# VAR - Thoughts



## Swango1980 (Nov 14, 2019)

This must have been done before, but not seen a thread lately, shocked. What are your thoughts on VAR in the Premiership this season?

Personally, I think it's been horrific. Anytime it gets a decision right cannot it cannot be used to justify the bizarre decisions it gets wrong, or simply fails to act on. What have we had? It gives a penalty for Watford against Chelsea for the slightest of slight touches on the attacker. Next day it doesn't give a penalty when Richarlison is taken out thigh high in the box, not when Deli Ali handballs it as his had was not deemed to be in an unnatural position (it was above his head). The goals ruled out for offside, like Firmino, or the Sheffield Utd one against Spurs. The lines suggested they were about a millimetre offside, but what level of accuracy do we get with those lines along with the timing in which the pass was deemed to have been played. 3-4 minutes to make some decisions. Fans not having a clue what is going on. Reluctant to celebrate in case a show lace is judged to be offside. I'm a Man Utd fan, and it has been kind to us, but I just can't bring myself to like it in the slightest.

If you don't like it, ways forward? Well, assuming it is here to stay, why can it not be like Rugby? The TV fans hear the dialogue between the VAR and the on field referee. For anything remotely subjective, get the on field referee to watch the incident (on the big screen, or the touchline screen). The on-field referee makes the final decision, it is his reputation on the line after all, so he needs to take responsibility. Even if we disagreed with the decision, we could at least hear their thought process and respect it a bit more. If referees were on microphone, I'd like to think that players would stop screaming and swearing like spoilt brats, they'd just look ridiculous. And, if they were caught swearing on microphone, automatic fine. We could then hear the referee clearly explain his decision to the players involved, then get on with it. As for offside. Fine, review it. But, get rid of those lines. Review it by eye on the screen without the lines. If it is not obvious either way, go with what the linesman flagged for in the first place. The linesman can still delay the flag if it is marginal, in case a goal is scored. Or, the linesman can flag straight away, and the ref can delay the whistle for the next few seconds in case a goal is scored.

But, surely any suggestions would be better than it is now? Unless you enjoy the VAR bashing by the studio pundits after the game.


----------



## fundy (Nov 14, 2019)

theres about 150 pages of garbage on the seasons football thread about it if youre that way inclined


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 14, 2019)

No matter how good the tech is, if you give it to somebody who doesn't  know how to use it itâ€™s abysmal.
Consistency is all we want ,but itâ€™s just to subjective at the moment.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Nov 14, 2019)

Everything new takes time to work through. Has it been perfect...of course not. But we have it, and must refine it as the need for it is beyond question.


----------



## USER1999 (Nov 14, 2019)

If it is judged in real time, by eye, there will be mistakes, but in general, the tolerance either way is pretty big.
Go to super slo mo, and the decision window gets smaller. The scope for iffy decisions gets narrower. But it's still there.

Doesn't work for me.


----------



## GG26 (Nov 14, 2019)

The concept is fine and I welcome it.  The execution to date has been dreadful.  For me it needs the ref to check on a monitor and not rely on the remote guys, unless itâ€™s offside.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 14, 2019)




----------



## Old Skier (Nov 14, 2019)

Bin it, and bring back the proper offside rule


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 14, 2019)

It has been an utter farce.  I was for it initially as I hoped it would help stamp out diving; quite the opposite, it seems to endorse it as the Deulofeu incident against Chelsea proved.  Worst of all in that incident the match referee got it right (imo) only for VAR to rear its ugly head.

It seems particularly adept at finding toenails offside (Mount v Liverpool, Pulisic v. Liverpool, Sheffield Utd v. Spurs?, etc) yet doesn't get wound back far enough to account for someone so far offside there's clear daylight (Salah v. Southampton).  Can't seem to pick up goalkeepers a yard off their line when the penalty is taken (Adrian v. Chelsea).  And as a match going fan it is a complete and utter disaster, completely sucking the life out of celebrations (Azpilicueta v. Ajax & v.Liverpool).

It should have been able to clear up issues & pick out the cheats; instead it is being completely & utterly discredited by what appears to be extremely subjective use.  The fact that we are all discussing the screw ups rather than pointing out what an improvement it is says it all.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 14, 2019)

Blue in Munich said:



View attachment 28564

Click to expand...

I like it this week.
I might not like it next week.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 14, 2019)

Blue in Munich said:



			It has been an utter farce.  I was for it initially as I hoped it would help stamp out diving; quite the opposite, it seems to endorse it as the Deulofeu incident against Chelsea proved.  Worst of all in that incident the match referee got it right (imo) only for VAR to rear its ugly head.

It seems particularly adept at finding toenails offside (Mount v Liverpool, Pulisic v. Liverpool, Sheffield Utd v. Spurs?, etc) yet doesn't get wound back far enough to account for someone so far offside there's clear daylight (Salah v. Southampton).  Can't seem to pick up goalkeepers a yard off their line when the penalty is taken (Adrian v. Chelsea).  And as a match going fan it is a complete and utter disaster, completely sucking the life out of celebrations (Azpilicueta v. Ajax & v.Liverpool).

It should have been able to clear up issues & pick out the cheats; instead it is being completely & utterly discredited by what appears to be extremely subjective use.  The fact that we are all discussing the screw ups rather than pointing out what an improvement it is says it all.
		
Click to expand...

Looks like Liverpool have done ok out of it.
I thought it would be good but have changed my mind.


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 14, 2019)

Also, the first Liverpool goal v City at weekend. The debate seems to be, should City have had a penalty or not after it hit Alexander Arnold's hand in the build up. However, regardless if you say yes or no, if a goal is scored is it not disallowed automatically if it hits one of the attacking team's had in the build up, accidentally or not? I know it happened on the other side of pitch, but it was about 22 secs and part of the build up in which Liverpool scored.


----------



## Stuart_C (Nov 14, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Looks like Liverpool have done ok out of it.
I thought it would be good but have changed my mind.
		
Click to expand...

It could've  went against us had we not won at villa. Good goal wrongly offside and a blatant handball not given.

As for VAR stick it in the bin and let the Armchair fans suffer.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 14, 2019)

Blue in Munich said:



			It has been an utter farce.  I was for it initially as I hoped it would help stamp out diving; quite the opposite, it seems to endorse it as the Deulofeu incident against Chelsea proved.  Worst of all in that incident the match referee got it right (imo) only for VAR to rear its ugly head.

It seems particularly adept at finding toenails offside (Mount v Liverpool, Pulisic v. Liverpool, Sheffield Utd v. Spurs?, etc) yet doesn't get wound back far enough to account for someone so far offside there's clear daylight (Salah v. Southampton).  Can't seem to pick up goalkeepers a yard off their line when the penalty is taken (Adrian v. Chelsea).  And as a match going fan it is a complete and utter disaster, completely sucking the life out of celebrations (Azpilicueta v. Ajax & v.Liverpool).

It should have been able to clear up issues & pick out the cheats; instead it is being completely & utterly discredited by what appears to be extremely subjective use.  The fact that we are all discussing the screw ups rather than pointing out what an improvement it is says it all.
		
Click to expand...

Don't think that BIM goes far, quite frankly it is a shower of shit. A lot of people that comment on it, actually see it on the telly. Be it Sky, BT sport. For the three or four minutes it is debated, you have replays, commentators and pundits talking about what there looking for. VAR comes to a decision and sometimes it's massively wrong. The people/refs that's have been screwing up for years are screwing up VAR.
However, then you have the match going fans like me. There have been moments at City this year when games have been close, City v Spurs when City score and VAR Disallows it. Why, no one bloody knows why. It's like a state secret. Argue amongst yourself about whether it should of been allowed, but bloody stupid rules like attacker accidentally handles it which led to a goal. Jesus bloody Christ. The City V Villa game. KDB scores, Silva tells the ref he touched it. But the ref cannot tell the VAR guy. It should of been disallowed. But all this time fans. The people that pay a small fortune are kept in the dark. They don't know what VAR is looking for. 
It has been a challenge taking myself and kids to a game the other side of the Pennines. I cannot get to next game, RBL course. My next three games are 17.30, 17.30 and 18.00 kick off times. plus ave got that bollox VAR to look forward to. So much so, this is my last season as a season ticket holder. 
Yup, you can shove VAR.


----------



## IanMcC (Nov 14, 2019)

I was vehemently opposed to its introduction, and from other fans I spoke to I was in the minority. I bet the feeling is different now!
If VAR has to be there, let the ref on the pitch be the ref! He intimates when he wants video assistance, makes his way to the touchline, views the incident, then makes a decision. Simples! Not some faceless wonder 70 miles away in a studio trying to be politically correct.
Blatter had his faults, but he was 100% correct when he said that nothing should be introduced to the game that cannot be replicated at every level. VAR cannot.
I love football, but have stopped watching EPL matches. You cannot even celebrate a goal properly, now. Half the time its chopped off!!


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 15, 2019)

Supported it when it came in, and still support the concept of it. Without a doubt it needs improving, and it needs speeding up.

But for all the high profile cock-ups, I wonder how many times its made a positive difference?


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 15, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Supported it when it came in, and still support the concept of it. Without a doubt it needs improving, and it needs speeding up.

But for all the high profile cock-ups, I wonder how many times its made a positive difference?
		
Click to expand...

Interesting point. When you say "positive" difference, what you really mean is when it makes the correct decision. However, even if it makes the correct decision, you are going to have 1 set of fans feeling negative about it at that moment, even though it was right. So, when it makes correct decisions, I'm not sure we can say it is making a positive change, it just means that we are not blaming the referee or linesman when they make a terrible mistake. But, as we have seen, it tries to make a subjective decision and it all goes to hell. Even if you agree with what looks like a fairly obvious subjective decision, you can guarantee the manager it had a negative impact on, or the fans, will completely disagree with it anyway.

I still think the ref on the pitch needs to take control of it. Take responsibility. It is his face and reputation on the line, and they are highly trained. So, they should be professional enough to deal with it.  I would be happy enough if it was scrapped, but if not are the key things that need to be changed as follows:

1. One man has to be in charge. The match referee. Anything that is subjective in the slightest, he must make the final decision.

2. The ref needs to have a microphone, and the fans at home know exactly what is being checked, and the logic behind the decision made

3. The fans in the stadium must be kept informed. Not sure if audio from the referee will help them. But, clear signs on the big screen (of course, this falls apart at stadiums with no big screen)

There seem to be good solutions made by everyone that could make it better than it is now. However, perhaps the biggest problem with no clear solution, is how to communicate with fans in the stadium. Also, I'm not sure if it is fair or not that some matches have VAR while others (lower league, international) do not. Or, when lower and higher clubs meet in the FA Cup, it is in force in some rounds or stadiums, but not in earlier rounds or smaller stadiums.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 15, 2019)

Swango1980 said:



			Interesting point. When you say "positive" difference, what you really mean is when it makes the correct decision. However, even if it makes the correct decision, you are going to have 1 set of fans feeling negative about it at that moment, even though it was right. So, when it makes correct decisions, I'm not sure we can say it is making a positive change, it just means that we are not blaming the referee or linesman when they make a terrible mistake. But, as we have seen, it tries to make a subjective decision and it all goes to hell. Even if you agree with what looks like a fairly obvious subjective decision, you can guarantee the manager it had a negative impact on, or the fans, will completely disagree with it anyway.

I still think the ref on the pitch needs to take control of it. Take responsibility. It is his face and reputation on the line, and they are highly trained. So, they should be professional enough to deal with it.  I would be happy enough if it was scrapped, but if not are the key things that need to be changed as follows:

1. One man has to be in charge. The match referee. Anything that is subjective in the slightest, he must make the final decision.

2. The ref needs to have a microphone, and the fans at home know exactly what is being checked, and the logic behind the decision made

3. The fans in the stadium must be kept informed. Not sure if audio from the referee will help them. But, clear signs on the big screen (of course, this falls apart at stadiums with no big screen)

There seem to be good solutions made by everyone that could make it better than it is now. However, perhaps the biggest problem with no clear solution, is how to communicate with fans in the stadium. Also, I'm not sure if it is fair or not that some matches have VAR while others (lower league, international) do not. Or, when lower and higher clubs meet in the FA Cup, it is in force in some rounds or stadiums, but not in earlier rounds or smaller stadiums.
		
Click to expand...

Watched England last night with no VAR.
The game flowed better no stops.
Bit one sided but better to watch imo.


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 15, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Watched England last night with no VAR.
The game flowed better no stops.
Bit one sided but better to watch imo.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah. If VAR was in place, that would have been at least 7 VAR checks, given they do a check after every goal. At worst, had every goal had some sort of tight call to make, and 3 and a half minutes to decide for each one, the game would have taken an extra 24.5 minutes to complete.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 15, 2019)

Swango1980 said:



			Yeah. If VAR was in place, that would have been at least 7 VAR checks, given they do a check after every goal. At worst, had every goal had some sort of tight call to make, and 3 and a half minutes to decide for each one, the game would have taken an extra 24.5 minutes to complete.
		
Click to expand...

I do think one thing VAR should be used for is to stop anyone except the captains harassing the ref.
This was supposed to be stopped ,but seems worse now .
Everyone has an opinion but anyone seen to be trying to influence the ref during the VAR deliberations should get a yellow.


----------



## nickjdavis (Nov 15, 2019)

I like the concept but the execution is awful.

If it's going to take more than 30 seconds of running back super slow mo videos in order to determine if a ball brushed an arm, or if someones nose was in an offside position then, you need to stick with the onfield refs decision. 

53 years they've been running slow mos of Geoff Hurst's goal and the video evidence is still inconclusive as the worlds oldest VAR check rumbles on.


----------



## Orikoru (Nov 15, 2019)

They've implemented it totally wrongly. Gone way too complicated with it. In my opinion it should work like this:

If the referee isn't sure on a decision or feels he didn't have the best view, indicate that he needs VAR and he goes over to the sideline to watch it again on the screen they have there. He gets to see it from a better angle and makes his mind up from that. Should take no more than 1 minute. No referring it to some idiot who's miles away in a little studio and has no context of the actual game because he's not there. No concerns about not overruling the ref, because the ref is doing it himself.

Offsides - if the linesman isn't sure he should keep the flag down and tell the ref he'd better double check it on VAR. Once again he goes to the sideline where the incident is replayed on the screen. If the forward looks about level with the defence then the goal stands. If he looks clearly offside, clear enough to gain an advantage, then he's offside and the goal is chalked off. Once again, no more than a minute. No referring it to some idiot in a studio so he can draw stupid lines from someone's shoulder to someone else's toe for 4 minutes and prove that he's offside by 0.2 centimetres, bore off with that rubbish.

Those are my feelings, I really wish the FA would do some sort of fan feedback on this so I could let them know.  Wishful thinking.


----------



## Orikoru (Nov 15, 2019)

nickjdavis said:



			53 years they've been running slow mos of Geoff Hurst's goal and the video evidence is still inconclusive as the worlds oldest VAR check rumbles on.
		
Click to expand...

To be completely honest, every time I see that footage it clearly looks like it didn't cross the line to me. I wouldn't say it was inconclusive.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 15, 2019)

Swango1980 said:



			Yeah. If VAR was in place, that would have been at least 7 VAR checks, given they do a check after every goal. At worst, had every goal had some sort of tight call to make, and 3 and a half minutes to decide for each one, the game would have taken an extra 24.5 minutes to complete.
		
Click to expand...

No it wonâ€™t take that much extra time at all; they simply wonâ€™t add it. If you are in any doubt watch the Chelsea Ajax game again. 8 goals, 6 subs, much time wasting and only 4 minutes added. 

If there is a change in the game that I would support it would be moving to a timekeeper. 30 minutes each way of the ball in play. Take out all the shenanigans of keepers mucking about and not being penalised. Off the pitch, sitting dead prior to a free kick or corner or in the keepers hands, stop the watch. Restart it when the kick/throw is taken or the keeper distributes the ball.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 15, 2019)

Swango1980 said:



			Interesting point. When you say "positive" difference, what you really mean is when it makes the correct decision. However, even if it makes the correct decision, you are going to have 1 set of fans feeling negative about it at that moment, even though it was right. So, when it makes correct decisions, I'm not sure we can say it is making a positive change, it just means that we are not blaming the referee or linesman when they make a terrible mistake. But, as we have seen, it tries to make a subjective decision and it all goes to hell. Even if you agree with what looks like a fairly obvious subjective decision, you can guarantee the manager it had a negative impact on, or the fans, will completely disagree with it anyway.

I still think the ref on the pitch needs to take control of it. Take responsibility. It is his face and reputation on the line, and they are highly trained. So, they should be professional enough to deal with it.  I would be happy enough if it was scrapped, but if not are the key things that need to be changed as follows:

1. One man has to be in charge. The match referee. Anything that is subjective in the slightest, he must make the final decision.

2. The ref needs to have a microphone, and the fans at home know exactly what is being checked, and the logic behind the decision made

3. The fans in the stadium must be kept informed. Not sure if audio from the referee will help them. But, clear signs on the big screen (of course, this falls apart at stadiums with no big screen)

There seem to be good solutions made by everyone that could make it better than it is now. However, perhaps the biggest problem with no clear solution, is how to communicate with fans in the stadium. Also, I'm not sure if it is fair or not that some matches have VAR while others (lower league, international) do not. Or, when lower and higher clubs meet in the FA Cup, it is in force in some rounds or stadiums, but not in earlier rounds or smaller stadiums.
		
Click to expand...

What I really mean is what I said. Obviously the positive difference is getting the decisions right. No need for dozens of paragraphs. Apply the rules with the aid of technology.... whats not to like.


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 15, 2019)

Blue in Munich said:



			No it wonâ€™t take that much extra time at all; they simply wonâ€™t add it. If you are in any doubt watch the Chelsea Ajax game again. 8 goals, 6 subs, much time wasting and only 4 minutes added.

If there is a change in the game that I would support it would be moving to a timekeeper. 30 minutes each way of the ball in play. Take out all the shenanigans of keepers mucking about and not being penalised. Off the pitch, sitting dead prior to a free kick or corner or in the keepers hands, stop the watch. Restart it when the kick/throw is taken or the keeper distributes the ball.
		
Click to expand...

Good point. There was probably about 15 minutes of actual football in that half. And that's in Europe, where there VAR guidelines are completely different to the Premiership anyway. Basically, managers, players and most importantly fans have literally no idea what VAR is going to be used for or not from one game to the next.


----------



## IanM (Nov 15, 2019)

Great example of what happens when a new IT System is rolled out with effective "change management & communications."   

Organisations do it all the time. I usually get called in about 6 months too late....but that pushes up the day rate!


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 15, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			What I really mean is what I said. Obviously the positive difference is getting the decisions right. No need for dozens of paragraphs. Apply the rules with the aid of technology.... whats not to like.
		
Click to expand...

I did agree with your point overall, I was just wondering about the definition of the word positive. VAR correctly disallows a goal when the referee or linesman missed something, players and fans for the team that had the goal ruled out aren't praising the positivity of VAR in that moment. The other team are though, so generally 50/50 in terms of emotions from supporting fans in terms of being positive. But, when it makes ridiculous subjective calls, the general feeling goes from 50/50 positive / negative, to lean much more to the negative side. Especially as even the neutrals are criticising it.

Also, back in the day, when emotions got the better of players, a quick punch to the head, or head butt when the referee wasn't looking spiced things up a bit (even if they got a ban after the game). Now, players have their hands tied behind their back, knowing they can't get away with it. Killing the emotion in the game. Btw, that last comment was very much tongue in cheek, although it does feel like the emotion is being sucked away generally.


----------



## Imurg (Nov 15, 2019)

Blue in Munich said:



			No it wonâ€™t take that much extra time at all; they simply wonâ€™t add it. If you are in any doubt watch the Chelsea Ajax game again. 8 goals, 6 subs, much time wasting and only 4 minutes added.

If there is a change in the game that I would support it would be moving to a timekeeper. 30 minutes each way of the ball in play. Take out all the shenanigans of keepers mucking about and not being penalised. Off the pitch, sitting dead prior to a free kick or corner or in the keepers hands, stop the watch. Restart it when the kick/throw is taken or the keeper distributes the ball.
		
Click to expand...

Didn't they try this at a World cup sometime ago...? Got a vague memory of it.

As for VAR...run a clock. 30 seconds to make a decision
If you can't, onfield decision stands.


