be offside in that situation if they actively show they’re not getting involved by stopping or retreating. But that’s never been how they apply the rules. With literally dozens of examples by now. The rules were applied perfectly today. Even though they’re ridiculous.

That's a fair assessment - the rules are stupid, no regular person understands them but the refereee was spot on

 

[BlueMoonOutcast]

That offside decision is a joke of a decision, but it hasn't cost us the title. Pep has.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Rich coming from someone who confidently stated earlier there's only two laws to take into account when discussing offsides

I grasp the argument you and a few others are putting forward. I just think it's wrong and biased.



Except that isn't what happened as no City player actually played the ball. That's an entirely different scenario within the current offside ruling i.e. Salah v Wolves last week or Mbappe in the Nations League.

The only discussion to be had is whether or not Rashford interfered with his movement. You think no. I think yes. Nothing more to it than that.

The “interfering with movement” bit refers to physically impeding someone. Blocking off a run, or challenging for a header. There’s nothing in the rules about creating panic simply by running towards them.

 

[SuperiorXI]

That offside decision is a joke of a decision, but it hasn't cost us the title. Pep has.

There is only 5 points in it and we're not even half way

 

[bosnian_red]

I haven't seen that. Got a link? I'd love to read what they have to say on it.

Can you answer if you think Rashford had any impact on Ederson?

edit: Never mind, I see what you mean about PGMOL. NBC contacted them, right?



They're being a bit disingenuous here. They only comment on the defender but not the goalkeeper. Why do they think Ederson is charging off his line to narrow the angle for Rashford? Because Rashford makes an effort to chase after the ball and would be through on goal thus an offside players actions impacted the goalkeeper.

Secondly, no reason for a clear and obvious error? So why did they overturn it? I thought VAR was only to be used when there is a clear and obvious error.

VAR wasn't used here, the ref never called offside, the linesman lifted his flag and then the ref went to speak with him and then gave the goal. But yeah, heard it from the NBC commentary.

Whether Rashford had an impact on Ederson is the only semi valid complaint here IMO, but it's an extremely subjective call and more forensically analyzing it based on what foot ederson shifted his weight to. I think it's 50/50 from that perspective. But in terms of defenders, nah nothing in that at all. But as the goalkeeper one is subjective, then that's where VAR isn't supposed to get involved in, as I could see it both ways.

 

[Pink Moon]

The “interfering with movement” bit refers to physically impeding someone. Blocking off a run, or challenging for a header. There’s nothing in the rules about creating panic simply by running towards them.

No but I think this one applies here:

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

The only counterargument to this would be if you think sprinting 20 yards after a ball then jumping out of the way at the last second shouldn't be deemed an "obvious action" because it's undeniable that it impacts Ederson so really only the first part of that particular law is worth discussing here. For me it's enough of an action that it impacts on the goalkeepers chance of saving the subsequent Bruno shot.

I do understand why some see it differently as like I've already mentioned, these specific laws are totally subjective and ambiguous as feck.

He's clearly braced for a shot from Rashford which, for me, is proof that Rashford made an "action" which impacted him.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

No but I think this one applies here:



The only counterargument to this would be if you think sprinting 20 yards after a ball then jumping out of the way at the last second shouldn't be deemed an "obvious action" because it's undeniable that it impacts Ederson so really only the first part of that particular law is worth discussing here. For me it's enough of an action that it impacts on the goalkeepers chance of saving the subsequent Bruno shot.

I do understand why some see it differently as like I've already mentioned, these specific laws are totally subjective and ambiguous as feck.

The quote you’ve used is pretty clear, no? In now way did Rashford prevent any of the City defenders from playing the ball. As I said, the rules are about physically impeding them.

 

[Pink Moon]

The quote you’ve used is pretty clear, no? In now way did Rashford prevent any of the City defenders from playing the ball. As I said, the rules are about physically impeding them.

I think his actions impacted on Ederson's ability to play the ball. Not the defenders. Although I do still maintain that Walker would've come across and covered Bruno had it been obvious that Rashford wasn't going to shoot but yeah, for me the main issue here is the goalkeeper.

I don't see where in that particular ruling it mentions anything about physically impeding someone.

 

[arnie_ni]

I haven't seen that. Got a link? I'd love to read what they have to say on it.

