VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

The Purley King said:
My question to the VAR officials would be “what did you see with that challenge that made you think this wasn’t a clear and honest obvious error?” Just watch the ducking replay it’s clear and extremely obvious that a mistake has been made.

this one is so very clear that it does make me think that perhaps something untoward is going On
Click to expand...

I was sat 60 yards away and it looked blatant from there. Having just seen the replay on TV I honestly have no clue what VAR is there for if they can’t see that is a clear and obvious error.

It seems to me that all the problems stem from there being no well defined threshold for “clear and obvious”, and it’s just a cop out for everyone involved. Much like the final 10 minutes of an episode of the apprentice, the ref will say VAR didn’t help, VAR will say they are sticking with the decisions made by the ref, and everyone watching thinks they are both useless.
 
The Weghorst-one, reminded me of the one Brighton (?) did not get when Digne did the exact same thing - just a lot harder. If kicking an opponent to the ground isn't a penalty, what is ?
 
The Purley King said:
Nah garnacho it wasn’t a penalty but Weghorst was. It was so blatantly obvious both in real time and on the replay that serous questions must be asked.
Maybe we are doing the right thing and doing it in closed channels out of the public eye but anyone who says the Weghorst “challenge “ is not a penalty is a moron
Referees included
Click to expand...
The shoving Garnacho off his feet with a straight arm, when he’s i a good position, and never being close to the ball, yes, that is a blatant penalty. There was no hint of Garnacho letting himself fall, he was simply just on balance in the middle of a dribble, with a straight arm to the chest he has no chance. Doesn’t take much force, just like kicking a speeding player’s heel from behind doesn’t take much force, but is a blatant freekick.
 
English refs & VAR are something else :lol:
If challenge on Weghorst isn't a pen, I don't know what is.
 
The Purley King said:
My question to the VAR officials would be “what did you see with that challenge that made you think this wasn’t a clear and honest obvious error?” Just watch the ducking replay it’s clear and extremely obvious that a mistake has been made.

this one is so very clear that it does make me think that perhaps something untoward is going On
Click to expand...
Did VAR even check it? In the stadium there was no announcement, they did when they were checking for a possible red card for Garnacho but nothing on the penalty
 
I don't think I've ever seen a player blatantly pull another's shirt to hold them back and prevent a counter attack, the referee sees it and knows it was a foul and yet just gives a warning.

Isn't stuff like that just always an instant yellow card?

It will get forgotten about because we won 2-0 and the tie was over anyway but the ref tonight was absolutely fecking appalling and VAR as usual was useless.
 
Djemba-Djemba said:
I don't think I've ever seen a player blatantly pull another's shirt to hold them back and prevent a counter attack, the referee sees it and knows it was a foul and yet just gives a warning.

Isn't stuff like that just always an instant yellow card?

It will get forgotten about because we won 2-0 and the tie was over anyway but the ref tonight was absolutely fecking appalling and VAR as usual was useless.
Click to expand...

Yes. Always. I’m not usually one for slating referees. It’s a tough job. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen straight up bias like we saw last night. He should be disciplined for that.
 
kidbob said:
Tonight was the equivalent of rugby's video referee seeing a try scored and deciding it wasn't. That's what really pisses me off. Lots of decisions are missed in a game of rugby but for the most part the vital and clear ones are always called. If they think a try is scored they call to look at it, if they think a high tackle has happened they call to look at it. In rugby they are used to help the ref, understanding he can't see everything. Its so simple to use VAR like that but instead they have fecked it. They are using it as a tool to defend the ref instead of helping them. There's no other explanation.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
For the life of me I can't understand why a ref doesn't ask for the VARs help in such incidents.
A quick 'can you check that' towards the VAR as the play continues is the simplest solution to a simple problem.
 
I’m feeling more and more these days that football in England is just a pure entertainment industry now and the job of referees is to manage the narrative rather than impartially oversee a competitive sport.

Last night the referee did everything in his power to ensure that United didn’t run away with it and put the fixture to death.