----------



## Piece (Nov 15, 2019)

Part of the problem is that we don't get to hear the conversation between the VAR and the on-field official. This means we all speculate about the decision. Take a leaf out of rugby's book. Associated with this, is some fans ignorance of the rules and how they are applied. Being party to the refs conversation would correct misunderstanding, even if some don't agree with the interpretation. I don't like that the refs decision, VAR and on-field, is a secret club - bring it out into the open and then we can appreciate the decision making more.

As for offsides, we need something similar to Hawkeye in cricket, the Umpire's Decision. Clear offside is clear; a boot lace isn't.


----------



## nickjdavis (Nov 15, 2019)

Orikoru said:



			To be completely honest, every time I see that footage it clearly looks like it didn't cross the line to me. I wouldn't say it was inconclusive.
		
Click to expand...

I watched it again shortly after posting and can only agree with you.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 10, 2020)

I bet Weat Ham fans will just love VAR tonight. Yes, disallowed goal because of the law (which is an absolutely ridiculous handball law), but only ever going to be given using VAR as I can't see a ref ever having the confidence to give it.

If they are going to give handball for that, they need to 100% give a penalty any time it brushes a defenders arm accidentally in the box. Or, are the authorities simply trying to implement every method possible to stop goals and kill the mood?


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 10, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I bet Weat Ham fans will just love VAR tonight. Yes, disallowed goal because of the law (which is an absolutely ridiculous handball law), but only ever going to be given using VAR as I can't see a ref ever having the confidence to give it.

If they are going to give handball for that, they need to 100% give a penalty any time it brushes a defenders arm accidentally in the box. Or, are the authorities simply trying to implement every method possible to stop goals and kill the mood?
		
Click to expand...

If that's a defender and it's in the box it's not a penalty.
The defence rests.


----------



## Orikoru (Jan 10, 2020)

Changing the rules to suit VAR is so backwards. VAR was meant to help enforce the rules, but instead they change the rules to help VAR. Daft.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 10, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I bet Weat Ham fans will just love VAR tonight. Yes, disallowed goal because of the law (which is an absolutely ridiculous handball law), but only ever going to be given using VAR as I can't see a ref ever having the confidence to give it.

If they are going to give handball for that, they need to 100% give a penalty any time it brushes a defenders arm accidentally in the box. Or, are the authorities simply trying to implement every method possible to stop goals and kill the mood?
		
Click to expand...

But I have been saying that since day one.Handball has always been handball, irrespective of which team or player. Any accidental handball by an attacker and a goal Is disallowed.  But how do we know that accidental handball by a defender actually stops a goal. Not all accidental handballs lead to goals. Every goal goes to VAR, oops there’s an accidental handball goal disallowed.
Still Waiting for a team to score a goal and it be disallowed because VAR has been looking at A Possible penalty in the other box which is then given.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 10, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I bet Weat Ham fans will just love VAR tonight. Yes, disallowed goal because of the law (which is an absolutely ridiculous handball law), but only ever going to be given using VAR as *I can't see a ref ever having the confidence to give it.*

If they are going to give handball for that, they need to 100% give a penalty any time it brushes a defenders arm accidentally in the box. Or, are the authorities simply trying to implement every method possible to stop goals and kill the mood?
		
Click to expand...

If the ref looks at that pitch side monitor, I'd be confident he'd be happy to let that go.

Problem is, the handball laws of the game  has changed so no matter his opinion or any qualified arbiter of rules opinion it has to be disallowed.

Until the handball rule is changed properly and is fit for purpose these types of incidents will always be given as handball.

How can you have 3 variations of handball?


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 11, 2020)

Stuart_C said:



			If the ref looks at that pitch side monitor, I'd be confident he'd be happy to let that go.

Problem is, the handball laws of the game  has changed so no matter his opinion or any qualified arbiter of rules opinion it has to be disallowed.

Until the handball rule is changed properly and is fit for purpose these types of incidents will always be given as handball.

How can you have 3 variations of handball?
		
Click to expand...

I agree. You either give handball after every single accidental incident. That would turn out to be ridiculous, as we may have an average of 2 or 3 penalties a game, and VAR will never be used to look at every handball outside the box, unless the attacking team scores. 

Or, go back to what the rules were before. It's handball if it's intentional or the hand is in an unnatural position (I.e. to stop a player spreading his arms like Schmeichel when blocking a shot). OK, some incidents will require a subjective decision by the ref, but at least we can live with that in the long term even if it hurts our team in the short.

The disallowed goals for "handball" and toenails being offside has been unbelievable. Might as well buy FIFA for playstation, set both teams to be computer controlled, and watch that game. At least the VAR decisions are immediate.


----------



## Piece (Jan 11, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I bet Weat Ham fans will just love VAR tonight. Yes, disallowed goal because of the law (which is an absolutely ridiculous handball law), but only ever going to be given using VAR as I can't see a ref ever having the confidence to give it.

If they are going to give handball for that, they need to 100% give a penalty any time it brushes a defenders arm accidentally in the box. Or, are the authorities simply trying to implement every method possible to stop goals and kill the mood?
		
Click to expand...

If that had been given, Sheff Utd would have been in uproar. So VAR can’t win really, can it? 

VAR isn’t the whole problem. Yes it can be streamlined and made better. But the majority of the issue is with fans‘ ignorance of the laws and some of the laws itself.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 11, 2020)

If it had have been given, yes there would be uproar. But only because we all KNOW the handball rule this season, there really was no choice.

In this case, it is not VARs fault, it's the ridiculous handball law. As Orikoru said, they probably changed the law to suit the technology.

Had it been last season, and goal was given, no doubt the Sheff United fans would have moaned a bit. But, probably half heartedly as it was clearly unintentional and his hand was in a normal position. They wouldn't have moaned anywhere near as much as West Ham fans last night. And, for the neutral it was just an absolute joke. We are slowly getting to the point teams and fans are reluctant to celebrate a goal. The biggest cheers will soon come after VAR overturns a decision minutes after it happened.


----------



## Piece (Jan 11, 2020)

The handball law has been a contentious one for years. It has been tweaked and tweaked, and now it is forensically under the microscope via VAR, it is being exposed.

The quick wins for VAR this year are more use of the pitch monitors and fans hearing the decision process. The latter is tricky for game going fans but rugby and US footy show options.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 11, 2020)

If a player, like Rice last night, has the ball brush their hand and then through on goal. Open net. I guess they might as well stop, try and keep possession, and take it from there. Because, the ref won't give it, only VAR IF the player scores. Question is, if the player stops themselves from scoring, how long can the team wait before they can try and score again?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Jan 11, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			If a player, like Rice last night, has the ball brush their hand and then through on goal. Open net. I guess they might as well stop, try and keep possession, and take it from there. Because, the ref won't give it, only VAR IF the player scores. Question is, if the player stops themselves from scoring, how long can the team wait before they can try and score again?
		
Click to expand...

Nobody knows even the ref is guessing.
It’s so poor.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 12, 2020)

VAR was a disgrace in the Champions League tie between spurs and Man City. It was then a disgrace for the same game between them at the start of the season.  Nothing has changed its killing the emotion at being there live at the game.  Now we’re half through the season every team has been affected and no one likes it.  After this season I will not renew my season ticket. I am done with football and all in now with golf.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 14, 2020)

Does anyone remember 2 years ago, when a Nantes player accidentally collided with the referee, at which point the referee then kicked out at the player. Incredibly, the ref gave the player a second yellow card and therefore a red card. I wonder how VAR would have treated that? I guess it would have done nothing, given that it was a yellow and not a straight red.


----------



## Orikoru (Jan 14, 2020)

I realised yesterday that I now haven't watched a single game of football for two weeks. VAR (and a little bit of Spurs being rubbish if I'm honest) is actually putting me off the game. It's that level of frustration and helplessness when you watch yet another offside being given by a gnat's testicle when the players are level that I can't stand.


----------



## ScienceBoy (Jan 14, 2020)

Socceball still has a long way to go to catch up with Northern Handegg but it’s a start.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 14, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Does anyone remember 2 years ago, when a Nantes player accidentally collided with the referee, at which point the referee then kicked out at the player. Incredibly, the ref gave the player a second yellow card and therefore a red card. I wonder how VAR would have treated that? I guess it would have done nothing, given that it was a yellow and not a straight red.
		
Click to expand...

Never heard of it until your post, but here it is;


----------



## GB72 (Jan 15, 2020)

Never really seen it working well in football. The pace of the game is a big factor. The sports where it works to a certain extent (rugby/cricket) have natural breaks in play to analyse any incident, football does not. 

Then you have the method applied. In rugby the analysis is done by an official in the ground talking to the referee rather than in a call centre miles away. It is also, where possible, always looked at on the screen so the ref can give his input as well and make the final call. 

In rugby, the question that the ref asks is also important. For example Try yes or no means that the ref is unsure and the benefit of the doubt goes to the defending team whereas asking is there any reason not to award a try means that the ref believes it has been scored and will award it if there is no obvious foul play or infringement. 

The standards being applied are awful. If you cannot see something with the naked eye then VAR should not rule on it. 

The handball rules are a joke at the moment anyway so not just VAR to blame for that one.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 15, 2020)

The handball rule strikes again 

Was the rule due to be introduced anyway, or was it brought in as part of the VAR regime?


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 15, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			The handball rule strikes again 

Was the rule due to be introduced anyway, or was it brought in as part of the VAR regime?
		
Click to expand...

it’s on the BBC site, another horrendous decision. Every player on the pitch thought it a legit goal.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 16, 2020)

VAR is getting ridiculous, just heard a story on the radio.Peter Crouch and missis Crouch had a birthday party for one of there kids. A parent was filming them when playing pass the parcel, and used VAR to see who had hold of the pressie when the music stopped The winner unwrapped the pressie 😂


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 14, 2020)

VAR endearing itself to the Wolves fans at Leicester again; they aren't backward in coming forward about their view, and in my opinion they're right, it's ruining the game.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 14, 2020)

Officials messing about with their new toys again


----------



## fundy (Feb 14, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			VAR endearing itself to the Wolves fans at Leicester again; they aren't backward in coming forward about their view, and in my opinion they're right, it's ruining the game.
		
Click to expand...

whoever decided the best way to clear any issues up was to have Peter Walton on TV wants shooting too!!!!


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 14, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			VAR endearing itself to the Wolves fans at Leicester again; they aren't backward in coming forward about their view, and in my opinion they're right, it's ruining the game.
		
Click to expand...

And reading the laws of the game, the player who has apparently committed the offence commits no offence by the definition.  Mind boggling.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 14, 2020)

fundy said:



			whoever decided the best way to clear any issues up was to have Peter Walton on TV wants shooting too!!!!
		
Click to expand...

That's actually 2 likes, one from Mrs. BiM as well.  I'd tell you exactly what she said about Peter Walton but I'd get Fraggered.


----------



## fundy (Feb 14, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			That's actually 2 likes, one from Mrs. BiM as well.  I'd tell you exactly what she said about Peter Walton but I'd get Fraggered.
		
Click to expand...

Mrs BIM knows clearly, think even Fragger might give a bit of leeway on this one, surely


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 14, 2020)

fundy said:



			whoever decided the best way to clear any issues up was to have Peter Walton on TV wants shooting too!!!!
		
Click to expand...

Did you think Walton was stating that the guy who received the ball from the corner was offside?


----------



## fundy (Feb 14, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Did you think Walton was stating that the guy who received the ball from the corner was offside?
		
Click to expand...


im not sure Walton knew what he was saying, at best he was confused which player was which, at worst ......(censored by the threat of fragger)


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 14, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			That's actually 2 likes, one from Mrs. BiM as well.  I'd tell you exactly what she said about Peter Walton but I'd get Fraggered.
		
Click to expand...

I am sure there would be extenuating circumstances. Walton is cause alone. He was wasn't brilliant as a referee so rich to hear him now


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 14, 2020)

fundy said:



			im not sure Walton knew what he was saying, at best he was confused which player was which, at worst ......(censored by the threat of fragger)
		
Click to expand...

I thought he was implying it was the guy who received the ball from the corner, which he can't be as he has received the ball directly from the corner...  

I didn't think Walton could be worse as a pundit than a referee; clearly I was wrong.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 14, 2020)

Dear God, it's taken Robbie Savage to clear up the issue.  How bad must Peter Walton be if Robbie savage can clearly explain what he can't?


----------



## Crazyface (Feb 15, 2020)

It's not a robot this VAR thing, it's still humans trying to implement stupid laws. The laws of football should be burnt and re-done. The offside law needs changing for a start. It's been a PITA forever. Far too complicated. I've got a way of sorting it, but no-one can understand it because it's a new idea and they apply the old way of looking at things to it. Yes I've had loads of discussions / heated rows trying to explain it so won't do it again. Players falling over and rolling about when blown on.  Big girls they are.  
VAR is a good thing. Had it been in place years ago England would have beaten Portugal in that QF? game and Germany in THAT game. How Frankies goal was disallowed will haunt me forever.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 15, 2020)

Crazyface said:



			It's not a robot this VAR thing, it's still humans trying to implement stupid laws. The laws of football should be burnt and re-done. The offside law needs changing for a start. It's been a PITA forever. Far too complicated. I've got a way of sorting it, but no-one can understand it because it's a new idea and they apply the old way of looking at things to it. Yes I've had loads of discussions / heated rows trying to explain it so won't do it again. Players falling over and rolling about when blown on.  Big girls they are.
VAR is a good thing. Had it been in place years ago England would have beaten Portugal in that QF? game and Germany in THAT game. How Frankies goal was disallowed will haunt me forever.
		
Click to expand...

Although, goal line technology would have saved Frankie's goal, and goal line technology has worked almost without fault.

Would VAR have disallowed any England goals and potentially stopped them from winning? Or allowed any opposition goals that were ruled out for offside wrongly? I guess it it swings and roundabouts. But, it seems to me, fans are so much angrier now after VAR makes the correct decision than they were when a referee got an instinctive call incorrect. It really is killing the flow and euphoria of football.

If it is here to stay, then you are right, the laws need to change so toe nails are not deemed to be offside or a slight brush of an arm is not handball if you score (yet bizarrely not handball in any other circumstance)


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 17, 2020)

My current thoughts would get me an infraction. I only had 1  view, real time from 50 yards away and it was as clear a red as you will ever see. Absolute joke.


----------



## fundy (Feb 17, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			My current thoughts would get me an infraction. I only had 1  view, real time from 50 yards away and it was as clear a red as you will ever see. Absolute joke.
		
Click to expand...

it was clear enough on tv too


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 17, 2020)

fundy said:



			it was clear enough on tv too
		
Click to expand...

Na, just momentum. Even the Chelsea bench looked embarrassed about appealing


----------



## fundy (Feb 17, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Na, just momentum. Even the Chelsea bench looked embarrassed about appealing
		
Click to expand...

1st leg was, 2nd was a kick out that wasnt needed


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 17, 2020)

fundy said:



			1st leg was, 2nd was a kick out that wasnt needed
		
Click to expand...

Is the correct answer. Plain as day.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 17, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Na, just momentum. Even the Chelsea bench looked embarrassed about appealing
		
Click to expand...

Clear red - no momentum in regards the second leg


----------



## dronfield (Feb 17, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			It has been an utter farce.  I was for it initially as I hoped it would help stamp out diving; quite the opposite, it seems to endorse it as the Deulofeu incident against Chelsea proved.  Worst of all in that incident the match referee got it right (imo) only for VAR to rear its ugly head.

It seems particularly adept at finding toenails offside (Mount v Liverpool, Pulisic v. Liverpool, Sheffield Utd v. Spurs?, etc) yet doesn't get wound back far enough to account for someone so far offside there's clear daylight (Salah v. Southampton).  Can't seem to pick up goalkeepers a yard off their line when the penalty is taken (Adrian v. Chelsea).  And as a match going fan it is a complete and utter disaster, completely sucking the life out of celebrations (Azpilicueta v. Ajax & v.Liverpool).

It should have been able to clear up issues & pick out the cheats; instead it is being completely & utterly discredited by what appears to be extremely subjective use.  The fact that we are all discussing the screw ups rather than pointing out what an improvement it is says it all.
		
Click to expand...

Us Blades are top of the VAR disallowed goals league, which includes two horrendous toe nail offside ones v Spurs and Man City.
VAR was brought in to correct ref howlers (similar to cricket), not to rule out "goals" after 5 mins of reviewing photo stills that prob werent accurate as to where a player was actually standing when the original pass to him was made!
It is here to stay, but needs a serious overhaul as to what it is actually to be used for.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 17, 2020)

Anyone see the Willian incident; I didn’t have a clear view and wonder why there was no VAR check as those who did see it said possibly a penalty.


----------



## BrianM (Feb 17, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Anyone see the Willian incident; I didn’t have a clear view and wonder why there was no VAR check as those who did see it said possibly a penalty.
		
Click to expand...

Was outside box, but looked a foul even on replay.


----------



## BrianM (Feb 17, 2020)

Maguire was a red all day long, no wonder people get annoyed with lack of consistency.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 17, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Anyone see the Willian incident; I didn’t have a clear view and wonder why there was no VAR check as those who did see it said possibly a penalty.
		
Click to expand...

One of those that could of gone either way.
One angle looked like Willian diving over outstretched leg, another possible contact.
To me he went looking for it, even if he’d of stayed on his feet he’d of never got the ball, he over hit and looked to play the defender.


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 17, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Anyone see the Willian incident; I didn’t have a clear view and wonder why there was no VAR check as those who did see it said possibly a penalty.
		
Click to expand...

It wasn’t in the box so can’t be reviewed as a foul or not.


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 17, 2020)

Chelsea not having a great day


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 17, 2020)

If the second VAR to disallow the equaliser is as shown on the screen then and credibility it might have had is shot.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 17, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Clear red - no momentum in regards the second leg
		
Click to expand...

Na, Maguire fell down, his foot went up. As Sir Isaac Newton said, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction


----------



## Kellfire (Feb 17, 2020)

VAR is basically perfect


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 17, 2020)

@Blue in Munich One of his feet 3” inches off side.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 17, 2020)

Just seen the re-run of the Maguire assault in the bar. The only explanation for the lack of a red card is unpalatable...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 17, 2020)

Well the application of it was shocking tonight bar the offside - really poor

Don’t think it could be any worse - Anthony Taylor and then VAR.

There was a image about which team has benefited most from VAR and it had UTD , can see why tonight


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 17, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well the application of it was shocking tonight bar the offside - really poor

Don’t think it could be any worse - Anthony Taylor and then VAR.

There was a image about which team has benefited most from VAR and it had UTD , can see why tonight
		
Click to expand...

VAR is gifting Liverpool the league this year in all fairness. All their contenders getting shafted by it, whilst liverpool know they'll get the benefit. I mean, Mane at the weekend pushing the Norwich defender out of the way before he scored. Had Aguero done that, no goal


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 17, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			VAR is gifting Liverpool the league this year in all fairness. All their contenders getting shafted by it, whilst liverpool know they'll get the benefit. I mean, Mane at the weekend pushing the Norwich defender out of the way before he scored. Had Aguero done that, no goal
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I’m an Everton fan and this is either the biggest fishing trip going or you hate LPool, either way, poor effort.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 17, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			VAR is gifting Liverpool the league this year in all fairness. All their contenders getting shafted by it, whilst liverpool know they'll get the benefit. I mean, Mane at the weekend pushing the Norwich defender out of the way before he scored. Had Aguero done that, no goal
		
Click to expand...

😂😂😂😂😂😂 fair play for the comedy value - poor effort for the content though 😂😂😂😂


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 17, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			VAR is gifting Liverpool the league this year in all fairness. All their contenders getting shafted by it, whilst liverpool know they'll get the benefit. I mean, Mane at the weekend pushing the Norwich defender out of the way before he scored. Had Aguero done that, no goal
		
Click to expand...

I agree 😂😂😂😂

Did you not see 2 Norwich players wrestle VVD to the floor in the penalty box on Saturday??

As for Mane's goal, 6ft 4 Zimmerman blatantly miss times the flight of the ball and goes down like a bag of shite.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 17, 2020)

I can't understand how back when we played Chelsea, Son got a VAR red card for kicking out at Rudiger, Maguire does exactly the same today, I mean near identical, and he's not even booked. As I said in the footy thread - VAR was meant to bring consistency wasn't it?? Awful. What a waste of time.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 17, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



@Blue in Munich One of his feet 3” inches off side.
		
Click to expand...