Can you answer if you think Rashford had any impact on Ederson?

edit: Never mind, I see what you mean about PGMOL. NBC contacted them, right?



They're being a bit disingenuous here. They only comment on the defender but not the goalkeeper. Why do they think Ederson is charging off his line to narrow the angle for Rashford? Because Rashford makes an effort to chase after the ball and would be through on goal thus an offside players actions impacted the goalkeeper.

Secondly, no reason for a clear and obvious error? So why did they overturn it? I thought VAR was only to be used when there is a clear and obvious error.

They didn't over turn it. The ref gave the goal on the pitch. He spoke to the lino and they obviously decided themselves rashford was off Bruno wasn't and then gave the goal.

 

[arnie_ni]

I don't think he'd be anywhere near as far up the pitch in that instance because Walker would be covering Bruno.

Although it is Ederson who is prone to brainfarts when it comes to rushing out so perhaps.

And even had one earlier in the game

 

[arnie_ni]

I’m in the same boat as you. I think the rules are so fecking stupid. A player should only be allowed to not be offside in that situation if they actively show they’re not getting involved by stopping or retreating. But that’s never been how they apply the rules. With literally dozens of examples by now. The rules were applied perfectly today. Even though they’re ridiculous.

Totally agreed. The rule is madness, but it's what allowed that goal to stand today

 

[Adam-Utd]

Swings and roundabouts.

Probably should have been offside but we've had plenty of dodgy calls against ourselves.

 

[Anustart89]

@GifLord

Can I get a gif of that TAA offside that was shown at 23:25 in their game today? Just to rub in the Rashford decision even more. Not near the ball, signals he’s not playing it and the lino calls him offside

 

[GifLord]

@GifLord

Can I get a gif of that TAA offside that was shown at 23:25 in their game today? Just to rub in the Rashford decision even more. Not near the ball, signals he’s not playing it and the lino calls him offside

 

[Pexbo]

@GifLord

Can I get a gif of that TAA offside that was shown at 23:25 in their game today? Just to rub in the Rashford decision even more. Not near the ball, signals he’s not playing it and the lino calls him offside

Looking at that he’s definitely offside. The shot was defected straight to him and he was offside when the shot was taken.

 

[Samid]

 

[Samid]

@GifLord

Can I get a gif of that TAA offside that was shown at 23:25 in their game today? Just to rub in the Rashford decision even more. Not near the ball, signals he’s not playing it and the lino calls him offside

Tbf lino called Rashford's offside too but with a heavy flag since the ball was heading towards goal. Heavy flags that lead to goals allow for reflection between the refs.

There's no valid reason for a heavy flag in Trent's case. He's in an offside position and blocks the path (probably unintentionally) of the defender who wants to avoid conceding a throw-in. He would keep that ball in play if Trent isn't there.

 

[alexthelion]

You don't have to touch the ball to be interfering with play ffs... Rashford ran on to it, shaped to shoot and then left it, its 100% clear. It is what it is, you guys got a big decision go your way. Doing mental gymnastic against even other United fans to defend it is silly. Enjoy the win but admit that was offside, its not a big deal.

Actually, you do (or block the defender from getting the ball).

Rashford did neither, therefore it's a perfectly good goal.

As to whether the rule is right, that's another discussion.

 

[alexthelion]

By the rule : it's a clear offside onside.

By PL standards : not so sure, we've seen this situation in others games and some goals were allowed so even if it's wrong, it's not inconsistent, which is probably the most important.

That being said, it's an absurd interpretation from PL refs, the rule was clearly designed to prevent what happened today.

Corrected for you.

 

[alexthelion]

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
or
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent

These are the current rules Jev posted, so Ederson is running out see's Rashford running onto and then shaping to shoot the ball and it doesn't qualify for the bolded?

No.

 

[alexthelion]

Doesn't matter. It still makes him active and interfering with the play.

Having watched it again, I think it's quite clear that Akanji would clear it fairly easily if Rashford wasn't there too.

How? He was three yards behind him.

 

[Oly Francis]

How? He was three yards behind him.