74% possession.
616 passes to their 213.

Yet despite that we each had 11 fouls and United got two yellow cards to their 1.

Williams should have had three yellows in the first half alone.
 
Nothing will happen as long as its not talked about. The referees protect themselves, they'll never acknowledge mistakes, and the media say nothing unless its shoved in their face. Ten Hag has settled in well, now its time he starts to throw his weight around. Take a fine and call these decisions out.
 
Atrocious performance last night from the ref. The Wout penalty call, that lad not getting booked despite smashing our players 3/4 times including facially, Williams not getting booked for pulling Garncho's shirt and stopping a counter, Casemiro's booking. Fecking hell it was bad.
 
Vault Dweller said:
Atrocious performance last night from the ref. The Wout penalty call, that lad not getting booked despite smashing our players 3/4 times including facially, Williams not getting booked for pulling Garncho's shirt and stopping a counter, Casemiro's booking. Fecking hell it was bad.
Click to expand...
I was going to say all of this so - I agree 120% with you.
 
christinaa said:
I was going to say all of this so - I agree 120% with you.
Click to expand...

Cheers!

Honestly I don't like to go on about refs but last night was something else. They've steadily been getting worse and up here in Scotland they are abysmal.

I've said it before on our pod, change it to the directive the refs have in rugby. The referee the game, as if the TMO isn't there. If something happens on the pitch (penalty shout, potential dangerous tackle) the ref radios VAR and says something like 'I am happy with what I saw but can you check the tackle / handball etc and see if there is something to act on?' then review it. Have VAR only automatically intervene for offsides and violent conduct off the ball.
 
I'm surprised the Williams/Garnacho one isn't a penalty to so many. I think there is a clear difference between a shoulder barge between two players and a blatant push.
 
Vault Dweller said:
Cheers!

Honestly I don't like to go on about refs but last night was something else. They've steadily been getting worse and up here in Scotland they are abysmal.

I've said it before on our pod, change it to the directive the refs have in rugby. The referee the game, as if the TMO isn't there. If something happens on the pitch (penalty shout, potential dangerous tackle) the ref radios VAR and says something like 'I am happy with what I saw but can you check the tackle / handball etc and see if there is something to act on?' then review it. Have VAR only automatically intervene for offsides and violent conduct off the ball.
Click to expand...
The difference is rugby referees WANT to use it as a tool to be helpful.

English referees DONT WANT VAR. They'd rather ignore it completely and be in complete control. If they get a decision wrong it's just part of the game to them.

The problem is we've gone from VAR being used in every situation, clearing up their messes - now they've gone back to the old school way of barely helping and it makes them look 10x worse.
 
Adam-Utd said:
The difference is rugby referees WANT to use it as a tool to be helpful.

English referees DONT WANT VAR. They'd rather ignore it completely and be in complete control. If they get a decision wrong it's just part of the game to them.

The problem is we've gone from VAR being used in every situation, clearing up their messes - now they've gone back to the old school way of barely helping and it makes them look 10x worse.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. They have to want to embrace change and accept it will help them, and make a huge difference to incorrect calls if it is applied correctly.

Same as anything else in life, you can use the technology but the people operating it have to be doing so correctly.
 
Media all over the Bruno goal agains city.

Since then we have had a Ref/var shithousery since. Talknonsense radio this morning Anthony is crap debate. Disgusting.

Palace game elbow by Mateta on Martinez, McTominay penalty.

Arsenal game no penalty for Bruno ( i will argue tooth and nail that is clear cut ) if Ramsdale gets ball no penalty however, Bruno gets first touch and then Ramsdale stands up initiating contact, Ref/VAr bottled it as positive decision would have enacted a possible red card call. We still have no idea if we should have got a penalty as no-one has seen a replay of AWB being fouled.

Reading, Var disallowed Rashford goal. Their quote " Reading defender didn't intentionally play the ball" which is nonsense. No card at all for scissor tackle on Eriksen. No penalty on Casemiro.