Paul, his foot is offside in relation to the defender's foot; but is it offside in relation to his arm & shoulder, and therefore was he actually offside?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 17, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			I can't understand how back when we played Chelsea, Son got a VAR red card for kicking out at Rudiger, Maguire does exactly the same today, I mean near identical, and he's not even booked. As I said in the footy thread - VAR was meant to bring consistency wasn't it?? Awful. What a waste of time.
		
Click to expand...

No look at Martial's swinging elbow that has apparently broken Christensen's nose, a questionable offside, ignoring the clear push by Fred that launched Azpilicueta into the Utd defender, the Maguire assault, the list goes on.  It is a catalogue of complete & utter ineptitude by Taylor & VAR and they wonder why fans get peed off.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 17, 2020)

There is always something that defines a Premiership season  such as:

The season of the United treble
The season of the Special one
The season that Blackburn won
The season that Leicester won
The season of the Arsenal invincibles 
The season Newcastle lost the big lead
The season of the Gerrard slip

This season will be the season of VAR

Ahhh well, at least Liverpool fans will remember it for other reasons, and no doubt they'll remind the rest of us for the next 30 years 

BTW, I do agree that Maguire was lucky not to be sent off, given it was similar to Son. But, I do believe there was no intent. In fact, I'm not sure even Son should have been sent off , only because it should didn't seem violent or would ever cause any damage. Not like the time Ortega rammed his head into Van der Saar's chin. I think football has become a touch too soft. Of course, it's only a subjective opinion. I'd like to see a few games with a bit of robust tackling and aggression, without risking serious injuries of course. Players just seem a little placid these days


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 17, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			No look at Martial's swinging elbow that has apparently broken Christensen's nose, a questionable offside, ignoring the clear push by Fred that launched Azpilicueta into the Utd defender, the Maguire assault, the list goes on.  It is a catalogue of complete & utter ineptitude by Taylor & VAR and they wonder why fans get peed off.
		
Click to expand...

Questionable offside? Discuss


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 17, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Questionable offside? Discuss
		
Click to expand...

Read the thread.


----------



## Captainron (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			The season of the United treble
The season of the Special one
The season that Blackburn won
The season that Leicester won
The season of the Arsenal invincibles
The season Newcastle lost the big lead
The season of the Gerrard slip
		
Click to expand...

All of those seasons had a winner and they are the ones that are remembered for their consistent excellence that year. Winning the league isn’t luck. It’s performance week in week out. 

Liverpool are the best team in the league by a wide margin in a very good league and that shows in the table. 

VAR hasn’t won them the title, their team has.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 18, 2020)

Captainron said:



			A
Liverpool are the best team in the league by a wide margin in a very good league and that shows in the table.

VAR hasn’t won them the title, their team has.
		
Click to expand...

Agree with the first line

Not sure how many non-Liverpool fans will agree 100% with the second line although I think you're right


----------



## Papas1982 (Feb 18, 2020)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Agree with the first line

*Not sure how many non-Liverpool fans will agree 100% with the second line although I think you're right*

Click to expand...

Are you serious? 

You think anyone can realistically claim var has cost city 25 points?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 18, 2020)

Kellfire said:



			VAR is basically perfect
		
Click to expand...

Just a pity that human interpretation of what VAR says isn’t


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Paul, his foot is offside in relation to the defender's foot; but is it offside in relation to his arm & shoulder, and therefore was he actually offside?
		
Click to expand...

Purely by the magic lines drawn by the idiots at Stockley Park.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 18, 2020)

Papas1982 said:



			Are you serious?

You think anyone can realistically claim var has cost city 25 points?
		
Click to expand...

Slightly facetious but it has seemed to have cost the other top sides at key times. I did also say Liverpool deserve to win. by far the best team


----------



## Crazyface (Feb 18, 2020)

Stuart_C said:



			I agree 😂😂😂😂

Did you not see 2 Norwich players wrestle VVD to the floor in the penalty box on Saturday??

As for Mane's goal, 6ft 4 Zimmerman blatantly miss times the flight of the ball and goes down like a bag of shite.
		
Click to expand...

S'funny how people see things differently. This still does not change the FACT that Mane pushed (albeit ever so slightly but enough to put the player off balance as he jumped) the defender. VAR is not to blame, it's the humans who are watching in Liverpool shirts in the control box.


----------



## Papas1982 (Feb 18, 2020)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Slightly facetious but it has seemed to have cost the other top sides at key times. I did also say Liverpool deserve to win. by far the best team
		
Click to expand...

Liverpool are 25 points clear, 25.

Even if every other big club had got the decisions their way, it would have made zero difference to the destination of the title.

https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...ague-club-by-who-has-benefited-most-from-var/ 

The above is a few weeks old, but Sometimes, it isn't always what it seems....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 18, 2020)

Crazyface said:



			S'funny how people see things differently. This still does not change the FACT that Mane pushed (albeit ever so slightly but enough to put the player off balance as he jumped) the defender. VAR is not to blame, it's the humans who are watching in Liverpool shirts in the control box.
		
Click to expand...

Thing is - you say Mane pushed Zimmerman - and indeed he might well have touched him - but pushed?  Well maybe - though I'm not sure the sort of push that would have caused the big man to fall as he did (he was jumping/running backwards I think as he had looked to have misjudged the through ball).  But there is 100% no doubt about the two defenders hauling down VVD on the 6yd box.  No doubt whatsoever.


----------



## Crazyface (Feb 18, 2020)

We got into  a big Sunday dinner debate on this at the weekend. My son and grandson, BIG Liverpool fans, and who have had to endure a lot over the last few years LOL, were defending VAR, but had to concede, well my son did, grandson could argue about football in an empty room, that footballs laws were too complicated (two rules regarding offside apparently who knew that ????) and the whole rules should be either be scrapped and redrawn and clearly defined with no ambiguity anywhere, OR VAR scrapped and let the refs run it all. 
Also VAR is in place in other countries and they have no problems with it. It's just the Premiership who have changed the way it is used (because they know best) and have made a complete balls of it. EG The ref in other countries can go to the sidelines to view the replays. Not in this country! (Apparently). 
PS I don't really watch the football and haven't done for years. It's rubbish. Benfica the other night was enjoyable though. Loads of proper tackles and the ref waving play on. Great stuff.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 18, 2020)

I sort of agree with Gary Neville's view that, providing all offsides are done by VAR the same, then offside is offside and should be accepted. However the decision last night on the push, for me, was wrong. A player gets pushed and his run is affected, it was clear to me that he used both hands to steady himself as he was pushed into the player in front, there was no apparent/obvious attempt to foul the player in front. If the goal wasnt allowed then a penalty was the right decision, but, unless the rules have changed, the goal should stand giving the advantage to the offended team


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Crazyface said:



			We got into  a big Sunday dinner debate on this at the weekend. My son and grandson, BIG Liverpool fans, and who have had to endure a lot over the last few years LOL, were defending VAR, but had to concede, well my son did, grandson could argue about football in an empty room, that footballs laws were too complicated (two rules regarding offside apparently who knew that ????) and the whole rules should be either be scrapped and redrawn and clearly defined with no ambiguity anywhere, OR VAR scrapped and let the refs run it all.
Also VAR is in place in other countries and they have no problems with it. It's just the Premiership who have changed the way it is used (because they know best) and have made a complete balls of it. EG The ref in other countries can go to the sidelines to view the replays. Not in this country! (Apparently).
*PS I don't really watch the football and haven't done for years*. It's rubbish. Benfica the other night was enjoyable though. Loads of proper tackles and the ref waving play on. Great stuff.
		
Click to expand...

We guessed that from your posts!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

chrisd said:



			I sort of agree with Gary Neville's view that, providing all offsides are done by VAR the same, then offside is offside and should be accepted. However the decision last night on the push, for me, was wrong. A player gets pushed and his run is affected, it was clear to me that he used both hands to steady himself as he was pushed into the player in front, there was no apparent/obvious attempt to foul the player in front. If the goal wasnt allowed then a penalty was the right decision, but, unless the rules have changed, the goal should stand giving the advantage to the offended team
		
Click to expand...

It is a contact sport though Chris and do you honestly believe Fred’s contact was a penalty? It wouldn’t of even been a foul anywhere else on the pitch for me.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			It is a contact sport though Chris and do you honestly believe Fred’s contact was a penalty? It wouldn’t of even been a foul anywhere else on the pitch for me.
		
Click to expand...

No Paul, I dont think either pushes were fouls and the goal should stand


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

chrisd said:



			No Paul, I dont think either pushes were fouls and the goal should stand
		
Click to expand...

So playing devils advocate, how are officials meant to decide when a push (intent) is a foul or accidental.
If Azpilicueta had bumped in to Williams then the official may of seen it differently, I thought it was the raising of both hands in to Williams back that caused the doubt.
And yes I agree I’d be fuming if it ruled out an Everton goal


----------



## chrisd (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			So playing devils advocate, how are officials meant to decide when a push (intent) is a foul or accidental.
If Azpilicueta had bumped in to Williams then the official may of seen it differently, I thought it was the raising of both hands in to Williams back that caused the doubt.
And yes I agree I’d be fuming if it ruled out an Everton goal
		
Click to expand...

In every game officials at every level decide on the level of intent on an incident.  It looked clear to me that the first push caused the player to lose balance and put his hands up to steady himself, I didn't see enough to conclude that he wasnt affected by Fred's push and that he deliberately then pushed the defender in order to gain an advantage ie a foul


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

chrisd said:



			I sort of agree with Gary Neville's view that, providing all offsides are done by VAR the same, then offside is offside and should be accepted. However the decision last night on the push, for me, was wrong. A player gets pushed and his run is affected, it was clear to me that he used both hands to steady himself as he was pushed into the player in front, there was no apparent/obvious attempt to foul the player in front. If the goal wasnt allowed then a penalty was the right decision, but, unless the rules have changed, the goal should stand giving the advantage to the offended team
		
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the offsides at all. We have completely lost the concept of being level with the defenders. There is no benefit of the doubt anymore. Incidents that we would have considered level and onside last year are now being given offside, because inevitably if you are level with someone to the naked eye, your toe or your shoulder might be a fraction ahead of their body parts, and they're now giving that as offside, when I don't think it should be defined that way. By all means use video replays, but I really disagree with trying to judge it by the millimetre and drawing lines on it to judge that. It should just be a man watching a replay, and if they look level that should be seen as onside. I just can't agree that if your ear is a millimetre past the defender's toe you're offside - that will always be level to me. That's why I find the offside rulings hard to watch.


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			So playing devils advocate, how are officials meant to decide when a push (intent) is a foul or accidental.
If Azpilicueta had bumped in to Williams then the official may of seen it differently, I thought it was the raising of both hands in to Williams back that caused the doubt.
And yes I agree I’d be fuming if it ruled out an Everton goal
		
Click to expand...

I'd say it was a natural reaction from Azpilcueta to put his arms out as hes shoved from behind by Fred. 

For me if it's not a goal it's a pen.


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 18, 2020)

Crazyface said:



			S'funny how people see things differently. This still does not change the FACT that Mane pushed (albeit ever so slightly but enough to put the player off balance as he jumped) the defender. VAR is not to blame, it's the humans who are watching in Liverpool shirts in the control box.
		
Click to expand...

They must've changed their  shirts when VVD was wrestled to the floor by 2 Norwich players 😁

Btw, ex pro and ex Norwich defender had the same thought that the contact wasnt enough to cause him to fall down. 

Contact is allowed in football.👍


----------



## chrisd (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			I don't agree with the offsides at all. We have completely lost the concept of being level with the defenders. There is no benefit of the doubt anymore. Incidents that we would have considered level and onside last year are now being given offside, because inevitably if you are level with someone to the naked eye, your toe or your shoulder might be a fraction ahead of their body parts, and they're now giving that as offside, when I don't think it should be defined that way. By all means use video replays, but I really disagree with trying to judge it by the millimetre and drawing lines on it to judge that. It should just be a man watching a replay, and if they look level that should be seen as onside. I just can't agree that if your ear is a millimetre past the defender's toe you're offside - that will always be level to me. That's why I find the offside rulings hard to watch.
		
Click to expand...

Also, do they stop the tape EXACTLY at the point that the ball is played? A 100th of a sec early or late might make a difference, but, Neville's point was that a standard for offside is set and if every decision is decided in exactly the same way then the rule is fair to every team - I cant disagree with his view

I once, many moons back, scored a wonder goal in a local match with a bullet header from outside the box and the ref disallowed it for one of my team sitting on the ground injured on the touchline offside - I'm not a great fan of stupid offsides!


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

chrisd said:



			Also, do they stop the tape EXACTLY at the point that the ball is played? A 100th of a sec early or late might make a difference, but, Neville's point was that a standard for offside is set and if every decision is decided in exactly the same way then the rule is fair to every team - I cant disagree with his view

I once, many moons back, scored a wonder goal in a local match with a bullet header from outside the box and the ref disallowed it for one of my team sitting on the ground injured on the touchline offside - I'm not a great fan of stupid offsides!
		
Click to expand...

Agreed - I believe someone worked out that the margin for error due to frame rate of the video capture is about 20cm when a player is sprinting. That's quite a big margin! Yet they feel comfortable giving someone offside by 1cm. Give that margin for error I think the whole drawing of lines on the replays is pointless, if someone's clearly offside to the naked eye when you pause the replay, _then_ give it.

Ha, let's not start on Sunday League shocking decisions or I'll be here all day.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

chrisd said:



			In every game officials at every level decide on the level of intent on an incident.  It looked clear to me that the first push caused the player to lose balance and put his hands up to steady himself, I didn't see enough to conclude that he wasnt affected by Fred's push and that he deliberately then pushed the defender in order to gain an advantage ie a foul
		
Click to expand...




Stuart_C said:



			I'd say it was a natural reaction from Azpilcueta to put his arms out as hes shoved from behind by Fred.

For me if it's not a goal it's a pen.
		
Click to expand...

And this is beauty of Football, some decisions can’t and won’t be black and white as they are down to an individual making the decision.

I don’t believe Stockley Park should make any decisions, they should direct the Ref to the pitchside monitor, show him the replays and then he makes the decision.

We also have to remember that Stockley Park doesn’t see all the angles the TV Companies do!

So sometimes Sky will show a camera angle that Stockley Park can’t see.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			And this is beauty of Football, some decisions can’t and won’t be black and white as they are down to an individual making the decision.

I don’t believe Stockley Park should make any decisions, they should direct the Ref to the pitchside monitor, show him the replays and then he makes the decision.

We also have to remember that Stockley Park doesn’t see all the angles the TV Companies do!

So sometimes Sky will show a camera angle that Stockley Park can’t see.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with that as well. The referee is on the pitch, has full context of the incident and the game as a whole, and may even have spotted something that the cameras don't particularly show. He is in possession of far more of the facts that a bloke in a studio miles away.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			I agree with that as well. The referee is on the pitch, has full context of the incident and the game as a whole, and may even have spotted something that the cameras don't particularly show. He is in possession of far more of the facts that a bloke in a studio miles away.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed, taking the penalty incident, the Ref could be keeping an eye on Fred who has maybe made 2 or 3 borderline fouls in his opinion and the slight push/lean/whatever was the one he punish’s.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Read the thread.
		
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough.

But, the only questionable VAR call was the Harry Maguire incident. As I've said, the referee (and VAR) had a decision to make by his actions, and it could have gone either way the game is played these days. However, I believe him when he said he had no intent to kick out at the player, nor was the player seriously injured (i.e. it wasn't an obvious kick out like Cantona or Roy Keane on Southgate). I also think, even when VAR is used, the decision is subjective in things like that, not scientific. For example, when Aubameyang was sent off for Arsenal earlier on in season, when seeing the replay I thought it should be a red card based on where his studs hit his opponent, and he was duly sent off. However, when thinking about it, I think he is very unlucky. After all, all he did was to try and make a standing tackle from the side, but his foot just arrived at exactly the same time the opponents ankle arrived at the same spot. He certainly had no intent to go in overly aggressive. I reckon 95% of the time, his foot would had arrived at a slightly different time, no or little contact, and we'd never have even given it a second thought. So, surely sometimes, bad injuries can happen, but it is more down to pure bad luck rather than a player being malicious in any way. It is scary that, red cards are given purely based on the outcome of a challenge, whereas a player could go into a challenge very violently, luckily completely miss the opponent and maybe get away with a yellow or nothing at all.

Apart from Maguire incident, all the other calls were correct in my opinion. The offside was offside. Williams was strongly pushed out of the way, no caveat at all, IMO, that there was a minor contact between Fred and Azipl......ta (or whatever you call him) before. I have no idea what the Martial elbow incident was, it must have been so innocuous that not even the pundits mentioned it, or managers. Ultimately, the better team won, and United are not that good. United defended reasonably well, but Martial is not a Number 9 and doesn't seem to get into good positions, or do a great job of holding ball up. It was a shock to see him score a header. But, Chelsea were inept up front, albeit Giroud was unlucky to have strayed offside (as a non Chelsea fan, I don't understand why Giroud doesn't start, especially when Abraham wasn't available. Surely he is more of a threat than Batshuayi???)

*To Liverpool fans,* yes I was winding you up a little. I've no doubt they've been the best team this year, by far. I think they are lucky in the sense of the margin they are clear, there have been many games where they have come away with victory where they didn't really seem to deserve it (that is the sort of luck championship winning teams need anyway, they just seem to get a hell of a lot of it), whereas their only title contenders in reality were City, who have been surprisingly poor at times, but also had a few bad VAR calls. Despite that, Liverpool would still be ahead, I agree. van Dijk is without doubt the best centre back in the world, Alisson is decent (I wouldn't say best keeper in world, but better than Karius), Alexander Arnold has fantastic delivery whilst the other defenders are decent, the front 3 are unbelievable together (they are fantastic individually, but I'd not quite put them quite in the same league as the best of the best. For example, I think Suarez was a better player individually than all 3 of them). I actually think the midfield is relatively weak, but they've worked unbelievably hard to get the best out of them. For example, Henderson is a work horse and has really led by example. Apart from van Dijk maybe, I think the biggest asset is Jurgen Klopp. Always liked him, he just has that glowing personality that, if I was a player, I would want to do my very best for him without question. And, he obviously knows how to play a good style of football.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

VAR isn’t the issue it’s the inconsistency of the clowns using it.

To say Maguire shouldn’t of been sent off because of what Maguire said after the match is ludicrous, his intent was to put his foot in to the Chelsea player, it was a deliberate act.

Son chased Gomes and deliberately fouled him, apparently it is believed Gomes then breaking his ankle was an accident, no it wasn’t! It was as a result of Son actions.

Any player deliberately, violently fouling a player with no intent to play the ball, regardless of what he says afterwards, should accept the consequences of his actions and should be treated the same way, ie, Red Card, then as happened in the Son incident, let them plead their case at the appeal and we accept the decision of that.

How have Chelsea benefitted in anyway from everyone saying VAR officials got it wrong!


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			VAR isn’t the issue it’s the inconsistency of the clowns using it.

To say Maguire shouldn’t of been sent off because of what Maguire said after the match is ludicrous, his intent was to put his foot in to the Chelsea player, it was a deliberate act.

Son chased Gomes and deliberately fouled him, apparently it is believed Gomes then breaking his ankle was an accident, no it wasn’t! It was as a result of Son actions.

Any player *deliberately,* violently fouling a player with no intent to play the ball, regardless of what he says afterwards, should accept the consequences of his actions and should be treated the same way, ie, Red Card, then as happened in the Son incident, let them plead their case at the appeal and we accept the decision of that.

How have Chelsea benefitted in anyway from everyone saying VAR officials got it wrong!
		
Click to expand...

I think that is rubbish, especially in the Son and Gomes case. Basically, you are only saying Son should be given a red card because of the complete freak in the way Gomes fell after. That is ludicrous. There are dozens of fouls, even silly little niggly fouls, in every single match where is is clear that a player has no intent to actually win the ball. All they are doing is either breaking up play, or pressuring the opponent by letting them know they are there. City are well known for it, but I'm sure many teams make a point of doing it as well. So, either you are saying that they SHOULD be red carded every time because it was a deliberate action. Or, you are saying that in the 0.001% of cases, where the opponent actually lands awkwardly and ends up with a serious ankle, knee, shoulder, etc injury, then you give the player a red card, otherwise it is no card at all. That is ludicrous.