Akanji clearly slows down at the end of the play and has to pass Rashford on the right instead of going straight for the ball/Bruno. He does so because Rashford is between him and the ball. It's an interference and it's physical. Physical doesn't mean one needs to be touched, otherwise we wouldn't cancel goals when a player is blocking the keeper's line of sight.

No doubt Christina Unkel knows the rule, but she just doesn't know how to read a defensive play. She talks a lot about "state of mind" as if the only difference that it made it that Akanji thought Rashford would play the ball. It's not, it also interfered with Akanji's ability to go straight for Bruno because had Akanji's maintained full speed in the ball's direction, he'd have bumped into Rashford right before Bruno shoots.

Also, she considers Rashford feint is too far from the goal to interfere with Ederson. As if a top lovel football player couldn't shoot/score from 20m. She even says "it Goalkeeper is your best argument here for interfering with opponent. Move this 10-15 yards up and i agree it’s offside and if Rashford not there Bruno is."
It doesn't make any sense, if "Rashford not there", Ederson is unlikely to act this way (even if he does stupid things sometimes).

 

[BlueMoonOutcast]

There is only 5 points in it and we're not even half way

It'll be 8 points tonight and we always lose to Spurs, who we play on Thursday.

 

[Edwards6]

Akanji clearly slows down at the end of the play and has to pass Rashford on the right instead of going straight for the ball/Bruno. He does so because Rashford is between him and the ball. It's an interference and it's physical. Physical doesn't mean one needs to be touched, otherwise we wouldn't cancel goals when a player is blocking the keeper's line of sight.

No doubt Christina Unkel knows the rule, but she just doesn't know how to read a defensive play. She talks a lot about "state of mind" as if the only difference that it made it that Akanji thought Rashford would play the ball. It's not, it also interfered with Akanji's ability to go straight for Bruno because had Akanji's maintained full speed in the ball's direction, he'd have bumped into Rashford right before Bruno shoots.

Also, she considers Rashford feint is too far from the goal to interfere with Ederson. As if a top lovel football player couldn't shoot/score from 20m. She even says "it Goalkeeper is your best argument here for interfering with opponent. Move this 10-15 yards up and i agree it’s offside and if Rashford not there Bruno is."
It doesn't make any sense, if "Rashford not there", Ederson is unlikely to act this way (even if he does stupid things sometimes).

All Akanji had to do was run and challenge for the ball then Rashford would of had to play it or block him then he would of been offside. Its Akanji's fault for not playing to the whistle

 

[Beachryan]

There are simply two facts here:
1. It's not offside according the current interpretation of the offside law
2. The current interpretation of the offside rule is an absolute farce, and will likely be changed next week if not next season

It's genuinely unlucky for City, just as we've been shafted by the new handball interpretations twice in recent times (Lindelof penalty / Boro assist). I've no idea what the referees are thinking with saying that a player has to physically touch a defender to intefere with them. So can strikers now stand in front of a keeper and do star jumps as long as they don't touch them? No of course not. But where in the rules is that fitting in now?

The rules will be changed, again, because that's how this works now.

 

[Oly Francis]

All Akanji had to do was run and challenge for the ball then Rashford would of had to play it or block him then he would of been offside. Its Akanji's fault for not playing to the whistle

It's not what the rule says though. You can be offside just by being here, we see that consistently with players in front of keepers. Even if they're not playing the ball or physically blocking the keeper, they're offside because they interfere with the keeper's ability to challenge the shot. Rashford, by being here (ie by being between the defender and Bruno), interfered with Akanji's ability to challenge Bruno's shot.

 

[mu4c_20le]

It's not what the rule says though. You can be offside just by being here, we see that consistently with players in front of keepers. Even if they're not playing the ball or physically blocking the keeper, they're offside because they interfere with the keeper's ability to challenge the shot.

Akanji knew Rashford was offside, because he played him offside. The question we should be asking is what is Akanji doing. If he knew Rashford was offside, why did he stop playing as if he weren't. I keep hearing "if rashford wasn't there Akanji would have made the tackle".... nah

 

[roonster09]

It's not what the rule says though. You can be offside just by being here, we see that consistently with players in front of keepers. Even if they're not playing the ball or physically blocking the keeper, they're offside because they interfere with the keeper's ability to challenge the shot.

For keepers the rule is different, if the player is in line of sight of keeper then it's offside.