Notts Forest no penalty on clear foul on Weghorst again he clearly gets the ball first.

Media overall reponse to ETH questioning certain incidents is that he is moaning about nothing and that in particular the Mateta elbow incident and Carroll's actions are negated by the fact that Casemiro and Martinez can " put it about themselves". Last night there was no debate on main show or highlights regarding penalty or this morning. So Referee & Var know there will be no pressure on them to get decision right against our team. 4 Games and counting.
 
SilentWitness said:
I'm surprised the Williams/Garnacho one isn't a penalty to so many. I think there is a clear difference between a shoulder barge between two players and a blatant push.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was bizarre how it was so quickly brushed off.

He blatantly just pushes him over, but the terrible commentary were saying oh there was no tangle of legs so it's not a pen. What? Since when is that the rule?

It was a fairly low key game because we'd already killed the tie in the first leg so it won't get much media attention but last night was seriously about as bad as it gets from a referee. He was absolutely fecking terrible all game. Post City game especially we've had some shocking decisions go against us.
 
To be fair having looked at the Weghorst penalty call again, I think that despite the fact his follow through wipes out Weghorst, he does get a slight touch on the ball after Weghorst. Very hard to say if he kicks Weghorst before he gets the slight touch or after.
 
mctrials23 said:
To be fair having looked at the Weghorst penalty call again, I think that despite the fact his follow through wipes out Weghorst, he does get a slight touch on the ball after Weghorst. Very hard to say if he kicks Weghorst before he gets the slight touch or after.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t matter at all. Anywhere else on the field it’s a foul. It was reckless and he booted Weghorst with possibly the most marginal of touches on the ball.
 
Pexbo said:
I’m feeling more and more these days that football in England is just a pure entertainment industry now and the job of referees is to manage the narrative rather than impartially oversee a competitive sport.

Last night the referee did everything in his power to ensure that United didn’t run away with it and put the fixture to death.

74% possession.
616 passes to their 213.

Yet despite that we each had 11 fouls and United got two yellow cards to their 1.

Williams should have had three yellows in the first half alone.
Click to expand...

This has always been the case, Clattenburg admitted that years ago.

So far in the league we've committed the 3rd most fouls, have the most yellow cards and drawn the least fouls. This United team isn't exactly a dirty cynical one for those stats to make any sense. Neither the forwards nor the defenders in the team get the benefit of the doubt in any decision. If it's a 50/50 decision, you know it will go the other way even at Old Trafford.
 
mctrials23 said:
To be fair having looked at the Weghorst penalty call again, I think that despite the fact his follow through wipes out Weghorst, he does get a slight touch on the ball after Weghorst. Very hard to say if he kicks Weghorst before he gets the slight touch or after.
Click to expand...

Getting a slight touch on the ball doesn't allow you to kick and impede the player who's nicked the ball off you.
 
mctrials23 said:
To be fair having looked at the Weghorst penalty call again, I think that despite the fact his follow through wipes out Weghorst, he does get a slight touch on the ball after Weghorst. Very hard to say if he kicks Weghorst before he gets the slight touch or after.
Click to expand...
Good spot. I think it's still a penalty but I can now understand why it wasn't given.
 
Withnail said:
Getting a slight touch on the ball doesn't allow you to kick and impede the player who's nicked the ball off you.
Click to expand...

To follow that wisdom, getting a slight nick on the ball as a forward before the defender tackles you or when attackers smash the ball out of play completely out of control just before the contact probably shouldn't be penalties.

When they repeatedly look at VAR replays checking for contact, thats what they are doing. Seeing if the defender got a touch on the ball. There isn't any doubt that the defender took the attacker out. The question is, did he get the ball first. If he did, they don't give a penalty.

The recent fouls on McTominay and Casemiro were stone wall but I am almost certain that what I have said is the reason we didn't get that penalty. It was absolutely stone wall without the touch from the defender.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
When the ref chose to talk to - and not book - Williams for cynically dragging Garnacho back when he was trying to counter he gave up any last hint of impartiality. Shortly before booking Casemiro for slipping over.
Click to expand...