Yes, if Maguire intended to kick out at the player to hurt him, red card. But, even when I saw multiple replays before the VAR call was finalised, I couldn't tell whether he intended to kick out at the player maliciously, or it was a split second movement of his foot upwards to protect himself as a reaction that the player was falling towards him, rather than an intentional move to hurt the player. Even after he initially moved his foot upwards, he immediately stopped from following through, which could indicate he wasn't wanting to hurt the player. All anybody can do is speculate what was in his mind, and I think most people tend to agree that VAR shouldn't speculate when over-turning a refs decision, it needs to be clear and obvious. When it isn't, and VAR intervenes, we've already seen the chaos that causes this season.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I think that is rubbish, especially in the Son and Gomes case. Basically, you are only saying Son should be given a red card because of the complete freak in the way Gomes fell after. That is ludicrous. There are dozens of fouls, even silly little niggly fouls, in every single match where is is clear that a player has no intent to actually win the ball. All they are doing is either breaking up play, or pressuring the opponent by letting them know they are there. City are well known for it, but I'm sure many teams make a point of doing it as well. So, either you are saying that they SHOULD be red carded every time because it was a deliberate action. Or, you are saying that in the 0.001% of cases, where the opponent actually lands awkwardly and ends up with a serious ankle, knee, shoulder, etc injury, then you give the player a red card, otherwise it is no card at all. That is ludicrous.

Yes, if Maguire intended to kick out at the player to hurt him, red card. But, even when I saw multiple replays before the VAR call was finalised, I couldn't tell whether he intended to kick out at the player maliciously, or it was a split second movement of his foot upwards to protect himself as a reaction that the player was falling towards him, rather than an intentional move to hurt the player. Even after he initially moved his foot upwards, he immediately stopped from following through, which could indicate he wasn't wanting to hurt the player. All anybody can do is speculate what was in his mind, and I think most people tend to agree that VAR shouldn't speculate when over-turning a refs decision, it needs to be clear and obvious. When it isn't, and VAR intervenes, we've already seen the chaos that causes this season.
		
Click to expand...

Read what I actually posted rather than what you think I posted!

Son made no attempt to play the ball, he DELIBERATELY fouled Gomes, ie played the man. Everything that followed, complete freak or not, was as a result of Son’s intent.
If Son had got the ball or was making a genuine tackle then fine, it would of been a complete accident.
The VAR official, at the time, saw it as violent conduct, just like last night a VAR official didn’t see Maguires as that. 

If last night Maguire had damaged the Chelsea players testicles, or ripped his scrotum etc, would you be saying it wasn’t Maguire’s fault, despite the fact he admitted stretching his leg out?

Why did Gomes fall in a complete freak way? Answer that please, followed by, Did Son make a genuine attempt to play the ball?

Then decide whose talking rubbish!

It seems you support VAR when you agree with the decision and dislike it when you disagree!


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 18, 2020)

Maguire made a second movement. If he had not made that second movement then his case would stand up but he definitely pushed his foot out. Anyone who has ever played a contact sport knew that he meant that. That was a red card every day of the week, I don't know how it could not be given.


----------



## Big_G (Feb 18, 2020)

I was watching the review of last nights game on ESPN, they were brutal about the implementation of VAR in the Premier League

The bottom line is, we have a group of refs led by one of the worst refs in the history of top flight football, who really should fall on his sword over the way VAR is being used in England

He has made the decision to ignore the way all the other countries are using it, because in his arrogance he knows better.

Nothing wrong with VAR just the arrogant idiots using it, no wonder no English refs were selected for the World Cup


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



*Read what I actually posted rather than what you think I posted!*

Son made no attempt to play the ball, he DELIBERATELY fouled Gomes, ie played the man. Everything that followed, complete freak or not, was as a result of Son’s intent.
If Son had got the ball or was making a genuine tackle then fine, it would of been a complete accident.
The VAR official, at the time, saw it as violent conduct, just like last night a VAR official didn’t see Maguires as that.

If last night Maguire had damaged the Chelsea players testicles, or ripped his scrotum etc, would you be saying it wasn’t Maguire’s fault, despite the fact he admitted stretching his leg out?

Why did Gomes fall in a complete freak way? Answer that please, followed by, Did Son make a genuine attempt to play the ball?

Then decide whose talking rubbish!

It seems you support VAR when you agree with the decision and dislike it when you disagree!
		
Click to expand...

 I did read what you posted. And, this latest posts confirms I interpreted your post correctly, you've just made the same point again.

And, my point still stands. The fact you are using a potential outcome to decide whether a red card is necessary again proves my point that you are talking ludicrous. ANY foul, however minor, could cause serious injury. And, the serious injury would never have happened had that foul not taken place. So, why do we not just send a player off as soon as there is any contact at all?

My argument, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with my like or dislike of VAR. It gets decisions wrong, it gets decisions right, etc. I think VAR is a mess overall, even if it does get decisions correct.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Read what I actually posted rather than what you think I posted!

Son made no attempt to play the ball, he DELIBERATELY fouled Gomes, ie played the man. Everything that followed, complete freak or not, was as a result of Son’s intent.
If Son had got the ball or was making a genuine tackle then fine, it would of been a complete accident.
The VAR official, at the time, saw it as violent conduct, just like last night a VAR official didn’t see Maguires as that.

If last night Maguire had damaged the Chelsea players testicles, or ripped his scrotum etc, would you be saying it wasn’t Maguire’s fault, despite the fact he admitted stretching his leg out?

Why did Gomes fall in a complete freak way? Answer that please, followed by, Did Son make a genuine attempt to play the ball?

Then decide whose talking rubbish!

It seems you support VAR when you agree with the decision and dislike it when you disagree!
		
Click to expand...

Firstly, I don't know why you're dragging Son's tackle into it since he actually was given a red which was later overturned as it was a clear yellow card challenge. You cannot prove he deliberately fouled him, it just appeared as a late challenge, to which yellow card is the punishment. The way Gomes landed afterwards is irrelevant, he could have buggered his ankle like that on a fair challenge. And besides, pulling someone's shirt is a deliberate act, would you advocate a red card every time someone does that? 

Maguire incident is not comparable to that, since there was absolutely no possibility he was playing the ball, the ball was not even in play, he just kicked his studs at Batshuayi, and it's a clear red card for me. It's exactly the same as Son's against Rudiger when we played Chelsea - and his red was not overturned for that one.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I did read what you posted. And, this latest posts confirms I interpreted your post correctly, you've just made the same point again.

And, my point still stands. The fact you are using a potential outcome to decide whether a red card is necessary again proves my point that you are talking ludicrous. ANY foul, however minor, could cause serious injury. And, the serious injury would never have happened had that foul not taken place. So, why do we not just send a player off as soon as there is any contact at all?

My argument, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with my like or dislike of VAR. It gets decisions wrong, it gets decisions right, etc. I think VAR is a mess overall, even if it does get decisions correct.
		
Click to expand...

You haven’t read my post or you are deliberately ignoring the point!
I’m on about INTENT, Son made no attempt to play the ball, he went after Gomes to foul him. Totally different to a player trying to win the ball.

Were have I said any or every foul is a Red Card? Nowhere!

Son and Maguire both intentionally committed violent conduct imo, but yet the VAR official got it wrong on both occasions?

If me and you were arguing in the street and I violently jumped at you and you fell off the kerb and broke your ankle, would you see that as an accident?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			Firstly, I don't know why you're dragging Son's tackle into it since he actually was given a red which was later overturned as it was a clear yellow card challenge. You cannot prove he deliberately fouled him, it just appeared as a *late challenge*, to which yellow card is the punishment. The way Gomes landed afterwards is irrelevant, he could have buggered his ankle like that on a fair challenge. And besides, pulling someone's shirt is a deliberate act, would you advocate a red card every time someone does that?

Maguire incident is not comparable to that, *since there was absolutely no possibility he was playing the ball*, the ball was not even in play, he just kicked his studs at Batshuayi, and it's a clear red card for me. It's exactly the same as Son's against Rudiger when we played Chelsea - and his red was not overturned for that one. 

Click to expand...

I’m not dragging Son in to it, he was brought into it last night by Sky.

I brought his incident with Gomes in to it because people are bringing Maguire’s intent in to the discussion.
Most on here have agreed Maguire should of got a Red except for the few saying he never meant to harm him, were is the difference in Son deliberating taking Gomes out, Regardless of whether he broke his ankle or not. Son’s tackle to me was violent conduct.
You even confuse yourself by one minute stating fact and then saying what you think appears to happen.

I have absolutely no issue saying Son never intended to break Gomes ankle, but imo at the time he was hell bent on getting revenge on Gomes, he was late and deliberate and that to me is violent conduct.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

@pauldj42 don't know what you've done there but I'm not seeing any words from you..
(Edit: he's sorted it now)


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			You haven’t read my post or you are deliberately ignoring the point!
I’m on about INTENT, Son made no attempt to play the ball, he went after Gomes to foul him. Totally different to a player trying to win the ball.

Were have I said any or every foul is a Red Card? Nowhere!

Son and Maguire both intentionally committed violent conduct imo, but yet the VAR official got it wrong on both occasions?

If me and you were arguing in the street and I *violently jumped* at you and you fell off the kerb and broke your ankle, would you see that as an accident?
		
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't be an accident, as you just said you "violently jumped" at me. I presume you did that on purpose to hurt me, otherwise what on earth would you be playing at???

Again, that is the third time you have made the same point, so my original comments still stand


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			I’m not dragging Son in to it, he was brought into it last night by Sky.

I brought his incident with Gomes in to it because people are bringing Maguire’s intent in to the discussion.
Most on here have agreed Maguire should of got a Red except for the few saying he never meant to harm him, were is the difference in Son deliberating taking Gomes out, Regardless of whether he broke his ankle or not. Son’s tackle to me was violent conduct.
You even confuse yourself by one minute stating fact and then saying what you think appears to happen.

I have absolutely no issue saying Son never intended to break Gomes ankle, but imo at the time he was hell bent on getting revenge on Gomes, he was late and deliberate and that to me is violent conduct.
		
Click to expand...

Funny how you are so sure Son deserved a red card, yet the red card was over-ruled by a panel once they had time to review the incident. Doesn't really help your argument in the slightest now, does it???


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			No, it wouldn't be an accident, as you just said you "violently jumped" at me. I presume you did that on purpose to hurt me, otherwise what on earth would you be playing at???

Again, that is the third time you have made the same point, so my original comments still stand
		
Click to expand...

I would only be trying to push you away, it wouldn’t be my fault you landed awkwardly!
So you don’t see Son’s or Maguire’s actions as anything but harmless.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			The referee is on the pitch, has full context of the incident and the game as a whole, and may even have spotted something that the cameras don't particularly show. .
		
Click to expand...

My experience of referees in the Premiership, when I've been to matches, is that they rarely spot something on the pitch that 50,000 fans clearly see  😣


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Funny how you are so sure Son deserved a red card, yet the red card was over-ruled by a panel once they had time to review the incident. Doesn't really help your argument in the slightest now, does it???
		
Click to expand...

Again you are not reading what I put!
Me and the VAR official at the time thought it was violent conduct, it is good we have review panels and I fully accept their decision regardless of whether I agree to it!

Were’s the justice for Chelsea last night? Will that decision be reviewed and Maguire banned for 3 matches?


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			I would only be trying to push you away, it wouldn’t be my fault you landed awkwardly!
So you don’t see Son’s or Maguire’s actions as anything but harmless.

Click to expand...

If you had only been trying to push me away (for some strange reason), then if I landed awkwardly I WOULDN'T say that you deliberately tried to hurt me. Yes, it was your actions that caused me to fall, but you had no intention to actually do any damage.

If you clearly violently pushed me, then the circumstances might be otherwise, where your actions were completely inappropriate and likely to cause damage.

So, in terms of Maguire, if he meant to kick out and cause harm, I have said all along it would be red. But, it is too difficult to assume that is the case. Because, if you are falling backwards to the ground, and a player is falling pretty fast towards you, it could well be an instinct to put your leg forward to break the fall of the incoming player. The fact he stopped his follow through might suggest this to be the case. But, I don't know. Obviously the guy in charge of VAR at the time was not 100% confident it was a red card. If it goes to a panel after the match, perhaps they will decide it was intentional, although I suspect part of the decision might be based on the Son incident when he kicked upwards, just to try and remain consistent.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

chrisd said:



			My experience of referees in the Premiership, when I've been to matches, is that they rarely spot something on the pitch that 50,000 fans clearly see  😣
		
Click to expand...

Conversely, it is not uncommon for 50,000 fans top spot something that never happened, but thankfully the referee does make the right call. For example, how often do you hear thousands of calls for handball, when it clearly isn't. And, fans basically 100% of time shout for a foul regardless of whether it is a foul. So, anytime a referee gets the wrong call, of course you'll say the fans got it right. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then. Again, really poor argument.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			I’m not dragging Son in to it, he was brought into it last night by Sky.

I brought his incident with Gomes in to it because people are bringing Maguire’s intent in to the discussion.
Most on here have agreed Maguire should of got a Red except for the few saying he never meant to harm him, were is the difference in Son deliberating taking Gomes out, Regardless of whether he broke his ankle or not. Son’s tackle to me was violent conduct.
You even confuse yourself by one minute stating fact and then saying what you think appears to happen.

I have absolutely no issue saying Son never intended to break Gomes ankle, but imo at the time he was hell bent on getting revenge on Gomes, he was late and deliberate and that to me is violent conduct.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't confuse anything? I said Son's challenge on Gomes appeared to be a very late tackle, whether you believe him or not he could argue he was trying to play the ball. Maguire last night cannot argue that at all, the ball was not even in play. Late tackles and trips are just part of the game, studding someone in their gentleman's area away from the ball is not (or is not supposed to be anyway). THAT is 'the difference'. 

Are you sure Sky brought Son's tackle on Gomes into it?? I didn't see it but that doesn't make any sense to me. Are you sure it wasn't Son's red against Chelsea they were talking about? Since that was actually identical to the Maguire one?


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			If you had only been trying to push me away (for some strange reason), then if I landed awkwardly I WOULDN'T say that you deliberately tried to hurt me. Yes, it was your actions that caused me to fall, but you had no intention to actually do any damage.

If you clearly violently pushed me, then the circumstances might be otherwise, where your actions were completely inappropriate and likely to cause damage.

So, in terms of Maguire, if he meant to kick out and cause harm, I have said all along it would be red. But, it is too difficult to assume that is the case. Because, if you are falling backwards to the ground, and a player is falling pretty fast towards you, it could well be an instinct to put your leg forward to break the fall of the incoming player. The fact he stopped his follow through might suggest this to be the case. But, I don't know. Obviously the guy in charge of VAR at the time was not 100% confident it was a red card. If it goes to a panel after the match, perhaps they will decide it was intentional, although I suspect part of the decision might be based on the Son incident when he kicked upwards, just to try and remain consistent.
		
Click to expand...

Very, very tenuous that. If I'm falling over and I think another player is falling as well, my instinct would not be to stamp on his crotch to break his fall.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			I didn't confuse anything? I said Son's challenge on Gomes appeared to be a very late tackle, whether you believe him or not he could argue he was trying to play the ball. Maguire last night cannot argue that at all, the ball was not even in play. Late tackles and trips are just part of the game, studding someone in their gentleman's area away from the ball is not (or is not supposed to be anyway). THAT is 'the difference'.

Are you sure Sky brought Son's tackle on Gomes into it?? I didn't see it but that doesn't make any sense to me. Are you sure it wasn't Son's red against Chelsea they were talking about? Since that was actually identical to the Maguire one?
		
Click to expand...

You’ve misread me mate, Sky brought Son v Chelsea, I stated I brought Gomes when people started talking about intent, as for the ball in or out of play, Maguire’s action were as a result of the tackle and him falling over, it was separate to the ball being in play, Maguire “claimed” the Bat was falling on him when replays showed he clearly wasn’t.

Once Son has left Spurs and you don’t have that loyalty to him, try and take a look at the 15-20 seconds prior to him tackling Gomes and see if you still think he was late? I believe he was in full control and only had one intention.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			Very, very tenuous that. If I'm falling over and I think another player is falling as well, my instinct would not be to stamp on his crotch to break his fall. 

Click to expand...

My instinct wouldn't be to "stamp" either. But, I may well put my foot out as I'm bracing for it. It just depends on how you define "stamp" and whether that requires intent to injure or something else.

If it was a court of law rather than based on opinion, the question is would a judge rule that Maguire stamped out to cause harm? I doubt he could say that, without a doubt, that was the case. Whereas, if he was looking at the Roy Keane incident on Southgate, I'm pretty sure he'd find the evidence fairly clear cut (or when Keane stamped on Haaland)

I'm not saying Maguire DIDN'T mean to stamp out, just saying I can see the other side of the argument in his defence.

Also important worth noting, I wouldn't let this debate mask the fact Chelsea deserved to lose the game, no matter how hard it is for them to take.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			You’ve misread me mate, Sky brought Son v Chelsea, I stated I brought Gomes when people started talking about intent, as for the ball in or out of play, Maguire’s action were as a result of the tackle and him falling over, it was separate to the ball being in play, Maguire “claimed” the Bat was falling on him when replays showed he clearly wasn’t.

Once Son has left Spurs and you don’t have that loyalty to him, try and take a look at the 15-20 seconds prior to him tackling Gomes and see if you still think he was late? I believe he was in full control and only had one intention.
		
Click to expand...

At least we're agreed Maguire was a red.

We already discussed Son on Gomes at the time I don't know why we're doing it again. My position hasn't changed and it never will. In all likelihood he probably did bring him down deliberately but that is still not a red card in the laws of the game. Tripping him the way he did is a yellow card offence. I've said that all along but you always apply emotion to it where it isn't warranted or relevant. Whatever his intention was the challenge itself wasn't 'reckless' he just slide across the front of him and tripped him. Foul and a yellow card. That's it. If situation was the same but Son drove his studs into Gomes' ankle then that would have been a red card offence. 

As I said earlier a deliberate foul does not make it a red card on it's own. If it was we would see red cards for shirt-pulling, and over exuberant shoulder barges that wipe the player out, you name it. Plenty of deliberate actions are not reds because they are not deemed reckless.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			You’ve misread me mate, Sky brought Son v Chelsea, I stated I brought Gomes when people started talking about intent, as for the ball in or out of play, Maguire’s action were as a result of the tackle and him falling over, it was separate to the ball being in play, Maguire “claimed” the Bat was falling on him when replays showed he clearly wasn’t.

Once Son has left Spurs and you don’t have that loyalty to him, try and take a look at the 15-20 seconds prior to him tackling Gomes and see if you still think he was late? I believe he was in full control and *only had one intention*.
		
Click to expand...

Tell us, what was that intention? Was it to seriously injure Gomes, or was it to break down their attack (which happens dozens of times in every game)


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			My instinct wouldn't be to "stamp" either. But, I may well put my foot out as I'm bracing for it. It just depends on how you define "stamp" and whether that requires intent to injure or something else.

If it was a court of law rather than based on opinion, the question is would a judge rule that Maguire stamped out to cause harm? I doubt he could say that, without a doubt, that was the case. Whereas, if he was looking at the Roy Keane incident on Southgate, I'm pretty sure he'd find the evidence fairly clear cut (or when Keane stamped on Haaland)

I'm not saying Maguire DIDN'T mean to stamp out, just saying I can see the other side of the argument in his defence.

Also important worth noting, I wouldn't let this debate mask the fact Chelsea deserved to lose the game, no matter how hard it is for them to take.
		
Click to expand...

I define stamping as thrusting your foot towards the player like Maguire did last night. 

Yeah of course Chelsea were poor but this is the VAR thread so we're talking about the VAR decision(s). Their performance isn't relevant, we have the footy thread for that.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

@Swango1980 Honestly mate, I just watched the Maguire incident again on Twitter, it's clear as day. You see his right knee straightens as he thrusts his studs towards Batshuayi. His post-match excuse saying that Bats was falling towards him was completed fabricated as well, because you can see on the replay that he is he remains standing and has even slowed almost to a halt when Maguire stamps. It's bang to rights and should have been a red all day.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			I define stamping as thrusting your foot towards the player like Maguire did last night.

Yeah of course Chelsea were poor but this is the VAR thread so we're talking about the VAR decision(s). Their performance isn't relevant, we have the footy thread for that. 

Click to expand...

I know, I was just responding to comments that stated "where was the justice for Chelsea last night" (not by you). So, my comment was only in relation to that.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Conversely, it is not uncommon for 50,000 fans top spot something that never happened, but thankfully the referee does make the right call. For example, how often do you hear thousands of calls for handball, when it clearly isn't. And, fans basically 100% of time shout for a foul regardless of whether it is a foul. So, anytime a referee gets the wrong call, of course you'll say the fans got it right. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then. Again, really poor argument.
		
Click to expand...

It's not an "argument" it's simply an observation  from the many games I've been too


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



@Swango1980 Honestly mate, I just watched the Maguire incident again on Twitter, it's clear as day. You see his right knee straightens as he thrusts his studs towards Batshuayi. His post-match excuse saying that Bats was falling towards him was completed fabricated as well, because you can see on the replay that he is he remains standing and has even slowed almost to a halt when Maguire stamps. It's bang to rights and should have been a red all day.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that he wasn't actually falling, but Maguire may not have known that in a split second. If you watch the clip, Maguire is not facing the player as he goes down. As he falls, he is turning around, and he only makes eye contact with him virtually at the point his foot goes forward. So, in that millisecond, he hasn't had the chance to see the movement of the opponent, it would be easy just to see him there and think he is coming towards him.

I sound like his lawyer now


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

Got to be honest, I've not seen many people anywhere saying that it _wasn't _a red card for Maguire.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I know, I was just responding to comments that stated "where was the justice for Chelsea last night" (not by you). So, my comment was only in relation to that.
		
Click to expand...

VAR Officials make decisions:

Son tackle on Gomes, Yellow Card, changed to Red, 3 match Ban; then overturned, Spurs get Son back for 3 games. (Majority agree correct decision)

Son tackle on Rudiger, Red Card, not overturned, Son miss’s 3 games. (Majority agree correct decision)

Maguire tackle last night, VAR says not a Red Card, Maguire then scores, (Majority agree wrong decision) unlucky, get over it. Chelsea don’t play against 10 men, totally changed the game. Man Utd have Maguire available for the next 3 games.

If the FA are allowing VAR decisions to be overturned then it should be all decisions reviewed.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I agree that he wasn't actually falling, but Maguire may not have known that in a split second. If you watch the clip, Maguire is not facing the player as he goes down. As he falls, he is turning around, and he only makes eye contact with him virtually at the point his foot goes forward. So, in that millisecond, he hasn't had the chance to see the movement of the opponent, it would be easy just to see him there and think he is coming towards him.

I sound like his lawyer now 

Click to expand...

And all the points you are using to excuse Maguire you are saying didn’t happen with Gomes.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			Got to be honest, I've not seen many people anywhere saying that it _wasn't _a red card for Maguire.
		
Click to expand...

True, except for the referee and VAR. If it is directly compared to Son (not the Gomes incident) then it is easy to call it a red card as well. But, not that many on here, for example, have really made the point on it, and I suspect if you think it is a red card, you'll happily voice your opinion, but if you don't or don't care, you'll not bother commenting on it anyway as the decision went your way.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			VAR Officials make decisions:

Son tackle on Gomes, Yellow Card, changed to Red, 3 match Ban; then overturned, Spurs get Son back for 3 games. (Majority agree correct decision)

*Son tackle on Rudiger, Red Card, not overturned, Son miss’s 3 games. (Majority agree wrong decision)*

Maguire tackle last night, VAR says not a Red Card, Maguire then scores, (Majority agree wrong decision) unlucky, get over it. Chelsea don’t play against 10 men, totally changed the game. Man Utd have Maguire available for the next 3 games.

If the FA are allowing VAR decisions to be overturned then it should be all decisions reviewed.
		
Click to expand...

Really confused here. Are you saying Son should NOT have had a red card???


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			At least we're agreed Maguire was a red.

We already discussed Son on Gomes at the time I don't know why we're doing it again. My position hasn't changed and it never will. In all likelihood he probably did bring him down deliberately but that is still not a red card in the laws of the game. Tripping him the way he did is a yellow card offence. I've said that all along but you always apply emotion to it where it isn't warranted or relevant. Whatever his intention was the challenge itself wasn't 'reckless' he just slide across the front of him and tripped him. Foul and a yellow card. That's it. If situation was the same but Son drove his studs into Gomes' ankle then that would have been a red card offence.

As I said earlier a deliberate foul does not make it a red card on it's own. If it was we would see red cards for shirt-pulling, and over exuberant shoulder barges that wipe the player out, you name it. Plenty of deliberate actions are not reds because they are not deemed reckless.
		
Click to expand...

I’m not sure why you keep bringing all or any foul in to this, I am talking about one specific incident, one foul.

If you don’t think it was reckless you need to watch it again and think about intent.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Really confused here. Are you saying Son should NOT have had a red card???
		
Click to expand...

Apologies fat fingers, have edited initial post.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			And all the points you are using to excuse Maguire you are saying didn’t happen with Gomes.

Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about??? I'm using the EXACT same argument, in that I am saying there is no way to say Son meant to hurt Gomes, in fact the evidence is even more clear that Son didn't have any intent to hurt Gomes.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			I’m not sure why you keep bringing all or any foul in to this, I am talking about one specific incident, one foul.

If you don’t think it was reckless you need to watch it again and think about intent.
		
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I've just checked the laws again and I had it slightly wrong anyway:

"*Reckless *is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent *and must be cautioned*."

It's still a yellow even if it was reckless apparently. So there you go. 

I've done a quick Ctrl + F for the word 'intent' and it's not mentioned anywhere.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			What on earth are you talking about??? I'm using the EXACT same argument, in that I am saying there is no way to say Son meant to hurt Gomes, in fact the evidence is even more clear that Son didn't have any intent to hurt Gomes.
		
Click to expand...

Maquire you said was instinct, Son was anything but, you could use your argument to defend Gomes!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			Funnily enough I've just checked the laws again and I had it slightly wrong anyway:

"*Reckless *is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent *and must be cautioned*."

It's still a yellow even if it was reckless apparently. So there you go.

I've done a quick Ctrl + F for the word 'intent' and it's not mentioned anywhere.
		
Click to expand...

So you saying what he didn’t intend and me saying what his intentions were are both pointless.

Does say this though:

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			So you saying what he didn’t intend and me saying what his intentions were are both pointless.

Does say this though:

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.


Click to expand...

Yeah but he definitely didn't use excessive force. If he wanted to trip him over he used exactly the right amount of force. Any less and it wouldn't have worked.   He didn't endanger his safety any more than every other slide tackle that ever gets made.

Getting deja vu now, we definitely had this part of the conversation before.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Maquire you said was instinct, Son was anything but, you could use your argument to defend Gomes!
		
Click to expand...

Ironic to this thread, I've just read that Son is out for the season with a broken arm. He suffered it in a challenge with Ezri Jonsa. Now, I've not seen the challenge, so not sure if there was a foul. But, if it turns out that it was a challenge made by Jonsa, and he didn't win the ball, I presume we should expect him to get an immediate red card and 3 game ban based on the nature of Son's injury, regardless of any other factors?


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			So you saying what he didn’t intend and me saying what his intentions were are both pointless.

Does say this though:

*Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.*


Click to expand...

As we keep saying though, if we try to interpret that the way you wish us to, then ANY time a player makes a foul where there is clearly NO intent to win the ball, but to simply break up play, then it HAS to be an immediate red card. After all, you can't say they are using a "necessary use of force", so even the slightest contact exceeds this. We are saying, this is an absurd approach, and we'd have to end games early as not enough players would be on the pitch


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			As we keep saying though, if we try to interpret that the way you wish us to, then ANY time a player makes a foul where there is clearly NO intent to win the ball, but to simply break up play, then it HAS to be an immediate red card. After all, you can't say they are using a "necessary use of force", so even the slightest contact exceeds this. We are saying, this is an absurd approach, and we'd have to end games early as not enough players would be on the pitch
		
Click to expand...

I genuinely believe you have never actually seen the Son/Gomes incident.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			Yeah but he definitely didn't use excessive force. If he wanted to trip him over he used exactly the right amount of force. Any less and it wouldn't have worked.   He didn't endanger his safety any more than every other slide tackle that ever gets made.

Getting deja vu now, we definitely had this part of the conversation before. 

Click to expand...

But you’re biased being a Spurs fan.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			But you’re biased being a Spurs fan.

Click to expand...

You're the one who brought it up when it had nothing to do with last night's VAR incidents!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			You're the one who brought it up when it had nothing to do with last night's VAR incidents! 

Click to expand...

Simply reminding people of one of, if not the biggest VAR injustice this season.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Simply reminding people of one of, if not the biggest VAR *injustice *this season.

Click to expand...

The injustice being that Son was erroneously shown the red which probably cost us all 3 points, of course.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			The injustice being that Son was erroneously shown the red which probably cost us all 3 points, of course.
		
Click to expand...

That’s the blinkered view we like to see.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			I genuinely believe you have never actually seen the Son/Gomes incident.

Click to expand...

I have seen it. He pushed him from behind. At no point did I ever consider it violent or did I consider Son wished to injure Gomes. It was unnecessary, but in no way done to endanger player. Therefore, it was worth a yellow. On the day, the decision by the referee was wrong, and it appears he did it based on the nature of the injury. The VAR didn't have the confidence to overturn him on the spot. However, after necessary reflection by the panel afterwards, they decided to overturn the red card. I agree with that decision.

Hopefully that summarises it. Perhaps you saw something different?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I have seen it. He pushed him from behind. At no point did I ever consider it violent or did I consider Son wished to injure Gomes. It was unnecessary, but in no way done to endanger player. Therefore, it was worth a yellow. On the day, the decision by the referee was wrong, and it appears he did it based on the nature of the injury. The VAR didn't have the confidence to overturn him on the spot. However, after necessary reflection by the panel afterwards, they decided to overturn the red card. I agree with that decision.

Hopefully that summarises it. Perhaps you saw something different?
		
Click to expand...

he didn’t push him - he deliberately tripped  him up from behind - it was a cynical foul which was a yellow but was unfortunate in the way Gomes landed


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I have seen it. He pushed him from behind. At no point did I ever consider it violent or did I consider Son wished to injure Gomes. It was unnecessary, but in no way done to endanger player. Therefore, it was worth a yellow. On the day, the decision by the referee was wrong, and it appears he did it based on the nature of the injury. The VAR didn't have the confidence to overturn him on the spot. However, after necessary reflection by the panel afterwards, they decided to overturn the red card. I agree with that decision.

*Hopefully that summarises it. Perhaps you saw something different?*

Click to expand...

Obviously there are different versions of the tackle as you’ve seen something different to me and Orikoru.
Plus on the day VAR gave the Red.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			he didn’t push him - he deliberately tripped  him up from behind - it was a cynical foul which was a yellow but was unfortunate in the way Gomes landed
		
Click to expand...

Yes, correction, Son did go to ground. I suppose my main point was there was no intent to injure, and it was an unfortunate injury.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Obviously there are different versions of the tackle as you’ve seen something different to me and Orikoru.
Plus on the day VAR gave the Red.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if VAR did give the red card? The ref gave the yellow initially. But, he then went over to see Gomes, and then appeared to change his decision to Red. I do not remember VAR reviewing the decision to tell him it was a red card. In fact, I seem to remember VAR were only reviewing it AFTER the ref gave the red card, because I remember thinking "if they overturn this, I don't think Son will be in any fit state to play on given he was pretty much a broken man". Having just googles and read multiple stories on the incident, it does appear to confirm that it was Martin Atkinson, the on field ref who changed the card to red himself, and VAR did not overturn it. So, the ref made the call it seems, not VAR.

Mind you, I believe VAR was having a nightmare generally in that game, I think it was the one with Deli Ali's "no handball" incident.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Yes, correction, Son did go to ground. I suppose my main point was there was no intent to injure, and it was an unfortunate injury.
		
Click to expand...

If the intent is to trip/bring down the opponent any subsequent injury ain't "unfortunate". ..


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

MegaSteve said:



			If the intent is to trip/bring down the opponent any subsequent injury ain't "unfortunate". ..
		
Click to expand...

Well, as I said, brandish a dozen red cards a game then. Especially for Man City.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 18, 2020)

MegaSteve said:



			If the intent is to trip/bring down the opponent any subsequent injury ain't "unfortunate". ..
		
Click to expand...

I don't think most footballers intend to harm opponents when they foul them, yes there are some nutters, but fouling an opponent is part and parcel of the game and always has been.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

This conversation is a beautiful example on the dangers of using VAR for subjective decisions, even for those that appear to be blindingly obvious. I'd have thought most people would agree that Son had no intent to cause serious injury to Gomes and yellow card was correct. But, Atkinson got it wrong, and VAR couldn't 100% say he got it wrong, so didn't overturn. Only the panel afterwards decided it was the wrong decision. But, there are a few on here that, in their mind (and they seem to lack complete common sense) still think it should have been a red, yet clearly don't back up their argument by then going on to say ANY foul where there is no intent to win the ball should be a red, because there was a miniscule chance the opponent could have fallen and had a serious injury. If they don't agree with that, then their point must be caveated by "only if the opponent is unlucky enough to get a serious injury", and define what type of injuries would and would not warrant a red card.

So, if some fans cannot see this, it is dangerous to get VAR to try and decide it unless it is the most obvious mistake one could ever think off. Because, fans will still disagree. At least when the ref makes it on the spot, we can disagree but even if we don't admit it, he can always defend himself that he has seen the incident once and his viewing angle may have been poor. Whereas, with VAR, that is no excuse and so if it makes a decision fans disagree with, discontent will last for so much longer.

I do agree though, if we are to use VAR for red card incidents, the ref on the pitch should look at the screen and take ownership of it.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 18, 2020)

chrisd said:



			I don't think most footballers intend to harm opponents when they foul them, yes there are some nutters, but fouling an opponent is part and parcel of the game and always has been.
		
Click to expand...

Fairly certain I saw Martial deliver an elbow yesterday... Should the subsequent injury be considered "unfortunate" ?


----------



## chrisd (Feb 18, 2020)

MegaSteve said:



			Fairly certain I saw Martial deliver an elbow yesterday... Should the subsequent injury be considered "unfortunate" ?
		
Click to expand...

Not if it was deliberately done


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

MegaSteve said:



			Fairly certain I saw Martial deliver an elbow yesterday... Should the subsequent injury be considered "unfortunate" ?
		
Click to expand...

Did he elbow him intentionally? If yes, it was a deliberate act and should have been a red.

Did he elbow him accidentally? Ifyes, the injury was unfortunate.

Easy question to answer in all fairness


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Did he elbow him intentionally? If yes, it was a deliberate act and should have been a red.

Did he elbow him accidentally? Ifyes, the injury was unfortunate.

Easy question to answer in all fairness
		
Click to expand...

You’re a nightmare! Son’s was a deliberate act to foul Gomes, absolutely no intention to play the ball, reckless and premeditated.
Why should he be excused of the result of his actions, even your post above has sympathy for Son while not showing any empathy for Gomes!

As Orikoru showed, the Laws of the Game don’t show the word intent which you keep using in Son’s defence.
You also claim VAR couldn’t 100% say the Ref got it wrong either at the time.

For the final time, I fully agree Son did not set out to break/dislocate Gomes’s ankle, but he also made no attempt to play the ball his only purpose was to retalliate on Gomes.

Did Son use less or more force on Gomes than Maguire used on Bstshuyai

Not every foul is a Red Card, but if (IMO) you chase a player with the purpose of taking them out in a reckless and dangerous manner they should be  Red Carded.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			You’re a nightmare! Son’s was a deliberate act to foul Gomes, absolutely no intention to play the ball, reckless and premeditated.
Why should he be excused of the result of his actions, even your post above has sympathy for Son while not showing any empathy for Gomes!

As Orikoru showed, the Laws of the Game don’t show the word intent which you keep using in Son’s defence.
You also claim VAR couldn’t 100% say the Ref got it wrong either at the time.

For the final time, I fully agree Son did not set out to break/dislocate Gomes’s ankle, but he also made no attempt to play the ball his only purpose was to retalliate on Gomes.

Did Son use less or more force on Gomes than Maguire used on Bstshuyai

Not every foul is a Red Card, but if (IMO) you chase a player with the purpose of taking them out in a reckless and dangerous manner they should be  Red Carded.
		
Click to expand...

I have massive empathy for Gomes, but that is irrelevant. A red card should not be based on empathy?

As I have said time and time again, there are dozens of deliberate fouls a match. some petulant. Some tactical. See how the game goes if you give a red card out every time. 

You are only talking about the Son incident because of what happened to Gomes. Let's go back, review every single game this season, and pick out every challenge similar to Son's or worse, and then see how many red cards we dish out.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I have massive empathy for Gomes, but that is irrelevant. A red card should not be based on empathy?

As I have said time and time again, there are dozens of deliberate fouls a match. some petulant. Some tactical. See how the game goes if you give a red card out every time.

You are only talking about the Son incident because of what happened to Gomes. Let's go back, review every single game this season, and pick out every challenge similar to Son's or worse, and then see how many red cards we dish out.
		
Click to expand...

Please go back and help yourself, I don’t need to discuss any other foul, you’ve said yourself VAR couldn’t be 100% the Ref got it wrong.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Please go back and help yourself, I don’t need to discuss any other foul, you’ve said yourself VAR couldn’t be 100% the Ref got it wrong.
		
Click to expand...

I did say that, doesn't support your argument in anyway, especially as my opinion on VAR is very low anyway.

How often do we see a player score, and pundits being critical of the defense, saying they should have taken the player out before they got near the box.

By your definition, that would be an automatic red card. Not by the pundits though, nor by refs because, when they do take the player out, it is always a yellow card unless it is an obvious goal scoring chance.

It is odd that you keep trying to sustain a massively flawed argument, but by all means continue.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Did he elbow him intentionally? If yes, it was a deliberate act and should have been a red.

Did he elbow him accidentally? Ifyes, the injury was unfortunate.

Easy question to answer in all fairness
		
Click to expand...

Going to stick with my earlier opinion that any subsequent injury from a deliberate foul, such as a trip, can't be described as "unfortunate" ...

Guessing we'll just have to agree to disagree 👍✌...


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 18, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			VAR Officials make decisions:

Son tackle on Gomes, Yellow Card, changed to Red, 3 match Ban; then overturned, Spurs get Son back for 3 games. (Majority agree correct decision)

Son tackle on Rudiger, Red Card, not overturned, Son miss’s 3 games. (Majority agree correct decision)

Maguire tackle last night, VAR says not a Red Card, Maguire then scores, (Majority agree wrong decision) unlucky, get over it. Chelsea don’t play against 10 men, totally changed the game. Man Utd have Maguire available for the next 3 games.

If the FA are allowing VAR decisions to be overturned then it should be all decisions reviewed.
		
Click to expand...

Neither of United’s scorers should have been on the pitch last night at the time they scored, Martial’s elbow was no accident.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Did he elbow him intentionally? If yes, it was a deliberate act and should have been a red.

Did he elbow him accidentally? Ifyes, the injury was unfortunate.

Easy question to answer in all fairness
		
Click to expand...

He has a sly look for him first. Therein lies your answer.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			He has a sly look for him first. Therein lies your answer.
		
Click to expand...

Nope, therein lies your answer, which you like to speculate to make you feel like your correct.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Neither of United’s scorers should have been on the pitch last night at the time they scored, Martial’s elbow was no accident.
		
Click to expand...

It's a great pity for Chelsea fans that they think they can win a match so long as the opponents are down to 9 men. And, you may be right, Chelsea might not have lost that game had the opposition gone down to 9 men. Funny how nobody talked about the elbow last night, I guess new camera angles have only shown an incident today that we didn't see last night.

Or, are you clutching at straws?


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

MegaSteve said:



			Going to stick with my earlier opinion that any subsequent injury from a deliberate foul, such as a trip, can't be described as "unfortunate" ...

Guessing we'll just have to agree to disagree 👍✌...
		
Click to expand...

Ok. But, I guess you would describe it as fortunate then.

Fortunate for who? Because, I reckon somebody would only find it fortunate if they intended it to happen.

I simply don't believe that is the case with Son at all. Unless he was play acting afterwards, and he was actually overjoyed rather than distraught


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Ok. But, I guess you would describe it as fortunate then.

Fortunate for who? Because, I reckon somebody would only find it fortunate if they intended it to happen.

I simply don't believe that is the case with Son at all. Unless he was play acting afterwards, and he was actually overjoyed rather than distraught
		
Click to expand...

Seems to me you are now attempting to put words into my mouth...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			It's a great pity for Chelsea fans that they think they can win a match so long as the opponents are down to 9 men. And, you may be right, Chelsea might not have lost that game had the opposition gone down to 9 men. Funny how nobody talked about the elbow last night, I guess new camera angles have only shown an incident today that we didn't see last night.