Yep that was bizarre. The Casemiro booking I could sort of understand, I thought it looked worse in real time than it actually was.
 
Pexbo said:
I’m feeling more and more these days that football in England is just a pure entertainment industry now and the job of referees is to manage the narrative rather than impartially oversee a competitive sport.

Last night the referee did everything in his power to ensure that United didn’t run away with it and put the fixture to death.

74% possession.
616 passes to their 213.

Yet despite that we each had 11 fouls and United got two yellow cards to their 1.

Williams should have had three yellows in the first half alone.
Click to expand...
I have thought this since the introduction of VAR in the Premier League.
 
bosnian_red said:


Honestly we need to pressure the refs in the media. That outrage over United getting an actual correct decision has fecked us over in every game since that City game. This is fecked.
Click to expand...


I thought that was nailed on the first 20 or so times I watch it.
On this clip does the defender actually skim the ball first?
 
mctrials23 said:
To be fair having looked at the Weghorst penalty call again, I think that despite the fact his follow through wipes out Weghorst, he does get a slight touch on the ball after Weghorst. Very hard to say if he kicks Weghorst before he gets the slight touch or after.
Click to expand...

I think you're spot on.

I was in full rant mode like everyone else on seeing it 20-30 times.
But looking at it today I think he does skim it before wiping him out.

That might actually be another debate though, skimming the ball doesn't mean you've won it does it!?
 
Sandikan said:
I thought that was nailed on the first 20 or so times I watch it.
On this clip does the defender actually skim the ball first?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. First angle implies that if he had hit it first it would have gone forwards and not wide towards Bruno. The movement of the ball for me is telling, look at the pattern. If he touched it first the rotation of the pattern would be different.
 
RedSky said:
I don't think so. First angle implies that if he had hit it first it would have gone forwards and not wide towards Bruno. The movement of the ball for me is telling, look at the pattern. If he touched it first the rotation of the pattern would be different.
Click to expand...

We're only talking a skim, which didn't make much impact.
I do wonder if this is what they couldn't decide on.
 
Contact with the ball when a challenge is reckless means nothing , hasn’t it been this way for years now?
 
Sandikan said:
That might actually be another debate though, skimming the ball doesn't mean you've won it does it!?
Click to expand...

I mean that is another debate and one that I firmly think should be had at some point. The penalties where an attacker is running at full speed and just gets their toe to it before the defender or keeper and pokes it out for a goal kick shouldn't be penalties in my eyes. A penalty should be an award for the attacker being robbed of a goal scoring opportunity. Even a potential one. If the only way you could get to the ball first is to kick it wildly out of play or miles away from the goal then thats not a goal scoring opportunity.

In my books the Weghorst one wouldn't be a penalty because he simply didn't lose any advantage or goal threat from the foul even if the defender didn't get a nick on the ball. Thats where an indirect free kick might be a good idea.

Starts getting into muddy waters obviously as its still massively up for interpretation.
 
Touching a ball isn’t winning it. If you touch it but it’s still under the attackers control then you haven’t won possession and it’s a foul
 
mctrials23 said:
I mean that is another debate and one that I firmly think should be had at some point. The penalties where an attacker is running at full speed and just gets their toe to it before the defender or keeper and pokes it out for a goal kick shouldn't be penalties in my eyes. A penalty should be an award for the attacker being robbed of a goal scoring opportunity. Even a potential one. If the only way you could get to the ball first is to kick it wildly out of play or miles away from the goal then thats not a goal scoring opportunity.

In my books the Weghorst one wouldn't be a penalty because he simply didn't lose any advantage or goal threat from the foul even if the defender didn't get a nick on the ball. Thats where an indirect free kick might be a good idea.

Starts getting into muddy waters obviously as its still massively up for interpretation.
Click to expand...

That isn't a rule at all though.
Although it seems to be what they inexplicably judged when Bruno was clearly taken down by Ramsdale in the box a few weeks ago, when moving away from goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.