Or, are you clutching at straws?
		
Click to expand...

I reckon this post sum’s you up, you now decide to tar all Chelsea fans with the same brush, at no time has BiM stated what you claim.

I’ve tried to explain numerous (boring) times it’s not the fact Gomes broke his ankle but Son’s behaviour leading up to the late, deliberate, act of retaliation on Gomes I have the issue with.

You obviously know better than everyone else and with your attitude you’ll probably find less and less people will discuss/debate with you on here. 

I’m out.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			It's a great pity for Chelsea fans that they think they can win a match so long as the opponents are down to 9 men. And, you may be right, Chelsea might not have lost that game had the opposition gone down to 9 men. Funny how nobody talked about the elbow last night, I guess new camera angles have only shown an incident today that we didn't see last night.

Or, are you clutching at straws?
		
Click to expand...

As a neutral, 🤔 there was that much rammel that went on re referees decisions, VAR etc Last night I don’t think it was overlooked. There was just so much else that went on that undoubtedly affected the result. Kick in the bollox aside and a sneaky elbow aside that could of smashed his face in. The thing that’s proper bogs me off again re referees and VAR is this. On both occasions both Chelsea players have suffered injuries that stopped the game. Why has the referee not had an amble over to the screen to see what went off. Al tell you why because he was rammel.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Nope, therein lies your answer, which you like to speculate to make you feel like your correct.
		
Click to expand...




Swango1980 said:



			It's a great pity for Chelsea fans that they think they can win a match so long as the opponents are down to 9 men. And, you may be right, Chelsea might not have lost that game had the opposition gone down to 9 men. Funny how nobody talked about the elbow last night, I guess new camera angles have only shown an incident today that we didn't see last night.

Or, are you clutching at straws?
		
Click to expand...

Just what this forum needs, another troll. 🙄

The pub quiz beckons, goodnight.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

MegaSteve said:



			Seems to me you are now attempting to put words into my mouth...
		
Click to expand...

No, I'm only trying to understand you when you imply it wasn't unfortunate, that's all.

At no point have I said the injury wasn't down to Son's actions, nor have I stated he was correct in what he did. I'm just saying it was a yellow card challenge, and trying to explain the ramifications if you think it was a red. That's all.

Regarding other posts related to match last night, I've also said Maguire may have kicked out, but I am prepared to believe it is also feasible to say he didn't mean to harm the player and it was just a reaction. I cannot comment on Martial as I didn't see it, nor do I remember it even being raised in the 90 minutes after the game on MNF. What frustrates me is the certainty others show in describing his intent, especially when they try and convince others. I'm not trying to convince people that Maguire didn't kick out after all. Of course, I have no problem if some believeh kicked out, that's their entitled opinion, just don't try and use explanations as if they prove they are correct (for example, no issue with okiru on his opinion, cos that's all he has really given). I suspect a lot of the opinion is down to tribalism at times.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Just what this forum needs, another troll. 🙄

The pub quiz beckons, goodnight.
		
Click to expand...

Is that what you do? Struggle to make a definitive argument, so resort to calling someone a troll?

Bit too easy that?

I've no desire to debate it, but if you keep feel like you need to make your point, then why can't I make mine? I'm only responding to your replies to my comments after all.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 18, 2020)

Seems to me that last nights “ incidents “ re Martial and Maguire are now being dis used a day later as apparently they were not picked up on last night, ( according to some).
So really only Two questions.
Was the actions of Maguire falling backwards natural with his leg kicking out rather than following his body. No, there was intent.
Was the actions of Martial jumping with his arm/ elbow behind him natural. No, there was intent.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 18, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			Seems to me that last nights “ incidents “ re Martial and Maguire are now being dis used a day later as apparently they were not picked up on last night, ( according to some).
So really only Two questions.
Was the actions of Maguire falling backwards natural with his leg kicking out rather than following his body. No, there was intent.
Was the actions of Martial jumping with his arm/ elbow behind him natural. No, there was intent.
		
Click to expand...

Only according to this forum (certainly the Martial incident, I've not heard about it anywhere but this thread)

And, as far as intent is concerned, there is no proof, just opinion. More importantly, it depends what you mean by intent, such as simply intent to move their leg or elbow. If so, then yes, I am sure there was an intent to move those body parts. If you mean intent to hurt the opponent, that is what I'm arguing against, as that is what is likely to matter in terms of ut being a red card.

Anyway, I've made my point. If anyone is offended because you think I'm having a personal dig, then I apologise. Not trying to have a dig, but do try and use strong wording to try and make my points clear.

If you are offended because I don't agree with you, don't be. That is just the way it is. I'm not offended that you continually dont agree with me either. Nothing personal, I am sure there are a million topics that's we'd probably be on the same side on 

Time to watch Athletico v Liverpool


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 18, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Only according to this forum (certainly the Martial incident, I've not heard about it anywhere but this thread)

And, as far as intent is concerned, there is no proof, just opinion. More importantly, it depends what you mean by intent, such as simply intent to move their leg or elbow. If so, then yes, I am sure there was an intent to move those body parts. If you mean intent to hurt the opponent, that is what I'm arguing against, as that is what is likely to matter in terms of ut being a red card.

Anyway, I've made my point. If anyone is offended because you think I'm having a personal dig, then I apologise. Not trying to have a dig, but do try and use strong wording to try and make my points clear.

If you are offended because I don't agree with you, don't be. That is just the way it is. I'm not offended that you continually dont agree with me either. Nothing personal, I am sure there are a million topics that's we'd probably be on the same side on

Time to watch Athletico v Liverpool
		
Click to expand...

certainly not offended 👍


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 20, 2020)

Not sure if anyone is watching the wolves v espanyol match tonight. Jota was fairly obviously headbutted, but VAR was happy with the original decision of a yellow card.

Seems like the Premier League aren't the only ones to make a balls of it


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 20, 2020)

Watched City last night, Aguero is flagged as offside. At the same time he is wrestled back by a West Ham defender. Aguero is 8 yds from the goal. It’s a blatant penalty and argue if it is a yellow or red according to pundits. But replays show he is probably not offside. Why not let play continue if there’s a goal,  check for offside. Check it’s a penalty. Both the offside and non penalty were wrong. But hey ho it’s VAR, so nothing should surprise.
What about when the West Ham player trapped his hand on the ball.  No penalty, probably accidental, but if that’s an attacker and any team scores it’s pulled back coz of the handball. So handball for attacker but not defender.
Theres just so much that is wrong.


----------



## Old Colner (Feb 21, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			Watched City last night, Aguero is flagged as offside. At the same time he is wrestled back by a West Ham defender. Aguero is 8 yds from the goal. It’s a blatant penalty and argue if it is a yellow or red according to pundits. But replays show he is probably not offside. Why not let play continue if there’s a goal,  check for offside. Check it’s a penalty. Both the offside and non penalty were wrong. But hey ho it’s VAR, so nothing should surprise.
What about when the West Ham player trapped his hand on the ball.  No penalty, probably accidental, but if that’s an attacker and any team scores it’s pulled back coz of the handball. So handball for attacker but not defender.
Theres just so much that is wrong.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, I was under the impression that the assistants very supposed to hold off with the flags and let VAR sort it if a goal occurs, it seems to happen for some teams and not for others, they seem to be making adjustments as the season progresses.

I believe on the whole VAR is good in principle, it is just the clowns who are making the decisions, why the hell do the referees not go to the pitchside screens and have another look themselves, then make a judgement, it would be a far better way of going about things, the recent red cards rescinded by VAR, all looks rather silly in my opinion.

VAR will even things out they said, I have yet to see that happening, decisions still going to the big clubs, Solskjaer in his interview the other night, thought VAR was great got all the calls right.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 21, 2020)

Old Colner said:



			I agree, I was under the impression that the assistants very supposed to hold off with the flags and let VAR sort it if a goal occurs, it seems to happen for some teams and not for others, they seem to be making adjustments as the season progresses.

I believe on the whole VAR is good in principle, it is just the clowns who are making the decisions, why the hell do the referees not go to the pitchside screens and have another look themselves, then make a judgement, it would be a far better way of going about things, the recent red cards rescinded by VAR, all looks rather silly in my opinion.

VAR will even things out they said, I have yet to see that happening, decisions still going to the big clubs, Solskjaer in his interview the other night, thought VAR was great got all the calls right.
		
Click to expand...

VAR has certainly not been a disadvantage to Man Utd this season. Although, I'm unsure that that would have made a huge difference to their league position in all honesty, they'd still be languishing around mid table mediocrity. 

It appears that, in general it has favoured Liverpool (not to say they get the benefit 100% of the time).

Man City seemed to have had quite a few harsh calls that have cost them. It may even have killed any momentum they might have been able to build, resulting in a loss of form for upcoming matches (only speculation of course). A big one was when Liverpool beat them, immediately following a potential penalty incident for Man City when it his Arnold's hand. Perhaps subjective if it was a penalty, but it seems like any team that scores a goal after it even accidentally brushes one of their players arms, it is automatically ruled out. Yet Liverpool's goal was allowed to stand, so I'm not sure where the bar is in terms of where the handball has to happen on pitch or how many seconds before goal. However, I'm pretty sure following the handball, that started the move for the Liverpool goal?

I'm sure we'll get an estimated table at end of season showing the "No VAR table". Liverpool will of course still win by miles, but would be interesting to see by how much.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 21, 2020)

Old Colner said:



			I agree, I was under the impression that the assistants very supposed to hold off with the flags and let VAR sort it if a goal occurs, it seems to happen for some teams and not for others, they seem to be making adjustments as the season progresses.

I believe on the whole VAR is good in principle, it is just the clowns who are making the decisions, *why the hell do the referees not go to the pitchside screens and have another look themselves, then make a judgement, it would be a far better way of going about things, *the recent red cards rescinded by VAR, all looks rather silly in my opinion.

VAR will even things out they said, I have yet to see that happening, decisions still going to the big clubs, Solskjaer in his interview the other night, thought VAR was great got all the calls right.
		
Click to expand...

I said the same the other night during the Chelsea v Utd game. The incidents re elbow and kick in the Crown Jewels.  Both times the games had to stop so the player could have a couple of mins with the magic sponge. Why did the ref not go to the VAR screen.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 21, 2020)

I don't even care who's benefitted from it the most. I don't know why that's always brought up. Spurs have had more VARs going in our favour than against us but I still hate what it's done to the game and how it's being used wrongly/badly. It's nothing to do with whether it's cost you points or not.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 21, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			VAR has certainly not been a disadvantage to Man Utd this season. Although, I'm unsure that that would have made a huge difference to their league position in all honesty, they'd still be languishing around mid table mediocrity.

It appears that, in general it has favoured Liverpool (not to say they get the benefit 100% of the time).

Man City seemed to have had quite a few harsh calls that have cost them. It may even have killed any momentum they might have been able to build, resulting in a loss of form for upcoming matches (only speculation of course). A big one was when Liverpool beat them, immediately following a potential penalty incident for Man City when it his Arnold's hand. Perhaps subjective if it was a penalty, but it seems like any team that scores a goal after it even accidentally brushes one of their players arms, it is automatically ruled out. Yet Liverpool's goal was allowed to stand, so I'm not sure where the bar is in terms of where the handball has to happen on pitch or how many seconds before goal. However, I'm pretty sure following the handball, that started the move for the Liverpool goal?

I'm sure we'll get an estimated table at end of season showing the "No VAR table". Liverpool will of course still win by miles, but would be interesting to see by how much.
		
Click to expand...

😂😂😂😂😂

Oh and VAR looked at TAA “handball” and deemed it to not be handball - is that “VAR” helping when you consider that the ref on the pitch deemed it also not to be handball 

And I believe we are around middle table for the amount of VAR that has gone for us or against


----------



## Old Colner (Feb 21, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			It's nothing to do with whether it's cost you points or not
		
Click to expand...

Agree, it’s about getting the correct outcome from a said situation.

Even on offside decisions, which is clearly defined in the rules, people are complaining and feeling hard done to, when the correct decision is given.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 21, 2020)

Old Colner said:



			Agree, it’s about getting the correct outcome from a said situation.

Even on offside decisions, which is clearly defined in the rules, people are complaining and feeling hard done to, when the correct decision is given.
		
Click to expand...

Agree with the first point and disagree with the second. In my opinion it's not correct to give someone offside because their ear is a millimetre past the defender's toe. I don't believe the offside rule was ever meant to be like that. Level with the player should be onside. If you have to draw stupid little lines on it for 3 minutes to see it, then **** that, he's level. If a player can't look along a line of players and know whether he's onside or not then it's not right. He shouldn't have to keep himself an extra foot onside just to allow for VAR nonsense should he? It's choking the life out of the game for me. You can't be that clinical, it's insane.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Feb 21, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			VAR has certainly not been a disadvantage to Man Utd this season. Although, I'm unsure that that would have made a huge difference to their league position in all honesty, they'd still be languishing around mid table mediocrity.

It appears that, in general it has favoured Liverpool (not to say they get the benefit 100% of the time).

Man City seemed to have had quite a few harsh calls that have cost them. It may even have killed any momentum they might have been able to build, resulting in a loss of form for upcoming matches (only speculation of course). A big one was when Liverpool beat them, immediately following a potential penalty incident for Man City when it his Arnold's hand. Perhaps subjective if it was a penalty, but it seems like any team that scores a goal after it even accidentally brushes one of their players arms, it is automatically ruled out. Yet Liverpool's goal was allowed to stand, so I'm not sure where the bar is in terms of where the handball has to happen on pitch or how many seconds before goal. However, I'm pretty sure following the handball, that started the move for the Liverpool goal?

I'm sure we'll get an estimated table at end of season showing the "No VAR table". Liverpool will of course still win by miles, but would be interesting to see by how much.
		
Click to expand...

You mean the one that hit Bernados hand and bounced up onto TAA .?
How far do they go back?


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 21, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			😂😂😂😂😂

Oh and VAR looked at TAA “handball” and deemed it to not be handball - is that “VAR” helping when you consider that the ref on the pitch deemed it also not to be handball

And I believe we are around middle table for the amount of VAR that has gone for us or against
		
Click to expand...

You definitely missed the point on that one.

Yes, VAR said it wasn't a handball in terms of the penalty, as did the ref. Fine with that. I'm talking about the fact Liverpool went on to score from that. The point was, ANY team that score and then VAR sees it even slightly brushes a hand accidentally rule out the goal automatically. That was not applied to Liverpool, so I was just wondering what criteria are used when chalking off goals when it brushes a hand in the build up to a goal.

I wasn't trying to have a go at Liverpool by the way, I only mentioned it as it happened in that particular match and I do not remember it happening in any other match.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 21, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			You definitely missed the point on that one.

Yes, VAR said it wasn't a handball in terms of the penalty, as did the ref. Fine with that. I'm talking about the fact Liverpool went on to score from that. The point was, ANY team that score and then VAR sees it even slightly brushes a hand accidentally rule out the goal automatically. That was not applied to Liverpool, so I was just wondering what criteria are used when chalking off goals when it brushes a hand in the build up to a goal.

I wasn't trying to have a go at Liverpool by the way, I only mentioned it as it happened in that particular match and I do not remember it happening in any other match.
		
Click to expand...

Umm because the handball wasn’t in the act of scoring the goal - it was during another phase of the game when Liverpool were defending


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 21, 2020)

clubchamp98 said:



			You mean the one that hit Bernados hand and bounced up onto TAA .?
How far do they go back?
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it was that one. If it was judged that it was a complete accident, especially if it deflected off someone nearby, I've no problem that they think it is not a penalty. But, the fact it is an accident doesn't come into it if you are the attacking team that scores, as that will simply be ruled out (I think it is a pathetic rule by the way). But yes, how far back do they go, in terms of time, in terms of number of passes that follow, in terms of how far away it happened from goal, etc. I guess there must be boundaries, because if Liverpool held possession for 3 minutes and then scored, it would be harsh to rule it out. But, because they've set this silly rule, they'll have to set some boundaries, otherwise it is completely subjective to what is allowed anyway.

My favourite example that hasn't happened yet. Player breaks through on goal, but just as he breaks into box ball bounces up and brushes his hand (barely, and if his hand wasn't there it would really have had no different impact on ball). Gets past keeper and a yard from goal. Realises that, if he puts it in, VAR will rule it out (yet, if defender tackles him and it goes out for corner, it'll be a corner kick). So, he stops ball, turns around and tries to keep possession. Passes it about with his team mates for a bit. Shouts over to the Ref "Hey Ref, at what point can I score and the goal won't be ruled out as the ball brushed my hand?". Ref doesn't know, so they just try and pass it about a bit to be safe. After 2 or 3 minutes, they then try and score, and actually do score. I wonder if VAR will rule it out, or assess enough time has passed.

Just a scenario that makes a mockery of that rule. Probably will never happen, as you'd probably need the balls of a Paulo DiCanio to even think about doing that in the heat of the moment.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 21, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Umm because the handball wasn’t in the act of scoring the goal - it was during another phase of the game when Liverpool were defending
		
Click to expand...

It started the attack. Did Liverpool not, from that, go straight down the other end and score?


----------



## Old Colner (Feb 21, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			Agree with the first point and disagree with the second. In my opinion it's not correct to give someone offside because their ear is a millimetre past the defender's toe. I don't believe the offside rule was ever meant to be like that. Level with the player should be onside. If you have to draw stupid little lines on it for 3 minutes to see it, then **** that, he's level. If a player can't look along a line of players and know whether he's onside or not then it's not right. He shouldn't have to keep himself an extra foot onside just to allow for VAR nonsense should he? It's choking the life out of the game for me. You can't be that clinical, it's insane.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but they would have to change the rule for that, as it stands they are applying the rules of the game. I don’t know how they are going to sort it but it needs sorting, it’s asif they are trying to make a complete balls of it so it is deemed a failure.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 21, 2020)

Old Colner said:



			Yes, but they would have to change the rule for that, as it stands they are applying the rules of the game. I don’t know how they are going to sort it but it needs sorting, it’s asif they are trying to make a complete balls of it so it is deemed a failure.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, offside it complicated, as they are technically making the correct call. I know there is some doubt as to where the line is drawn and the frame which is used in making the call, but as Gary Neville pointed out on MNF, you've got to draw the line somewhere. I just wonder, could they not just make the call without any lines at all, just do it by eye. Obvious offsides would still be obvious. But, if it is something so obscure like a toe nail being offside, VAR is not going to call that. 

OK, it could be argued that it brings subjectivity back into it, which it will. But, I always though VAR was there to eliminate the obvious mistakes, not the ones that we barely notice until VAR highlights something that most of us would have missed, or struggle to 100% argue one way or the other.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 21, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			It started the attack. Did Liverpool not, from that, go straight down the other end and score?
		
Click to expand...

Ok two simple questions which hopefully will help you 

1. Did the “handball” occur when Liverpool were attacking or defending 

2. Did the “handball” occur during the act of scoring a goal


----------



## Dando (Feb 21, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ok two simple questions which hopefully will help you

1. Did the “handball” occur when Liverpool were attacking or defending

2. Did the “handball” occur during the act of scoring a goal
		
Click to expand...

Don’t expect a simple answer!


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 21, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ok two simple questions which hopefully will help you

1. Did the “handball” occur when Liverpool were attacking or defending

2. Did the “handball” occur during the act of scoring a goal
		
Click to expand...

1. Both. It started the attack. Unless you define another point Liverpool attack.

2. Yes, as Liverpool scored. There is nothing that says it has to go in the goal directly from the hand, or that it has to hit hand of player that scored.

Hope that helps. You seem to be getting very touchy about the subject. Calm down, I am ridiculing the law, not liverpool. When I ridiculed the non handball of Deli Ali against Everton, I wasnt having a pop at Spurs, just ridiculing VAR.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Feb 21, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Yeah, I think it was that one. If it was judged that it was a complete accident, especially if it deflected off someone nearby, I've no problem that they think it is not a penalty. But, the fact it is an accident doesn't come into it if you are the attacking team that scores, as that will simply be ruled out (I think it is a pathetic rule by the way). But yes, how far back do they go, in terms of time, in terms of number of passes that follow, in terms of how far away it happened from goal, etc. I guess there must be boundaries, because if Liverpool held possession for 3 minutes and then scored, it would be harsh to rule it out. But, because they've set this silly rule, they'll have to set some boundaries, otherwise it is completely subjective to what is allowed anyway.

My favourite example that hasn't happened yet. Player breaks through on goal, but just as he breaks into box ball bounces up and brushes his hand (barely, and if his hand wasn't there it would really have had no different impact on ball). Gets past keeper and a yard from goal. Realises that, if he puts it in, VAR will rule it out (yet, if defender tackles him and it goes out for corner, it'll be a corner kick). So, he stops ball, turns around and tries to keep possession. Passes it about with his team mates for a bit. Shouts over to the Ref "Hey Ref, at what point can I score and the goal won't be ruled out as the ball brushed my hand?". Ref doesn't know, so they just try and pass it about a bit to be safe. After 2 or 3 minutes, they then try and score, and actually do score. I wonder if VAR will rule it out, or assess enough time has passed.

Just a scenario that makes a mockery of that rule. Probably will never happen, as you'd probably need the balls of a Paulo DiCanio to even think about doing that in the heat of the moment.
		
Click to expand...

I agree this would need some explaining.
In the TAA one if the goal is disallowed for handball then City should get a pen.!
Should City get a pen when there was an obvious handball by a City striker?
I do remember the discussion was about can TAA be defending and attacking at the same time?
As the handball rule is different in each case!
I can’t see someone in their own six yard area being classed as attacking on goal!
But as the law stands it could have been disallowed and a free kick to Liverpool for the first handball.
if you give a boy racer a F1 car he will crash eventually.
Give poor referees a new toy and they have messed it up big time.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 21, 2020)

clubchamp98 said:



			I agree this would need some explaining.
In the TAA one if the goal is disallowed for handball then City should get a pen.!
Should City get a pen when there was an obvious handball by a City striker?
I do remember the discussion was about can TAA be defending and attacking at the same time?
As the handball rule is different in each case!
I can’t see someone in their own six yard area being classed as attacking on goal!
But as the law stands it could have been disallowed and a free kick to Liverpool for the first handball.
if you give a boy racer a F1 car he will crash eventually.
Give poor referees a new toy and they have messed it up big time.
		
Click to expand...

And, imagine the same TAA incident, with the only difference being:

1. TAA wins it just outside Liverpool box
2. TAA wins it in middle of Liverpool half
3. TaA wins it at half way line
4. TAA wins it in City half
5. TAA wins it just outside City box

Everything else the same, where TAA gets possession for Liverpool after hitting his arm, then Liverpool score.

Which scenario(s) does VAR rule out the liverpool goal?

BTW, as said, this is not me having a dig at liverpool. In fact, as soon as it is not considered handball in the original case for penalty, then it shouldn't be considered to rule out Liverpool goal. Had the Liverpool goal been disallowed, it would have been a travesty for football in my opinion.

It is the law that is the joke, and as mentioned by others, only changed because they could use it to play with their new VAR toy


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 21, 2020)

PS. I have literally know idea whether the rules they use in Premier League are the same as European comps, leagues and internationals? Do these also chalk off goals if a ball accidentally hits a players hand when attacking that ends up in goal? Or are the laws different depending on what you play?,


----------



## clubchamp98 (Feb 21, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			PS. I have literally know idea whether the rules they use in Premier League are the same as European comps, leagues and internationals? Do these also chalk off goals if a ball accidentally hits a players hand when attacking that ends up in goal? Or are the laws different depending on what you play?,
		
Click to expand...

1
2
3
4
5 it’s hand ball by Bernado in all circumstances.
in my honest opinion if it’s handball it’s handball and ref should call it.
But while they differentiate between strikers and defenders we can only guess what they are going to call.


Swango1980 said:



			And, imagine the same TAA incident, with the only difference being:

1. TAA wins it just outside Liverpool box
2. TAA wins it in middle of Liverpool half
3. TaA wins it at half way line
4. TAA wins it in City half
5. TAA wins it just outside City box

Everything else the same, where TAA gets possession for Liverpool after hitting his arm, then Liverpool score.

Which scenario(s) does VAR rule out the liverpool goal?

BTW, as said, this is not me having a dig at liverpool. In fact, as soon as it is not considered handball in the original case for penalty, then it shouldn't be considered to rule out Liverpool goal. Had the Liverpool goal been disallowed, it would have been a travesty for football in my opinion.

It is the law that is the joke, and as mentioned by others, only changed because they could use it to play with their new VAR toy
		
Click to expand...

knobody knows that’s the problem ,consistency has gone out the window.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 21, 2020)

Old Colner said:



			Agree, it’s about getting the correct outcome from a said situation.

Even on offside decisions, which is clearly defined in the rules, people are complaining and feeling hard done to, when the correct decision is given.
		
Click to expand...

But is it the correct decision? Someone put a link on here that explained that because of the number of frames used & which one is taken, there's up to an 8"/20cm "degree of tolerance".  That's error to the rest of us.  Which really isn't acceptable when they are then giving offside decisions that are only an inch or two offside. Whilst ignoring people who were indisputably a yard or two offside because it was "a different phase of play."

I'd call it a pig's ear but the RSPCA would probably sue me for defamation.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 22, 2020)

Yet more controversy.

Mike Oliver doesn't give red card to Spurs player. VAR referee sees no reason to overturn decision.

About 30 minutes later, during second half, VAR referee, for whatever reason, sends message back that they got it wrong, and should have been a red card.

You'd think if VAR had doubts, they'd have at least asked Mike Oliver to look at screen at the time. That would have seemed sensible, especially as incident was about 3 yards from screen.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 22, 2020)

3 red cards missed in a week at the same venue. But it’s all straight and above board, isn’t it.  Yeah, right. 🤬🤬🤬🤬


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 22, 2020)

Stand by, Stand by, dodgy decision at Burnley.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Feb 22, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Yet more controversy.

Mike Oliver doesn't give red card to Spurs player. VAR referee sees no reason to overturn decision.

About 30 minutes later, during second half, VAR referee, for whatever reason, sends message back that they got it wrong, and should have been a red card.

You'd think if VAR had doubts, they'd have at least asked Mike Oliver to look at screen at the time. That would have seemed sensible, especially as incident was about 3 yards from screen.
		
Click to expand...

I think the refs have got together and delibaretly decided not to look at the screens .
Have only seen two do it.
It’s like a workforce rebelling against a dictat  from management 
Just can’t understand why they won’t use it .


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 22, 2020)

clubchamp98 said:



*I think the refs have got together and delibaretly decided not to look at the screens *.
Have only seen two do it.
It’s like a workforce rebelling against a dictat  from management
Just can’t understand why they won’t use it .
		
Click to expand...

It needs to be made compulsory that the match official looks at the screen.  Having got in & seen it on the re-runs it's worse than Maguire's and that was bad enough.

And if the rumours that he can't be retrospectively banned because VAR has already looked at it are true, then that should be the final nail in VAR's coffin.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 22, 2020)

Not sure how one is a penalty and one not a penalty in the Man City game this evening


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 22, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Stand by, Stand by, dodgy decision at Burnley.

Click to expand...

That wouldn’t be the one were I mentioned months ago ( City v Utd ) what would happen if one team should have a penalty, its not given. Then other team goes up other end and scores. VAR then says it’s a penalty and goal is disallowed. Then it all kicked off on here.😂 nope never saw that coming. 🤔😖


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 22, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			It needs to be made compulsory that the match official looks at the screen.  Having got in & seen it on the re-runs it's worse than Maguire's and that was bad enough.

And if the rumours that he can't be retrospectively banned because VAR has already looked at it are true, then that should be the final nail in VAR's coffin.
		
Click to expand...

Bound to be some spin coming out from VAR HQ about why it's still a fantastic system. 

I agree that surely the onus is on the referee to look at all the evidence on the screen, assess how that corresponds to his view (and that of the assistants if appropriate) and then make a decision from there. At the moment simply pushing back to VAR officials is ducking the responsibility and VAR isn't up to the job


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 22, 2020)

HomerJSimpson said:



*Bound to be some spin coming out from VAR HQ about why it's still a fantastic system.*

I agree that surely the onus is on the referee to look at all the evidence on the screen, assess how that corresponds to his view (and that of the assistants if appropriate) and then make a decision from there. At the moment simply pushing back to VAR officials is ducking the responsibility and VAR isn't up to the job
		
Click to expand...

VAR is supposed to improve the "customer experience". After Monday's "customer experience", and the customer complaints, surely someone somewhere in VAR land must have said "You know, if there's one game where we must get it right today, it's at Stamford Bridge." And then we get that crock of .

Sling it in the bin, it's done.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 22, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			VAR is supposed to improve the "customer experience". After Monday's "customer experience", and the customer complaints, surely someone somewhere in VAR land must have said "You know, if there's one game where we must get it right today, it's at Stamford Bridge." And then we get that crock of .

Sling it in the bin, it's done.
		
Click to expand...

I agree but isn't it suppose to be rolled out to other leagues in Europe and even the championship


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 22, 2020)

The VAR technology isnt the issue, it's the complete and utter retards using it that's the problem. 

I've said many times that until we have a better standard of refs, VAR will not make a huge difference.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 22, 2020)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I agree but isn't it suppose to be rolled out to other leagues in Europe and even the championship
		
Click to expand...

Only place it needs to be rolled is under a bus, preferably with Mike Riley holding it.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 22, 2020)

Stuart_C said:



			The VAR technology isnt the issue, it's the complete and utter retards using it that's the problem.

I've said many times that until we have a better standard of refs, VAR will not make a huge difference.
		
Click to expand...

Fair point Stu; that and a re-write of the offside rules, or at least a decent interpretation of them.

I've heard all the arguments about you're either offside or you're not, you can't be a little bit pregnant, you either are or you aren't.  Well, look at it another way; you're either speeding or you're not, but you can be a little bit over the limit and have a sensible application of the law.  If we had that with the offside decisions instead of looking at toenails with a system that isn't refined enough to guarantee it's the correct decision then it might get a little bit more support.  Was that a clear and obvious error on Monday with GIROUD?  The hell it was.


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 22, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Fair point Stu; that and a re-write of the offside rules, or at least a decent interpretation of them.

I've heard all the arguments about you're either offside or you're not, you can't be a little bit pregnant, you either are or you aren't.  Well, look at it another way; you're either speeding or you're not, but you can be a little bit over the limit and have a sensible application of the law.  If we had that with the offside decisions instead of looking at toenails with a system that isn't refined enough to guarantee it's the correct decision then it might get a little bit more support.  Was that a clear and obvious error on Monday with GIROUD?  The hell it was.
		
Click to expand...

A very good analogy there Blue, what we are now seeing is a result of the black and white, matter of fact, rules are rules brigade.

Sky being the main culprit with their over analysing of decisions, 55 different angles, CGI's of incidents and the consistent  campaigning for video technology.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Feb 22, 2020)

Stuart_C said:



			The VAR technology isnt the issue,* it's the complete and utter retards using it that's the problem*.

I've said many times that until we have a better standard of refs, VAR will not make a huge difference.
		
Click to expand...

I think you're being a bit unkind there.





To retards!


----------



## pendodave (Feb 23, 2020)

I was fortunate enough to watch a game in Spain yesterday (real sociedad). Now, they have VAR in Spain, but at NO point during the game was there a single delay. How does that work??
Maybe they only turn it in when someone scores against Madrid or Barca...
In every respect, the game was far more enjoyable to watch as a spectator than anything I've watched in the UK for years


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 23, 2020)

Just saw Bournemouth game on Match of the Day.

So, apparently shoulder is handball. Or, it's not. Or, maybe it is. Nope, definitely not. Actually, absolutely no idea anymore. That VAR ref was probably just tossing a coin. Maybe that's what they all do?


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 23, 2020)

ColchesterFC said:



			I think you're being a bit unkind there.





To retards!
		
Click to expand...

Apologies to any of the retards on here 😁😁

My actual preferred choice of word would've gave PTF some work to do 🤭


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 23, 2020)

A couple of times I have quoted scenarios that could of happened and have. Here’s another one.

When an occasion happens like the Burnley game Yesterday. The ? Penalty that is awarded by VAR does not come into effect until the whistle is blown for a goal, corner, throw in etc etc. The time for that to happen could be seconds or minutes. Does that
 “ dead time“ get added on as injury time. What would happen if that happens in the dying minutes of a game, a game that could be a final. There’s gonna be a riot. The running of VAR in its present format is quite simply a joke.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 23, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			A couple of times I have quoted scenarios that could of happened and have. Here’s another one.

When an occasion happens like the Burnley game Yesterday. The ? Penalty that is awarded by VAR does not come into effect until the whistle is blown for a goal, corner, throw in etc etc. The time for that to happen could be seconds or minutes. Does that
“ dead time“ get added on as injury time. What would happen if that happens in the dying minutes of a game, a game that could be a final. There’s gonna be a riot. The running of VAR in its present format is quite simply a joke.
		
Click to expand...

They review it the next time the play is stopped, irrelevant if it’s the first or last minute.

What if the Ref had stopped the BMouth attack yesterday and VAR decided no pen? How is that fair on BMouth.

You can’t instantly stop the game every time VAR wants a review.


----------



## robinthehood (Feb 23, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Fair point Stu; that and a re-write of the offside rules, or at least a decent interpretation of them.

I've heard all the arguments about you're either offside or you're not, you can't be a little bit pregnant, you either are or you aren't.  Well, look at it another way; you're either speeding or you're not, but you can be a little bit over the limit and have a sensible application of the law.  If we had that with the offside decisions instead of looking at toenails with a system that isn't refined enough to guarantee it's the correct decision then it might get a little bit more support.  Was that a clear and obvious error on Monday with GIROUD?  The hell it was.
		
Click to expand...

What changes to the offside rule would you make to improve the VAR experience?


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 23, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			A couple of times I have quoted scenarios that could of happened and have. Here’s another one.

When an occasion happens like the Burnley game Yesterday. The ? Penalty that is awarded by VAR does not come into effect until the whistle is blown for a goal, corner, throw in etc etc. The time for that to happen could be seconds or minutes. Does that
“ dead time“ get added on as injury time. What would happen if that happens in the dying minutes of a game, a game that could be a final. There’s gonna be a riot. The running of VAR in its present format is quite simply a joke.
		
Click to expand...

In terms of you main point, no idea. There were games this season that, even when ball was out of play and they held play back whilst VAR did its thing, that time wasnt added on anyway. Seems like it is up to ref on pitch.

But, I assume the time in NOT added on for the dead time whilst ball in play, when VAR decided to overturn earlier incident. Simply because, the ref will not know a decision will be overturned, and so will not stop their watch. For example, penalty appeal, ref doesn't give it and plsu continues. The ref will not have stopped watch at that point  so if play continues ref will be unsure as to.how long passed between incident and when VAr gives it.

Just to point out, the ball doesn't gave to go out of play. There was a City match where there was a penalty incident, not given. Play went on for almost 2 minutes after, ball just wouldn't go out. Red ended up blowing whistle mid play purely because VAR told him it was a penalty.


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 23, 2020)

robinthehood said:



			What changes to the offside rule would you make to improve the VAR experience?
		
Click to expand...

It's very difficult to change the offside rule fairly than what weve got now. People want 100%  perfection, it's impossible.

What I would say  is if a player's head is ahead of the lines/offside and scores with his right foot where is the advantage gained?


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 23, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



*They review it the next time the play is stopped, irrelevant if it’s the first or last minute.*

What if the Ref had stopped the BMouth attack yesterday and VAR decided no pen? How is that fair on BMouth.

You can’t instantly stop the game every time VAR wants a review.
		
Click to expand...

1,And this is my point, why does VAR have to be looked at when the ref blows his whistle. Reading your post it sounds like you think folk sit in the VAR room and do nowt til the whistle blows. Every goal is checked for VAR, we all agree on that. But VAR is checking for a penalty as soon as the incident happens.They know it’s a penalty after X time. Why play the game for another X amount of time before deciding coz the refs blown his whistle we can now go back to the VAR decision.
2nd point, The ref is not gonna stop the game to look at a review, that review is already underway. As soon as that decision re VAR has been made, stop the game. It’s pointless it going on until the ref blows. 
3, see Point 2.


----------



## robinthehood (Feb 23, 2020)

Stuart_C said:



			It's very difficult to change the offside rule fairly than what weve got now. People want 100%  perfection, it's impossible.

What I would say  is if a player's head is ahead of the lines/offside and scores with his right foot where is the advantage gained?
		
Click to expand...

Yeah i get what you mean, the problem  is there will always be measurement lines somewhere and that's what seem to get to people. I'd like to see a time limit may be,  for all decisions. If you can't see the error within 45 seconds or whatever then the on field  one stands.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 23, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			1,And this is my point, why does VAR have to be looked at when the ref blows his whistle. Reading your post it sounds like you think folk sit in the VAR room and do nowt til the whistle blows. Every goal is checked for VAR, we all agree on that. But VAR is checking for a penalty as soon as the incident happens.They know it’s a penalty after X time. Why play the game for another X amount of time before deciding coz the refs blown his whistle we can now go back to the VAR decision.
2nd point, The ref is not gonna stop the game to look at a review, that review is already underway. As soon as that decision re VAR has been made, stop the game. It’s pointless it going on until the ref blows.
3, see Point 2.
		
Click to expand...

Because that’s not what happens:
VAR can only be used in certain circumstances and advise the Ref, ie.
VAR: Hey Ref I think that was a penalty? 
Ref: No it wasn’t, I had a clear view and no penalty.
VAR: OK, 

Or

Ref: Is there any reason I can not award a goal.
VAR: Just checking, Looks like hand ball in the build up we are looking at other angles:
Ref: OK, I saw nothing.
VAR: Handball by defender prior to ball being cleared, penalty to opposition and no goal.
Ref: OK, are you sure? 
VAR: Yes.

VAR Officials don’t make decisions on one angle and would be behind play if they tried to, hence why certain decisions and when play stops.

It’s not 100%, but it’s better than 3 Officials alone on the pitch.


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 23, 2020)

robinthehood said:



			Yeah i get what you mean, the problem  is there will always be measurement lines somewhere and that's what seem to get to people. I'd like to see a time limit may be,  for all decisions. If you can't see the error within 45 seconds or whatever then the on field  one stands.
		
Click to expand...

I'd rather get rid of VAR and help improve the standard of refs.  I've always wanted  consistency from refs, I have now accepted its impossible to get consistent refs. 

I'm curious how many decisions would be changed had the ref on the field had looked at the monitor. That for me has to be the next step if VAR is to continue.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 23, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Because that’s not what happens:
VAR can only be used in certain circumstances and advise the Ref, ie.
VAR: Hey Ref I think that was a penalty?
Ref: No it wasn’t, I had a clear view and no penalty.
VAR: OK,

Or

Ref: Is there any reason I can not award a goal.
VAR: Just checking, Looks like hand ball in the build up we are looking at other angles:
Ref: OK, I saw nothing.
VAR: Handball by defender prior to ball being cleared, penalty to opposition and no goal.
Ref: OK, are you sure?
VAR: Yes.

VAR Officials don’t make decisions on one angle and would be behind play if they tried to, hence why certain decisions and when play stops.

It’s not 100%, but it’s better than 3 Officials alone on the pitch.
		
Click to expand...

Paul am not saying VAR, don’t have a place in football. It does, we have shouted long enough for it on here.  But we never asked for the village idiots to be running it. The reason we wanted VAR is because because of the poor referee standards.Who is in charge of VAR Now.

I keep going on about Scenarios. What happens if team A should have a penalty, game plays on and a minute later team A scores. VAR then says Team A should of had a penalty. Does the goal stand? is it a penalty? Flippin eck looking forward to that one. It’s just so inconsistent.
My lad came back from the Leicester v City game last night. I mentioned Leicester were unlucky not to get a penalty. He did not have a clue what I was on about. Did VAR have a look at it, am sure they did but match going fans didn’t.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 23, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			Paul am not saying VAR, don’t have a place in football. It does, we have shouted long enough for it on here.  But we never asked for the village idiots to be running it. The reason we wanted VAR is because because of the poor referee standards.Who is in charge of VAR Now.

I keep going on about Scenarios. What happens if team A should have a penalty, game plays on and a minute later team A scores. VAR then says Team A should of had a penalty. Does the goal stand? is it a penalty? Flippin eck looking forward to that one. It’s just so inconsistent.
My lad came back from the Leicester v City game last night. I mentioned Leicester were unlucky not to get a penalty. He did not have a clue what I was on about. Did VAR have a look at it, am sure they did but match going fans didn’t.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect the goal would stand. Advantage to the team that could have had the penalty on all that. If VAR ruled out their goal to give a penalty instead, I'd love to see the fan reaction on that one


----------



## DaveR (Feb 23, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Just saw Bournemouth game on Match of the Day.

So, apparently shoulder is handball. Or, it's not. Or, maybe it is. Nope, definitely not. Actually, absolutely no idea anymore. That VAR ref was probably just tossing a coin. Maybe that's what they all do?
		
Click to expand...

The Bournemouth game was an absolute farce yesterday. 2 good goals chalked off and one changed to a penalty 😡


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 23, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I suspect the goal would stand. Advantage to the team that could have had the penalty on all that. If VAR ruled out their goal to give a penalty instead, I'd love to see the fan reaction on that one
		
Click to expand...

Hope to god it never happens.


----------



## Reemul (Feb 23, 2020)

robinthehood said:



			What changes to the offside rule would you make to improve the VAR experience?
		
Click to expand...

The main thing wrong with VAR is digital lines, no player or ref has digital lines on there interface, just eyes. If you cannot decide it is an error by looking at in then it stays with the decision made by the referee, the minute you are using camera angles and digital lines it's wrong and certainly not an obvious error. In rugby it's all done by eyesite and in cricket if it's very close it stays with umpires call.

Var should be used when someone gets kicked in the nuts and it's missed or stamped on and it's missed or someone hand balls the ball in the goal to go to the world cup. A foot 6 inches too far over is not what anyone envisioned VAR being used for.

Currently VAR is screwing around with inches and failing with the serious issues that have been missed. Everyone seems to think it's difficult to fix, it's not it;s just being used so poorly it's creating more errors than ever.


----------



## DaveR (Feb 23, 2020)

robinthehood said:



			What changes to the offside rule would you make to improve the VAR experience?
		
Click to expand...

Here's a radical thought. 
Do away with offside completely. Loads more goals (which is what fans want to see) and rules out any dubious decisions. Think of all those exciting games finishing 6-5 😁


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 23, 2020)

Dave, heres another radical thought. Gary Neville had just said " we can hear what's being said between the ref and Stockley". Eh why can we not hear what these clowns are saying. Are Match going fans and 2nd  class telly fans not educated enough to listen in.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 23, 2020)

robinthehood said:



			What changes to the offside rule would you make to improve the VAR experience?
		
Click to expand...




robinthehood said:



			Yeah i get what you mean, the problem  is there will always be measurement lines somewhere and that's what seem to get to people. I'd like to see a time limit may be,  for all decisions. If you can't see the error within 45 seconds or whatever then the on field  one stands.
		
Click to expand...

As a starting point I'd have the existing rules applied sensibly.  VAR as it exists is not fine tuned enough to guarantee beyond all doubt that players are offside or not; it apparently works on a tolerance that is up to 8 inches yet is giving players one or two inches offside.  Imagine getting a ticket for doing 31mph in a 30mph limit and knowing that the working tolerance on the speed gun is +/- 2mph; so you might have been speeding at up to 33mph, but equally you might be spot on the limit or even under it.  It's farcical.

VAR was brought to deal with clear and obvious error.  If it doesn't look offside on the first look from each angle, it's not offside.  If you need to get lines out then it's not offside.  It's that simple really.

VAR was also brought in to deal with serious foul play.  There were 2 instances at Stamford Bridge where they looked at it and completely screwed it up (and yesterday's farce made the Maguire incident look well handled!).  There was a third incident which I believe wasn't even looked at; how you can have a player on the deck with a busted nose that's pouring claret and not look at VAR to see how it happened?  Not only are the on pitch referees not consistent, the application of the system that is supposed to stop inconsistencies is even more inconsistent than the inconsistencies it is supposed to sort out.  If I had to guess the name of the training manual's author, my money would be on John Cleese.

I'm a season ticket holder at Chelsea.  Yesterday we were playing the London team we most want to beat.  Twice we scored; twice I stayed in my seat wondering what excuse VAR would find to chalk off the goals.  The festering crock of  that is VAR is completely wrecking the match day experience as far as I'm concerned.

And while we're about it, take the watch off the referee's wrist, 30 minutes each way of the ball in play in the hands of a timekeeper.  Let's actually watch the football pay to see rather than a load of time wasting.

Oh, and kick off is 3pm on a Saturday afternoon or 7.45pm on Tuesdays or Wednesdays.  End of.  I am hacked off looking at theatre & concert dates and trying to guess whether Sky/Bt/Amazon  will move the dates so I have a conflict.

I think that's it for the moment, but I may be back.


----------



## Imurg (Feb 23, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			As a starting point I'd have the existing rules applied sensibly.  VAR as it exists is not fine tuned enough to guarantee beyond all doubt that players are offside or not; it apparently works on a tolerance that is up to 8 inches yet is giving players one or two inches offside.  Imagine getting a ticket for doing 31mph in a 30mph limit and knowing that the working tolerance on the speed gun is +/- 2mph; so you might have been speeding at up to 33mph, but equally you might be spot on the limit or even under it.  It's farcical.

VAR was brought to deal with clear and obvious error.  If it doesn't look offside on the first look from each angle, it's not offside.  If you need to get lines out then it's not offside.  It's that simple really.

VAR was also brought in to deal with serious foul play.  There were 2 instances at Stamford Bridge where they looked at it and completely screwed it up (and yesterday's farce made the Maguire incident look well handled!).  There was a third incident which I believe wasn't even looked at; how you can have a player on the deck with a busted nose that's pouring claret and not look at VAR to see how it happened?  Not only are the on pitch referees not consistent, the application of the system that is supposed to stop inconsistencies is even more inconsistent than the inconsistencies it is supposed to sort out.  If I had to guess the name of the training manual's author, my money would be on John Cleese.

I'm a season ticket holder at Chelsea.  Yesterday we were playing the London team we most want to beat.  Twice we scored; twice I stayed in my seat wondering what excuse VAR would find to chalk off the goals.  The festering crock of  that is VAR is completely wrecking the match day experience as far as I'm concerned.

And while we're about it, take the watch off the referee's wrist, 30 minutes each way of the ball in play in the hands of a timekeeper.  Let's actually watch the football pay to see rather than a load of time wasting.

Oh, and kick off is 3pm on a Saturday afternoon or 7.45pm on Tuesdays or Wednesdays.  End of.  I am hacked off looking at theatre & concert dates and trying to guess whether Sky/Bt/Amazon  will move the dates so I have a conflict.

I think that's it for the moment, but I may be back.
		
Click to expand...

So you're not happy then.....


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 23, 2020)

Imurg said:



			So you're not happy then.....

Click to expand...

I actually hope it could sort out the cheating and diving.  It's done nothing on that front, and is about as much use as a chocolate teapot in most other respects.  We've gone backwards at a rate of knots.


----------



## Stuart_C (Feb 23, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Oh, and kick off is 3pm on a Saturday afternoon or 7.45pm on Tuesdays or Wednesdays.  End of.  I am hacked off looking at theatre & concert dates and trying to guess whether Sky/Bt/Amazon  will move the dates so I have a conflict.

I think that's it for the moment, but I may be back.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst I get the frustration I couldn’t do Sunday‘s without football, I enjoy it too much.

What really pisses me off is when games get changed by Sky knowing there’s a very good chance the games they’ve changed will have to be moved again at a later date but at short notice. Travel and accommodation cant be booked or changed.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 23, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			As a starting point I'd have the existing rules applied sensibly.  VAR as it exists is not fine tuned enough to guarantee beyond all doubt that players are offside or not; it apparently works on a tolerance that is up to 8 inches yet is giving players one or two inches offside.  Imagine getting a ticket for doing 31mph in a 30mph limit and knowing that the working tolerance on the speed gun is +/- 2mph; so you might have been speeding at up to 33mph, but equally you might be spot on the limit or even under it.  It's farcical.

VAR was brought to deal with clear and obvious error.  If it doesn't look offside on the first look from each angle, it's not offside.  If you need to get lines out then it's not offside.  It's that simple really.

VAR was also brought in to deal with serious foul play.  There were 2 instances at Stamford Bridge where they looked at it and completely screwed it up (and yesterday's farce made the Maguire incident look well handled!).  There was a third incident which I believe wasn't even looked at; how you can have a player on the deck with a busted nose that's pouring claret and not look at VAR to see how it happened?  Not only are the on pitch referees not consistent, the application of the system that is supposed to stop inconsistencies is even more inconsistent than the inconsistencies it is supposed to sort out.  If I had to guess the name of the training manual's author, my money would be on John Cleese.

I'm a season ticket holder at Chelsea.  Yesterday we were playing the London team we most want to beat.  Twice we scored; twice I stayed in my seat wondering what excuse VAR would find to chalk off the goals.  The festering crock of  that is VAR is completely wrecking the match day experience as far as I'm concerned.

And while we're about it, take the watch off the referee's wrist, 30 minutes each way of the ball in play in the hands of a timekeeper.  Let's actually watch the football pay to see rather than a load of time wasting.

Oh, and kick off is 3pm on a Saturday afternoon or 7.45pm on Tuesdays or Wednesdays.  End of.  I am hacked off looking at theatre & concert dates and trying to guess whether Sky/Bt/Amazon  will move the dates so I have a conflict.

I think that's it for the moment, but I may be back.
		
Click to expand...

Ave said all of the above and more with a couple of rammels chucked in. Anyone who says VAR just needs fine tuning Is a one eyed king in the valley of the blind. Or they have shares in the company.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 23, 2020)

Stuart_C said:



			Whilst I get the frustration I couldn’t do Sunday‘s without football, I enjoy it too much.

What really pisses me off is when games get changed by Sky knowing there’s a very good chance the games they’ve changed will have to be moved again at a later date but at short notice. Travel and accommodation cant be booked or changed.
		
Click to expand...

Talking to my lad last night when he got back from Leicester. Wonder how much it would cost to go to Leicester last night, Madrid during the week and Wembley next Sunday 😳. Lot of football going off at the moment.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 23, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			Ave said all of the above and more with a couple of rammels chucked in. Anyone who says VAR just needs fine tuning Is a one eyed king in the valley of the blind. Or they have shares in the company.
		
Click to expand...

Burying your head in the sand and moaning about it won’t change it either.

It’s here to stay, yes there’s been howlers, but I’d say less than the howlers completely missed by the Officials in years gone bye.

It has got more decisions right than wrong, but will never be 100%.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 23, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Burying your head in the sand and moaning about it won’t change it either.

It’s here to stay, yes there’s been howlers, but I’d say less than the howlers completely missed by the Officials in years gone bye.

*It has got more decisions right than wrong*, but will never be 100%.
		
Click to expand...

Not this week at Stamford Bridge it hasn't mate.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 23, 2020)

Possible improvements, if we have to keep it:


As I and others have said. Offsides checked without using lines. Done by eye, and if not clear stays with linesman decision.
The VAR referee is part of the officiating team, and is at the ground with them. He will sit in an isolated area, and be in constant communication with on field referee.
Fans get to hear the ref and VAR discussing any decision. We watch the images they watch, and see how they arrive at decision. The on field referee, therefore, very much watched the footage with VaR, rather than simply having to rely on VAR. This would give referees a bit of a persona and maybe humanize them to fans, rather than just an object for abuse. It will also stop players crying and swearing like kids, hopefully, as theyd look even more pathetic.
Sort out that handball law. 
It worrying that, despite all the problems, they are reluctant to make any changes, by trying to be consistent all season. Its pathetic. When something is so flawed, they should be trying to do everything they can to improve it now. I think 100% of fans and pundits continually insist the referee looks at the monitor, yet it appears the officials continually ignore this plea. They must know best


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 23, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Not this week at Stamford Bridge it hasn't mate.  

Click to expand...

They’re are included in the howlers.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 23, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Burying your head in the sand and moaning about it won’t change it either.

It’s here to stay, yes there’s been howlers, but I’d say less than the howlers completely missed by the Officials in years gone bye.

It has got more decisions right than wrong, but will never be 100%.
		
Click to expand...

Burying your head in the sand. That’s a quality statement followed by the understatement of the week “yes there’s been howlers”.

Less howlers than other years, of course there should be less, they have got VAR. 😳 Or have they, how can you miss a kick in the nakkas  when it’s filmed from 300 angles. I know let’s not walk to the screen 10 yds away.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 23, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			Burying your head in the sand. That’s a quality statement followed by the understatement of the week “yes there’s been howlers”.

Less howlers than other years, of course there should be less, they have got VAR. 😳 Or have they, how can you miss a kick in the nakkas  when it’s filmed from 300 angles. I know let’s not walk to the screen 10 yds away.
		
Click to expand...

How many times mate, VAR is here to stay, VAR doesn’t have all the camera angles Sky or the BBC have.

I do agree with the walking to the screen, but my gut feeling (probably wrong) is that they’ve decided not to do it this season, as they should of, because of the stick and questions they’ll get. Next season it will be the fully implemented and you’ll see the Refs doing it often.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 23, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			How many times mate, VAR is here to stay, VAR doesn’t have all the camera angles Sky or the BBC have.

I do agree with the walking to the screen, but my gut feeling (probably wrong) is that they’ve decided not to do it this season, as they should of, because of the stick and questions they’ll get. Next season it will be the fully implemented and you’ll see the Refs doing it often.
		
Click to expand...

Paul, has someone edited my posts before you have read them posts 245,249 etc state am for VAR. But not in its present format. As it is, it is rammel With no signs of cha he.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 24, 2020)

robinthehood said:



			What changes to the offside rule would you make to improve the VAR experience?
		
Click to expand...

Some wording to the effect that level is still onside, and that you can't be offside by a fraction of a millimetre. Say you have to be clearly offside for it to be given, i.e. you can clearly see that their whole body is ahead of the defenders, not just one toe, an ear or a shoulder. It's stupid when players are running side by side, but just because the forward's stride pattern is different at the point they stopped it he's given offside, that shouldn't be happening when you can see his body is level with the defence.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 24, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			Some wording to the effect that level is still onside, and that you can't be offside by a fraction of a millimetre. Say you have to be clearly offside for it to be given, i.e. you can clearly see that their whole body is ahead of the defenders, not just one toe, an ear or a shoulder. It's stupid when players are running side by side, but just because the forward's stride pattern is different at the point they stopped it he's given offside, that shouldn't be happening when you can see his body is level with the defence.
		
Click to expand...

Although, even if it was changed to that, the same arguments will still exist. Not whether any part of the attacker's body is a fraction AHEAD of the last defender, but whether any part of the attacker's body is a fraction BEHIND the last defender (i.e. if they still used those silly lines, the same problems would still exist, the reference points on the players would just be different.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 24, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Although, even if it was changed to that, the same arguments will still exist. Not whether any part of the attacker's body is a fraction AHEAD of the last defender, but whether any part of the attacker's body is a fraction BEHIND the last defender (i.e. if they still used those silly lines, the same problems would still exist, the reference points on the players would just be different.
		
Click to expand...

No, I don't follow. I'm basically saying you shouldn't treat their limbs as individual entities, just their body as a whole. An official should be able to look at a replay of an offside call and make a judgement on whether the player is gaining an advantage by being ahead of the defence when the ball is played. EXACTLY as they were expected to do in real time before VAR came along, all this means is they get another look at it if they weren't certain. 

The part they've change _for_ VAR, i.e. the 'any part is ahead' etc, is exactly the bit of the ruling they need to change back. VAR was supposed to help officials, not replace them, so there was no need to change the law to making it more clinical. Total balls-up from the FA.


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 24, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			No, I don't follow. I'm basically saying you shouldn't treat their limbs as individual entities, just their body as a whole. An official should be able to look at a replay of an offside call and make a judgement on whether the player is gaining an advantage by being ahead of the defence when the ball is played. EXACTLY as they were expected to do in real time before VAR came along, all this means is they get another look at it if they weren't certain.

The part they've change _for_ VAR, i.e. the 'any part is ahead' etc, is exactly the bit of the ruling they need to change back. VAR was supposed to help officials, not replace them, so there was no need to change the law to making it more clinical. Total balls-up from the FA.
		
Click to expand...

What I am saying, you are only changing the reference points on the players bodies when judging to be offside. So, you'll just draw these lines on different parts of their bodies, and then see if these indicate if they were offside. So, a line will still be shown to be a mm offside or onside at times when making these decisions anyway.

You could keep the offside rule as it is, but it can only be over-turned by VAR if the entire body is offside (i.e. there is a significant error in the original decision). But, this will still draw complaints, as it could still be offside, but not at such a tolerance where it could be over-turned.

This is why, I think it is simply better to get rid of the lines entirely, and make the decision by eye. But, I think offside will always be tough, because if you do it by eye, if the VAR can't determine it is offside by eye, you can bet your bottom dollar that the players, manager and fans of the team that where at the wrong end of the call would say it was clearly offside.


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 24, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			What I am saying, you are only changing the reference points on the players bodies when judging to be offside. *So, you'll just draw these lines on different parts of their bodies*, and then see if these indicate if they were offside. So, a line will still be shown to be a mm offside or onside at times when making these decisions anyway.

You could keep the offside rule as it is, but it can only be over-turned by VAR if the entire body is offside (i.e. there is a significant error in the original decision). But, this will still draw complaints, as it could still be offside, but not at such a tolerance where it could be over-turned.

This is why, I think it is simply better to get rid of the lines entirely, and make the decision by eye. But, I think offside will always be tough, because if you do it by eye, if the VAR can't determine it is offside by eye, you can bet your bottom dollar that the players, manager and fans of the team that where at the wrong end of the call would say it was clearly offside.
		
Click to expand...

No I'm not drawing lines anywhere, forget the lines, get rid of them. Why do you need lines to see if one person is ahead of another one? A linesman in real time doesn't have digital lines. 

Start of your last paragraph is exactly what I said. The VAR just lets the ref have a look at it from the same perspective as the linesman and he makes a judgement call. You will never have a football that exists without occasional wrong decisions, everything is subjective even with TV replays.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 24, 2020)

Just another one to chuck into the VAR discussion.

Hypothetically, at the end of the season there are changes to VAR. How are we to expect that the rules that are changed / tweaked will actually be carried out as per the letter of the new law. At the moment, some of them are not. Part of the problem is not just VAR, but the people at Stockley and referees. So how can we expect that these changes will be adhered to.
Will we be having these same discussions next year. 🤔


----------



## Swango1980 (Feb 24, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			Just another one to chuck into the VAR discussion.

Hypothetically, at the end of the season there are changes to VAR. How are we to expect that the rules that are changed / tweaked will actually be carried out as per the letter of the new law. At the moment, some of them are not. Part of the problem is not just VAR, but the people at Stockley and referees. So how can we expect that these changes will be adhered to.
Will we be having these same discussions next year. 🤔
		
Click to expand...

We probably will, as I have very little confidence in the leadership of the officials. I reckon they'll be pig headed enough not to implement some of the obvious suggestions, in case it looks like they are admitting that they got it wrong, and the fans got it right.

I wonder what they'll do to this handball law. It is crazy. A handball will never been given by an on field referee if there is the slightest of accidental touches. Play will continue, and in 95% of occasions, that will be that. Play will break up, but in some cases the attacking team may get a penalty or corner, and score from this. All of which will stand. BUT, if they actually score as part of the attack, suddenly VAR simply rules out the goal. It is crazy. Basically, it means that it is beneficial for the attacking team NOT to score, but to try and win a corner or penalty instead. How the top officials never saw how ridiculous this law is is beyond me.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 24, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			Just another one to chuck into the VAR discussion.

Hypothetically, at the end of the season there are changes to VAR. How are we to expect that the rules that are changed / tweaked will actually be carried out as per the letter of the new law. At the moment, some of them are not. Part of the problem is not just VAR, but the people at Stockley and referees. So how can we expect that these changes will be adhered to.
Will we be having these same discussions next year. 🤔
		
Click to expand...

Laws of the Game can only be changed by the IFAB with a 3/4 majority, I’d be shocked if any laws are changed because the PL has an issue.
VAR has been better on the continent were its use is ahead of us.
I’d suggest all the problems with VAR is the Officials.


----------



## Old Colner (Feb 24, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			Just another one to chuck into the VAR discussion.


Will we be having these same discussions next year. 🤔
		
Click to expand...

Probably


----------



## Old Colner (Feb 24, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			I’d suggest all the problems with VAR is the Officials.
		
Click to expand...

I personally think most officials are sitting back on many decisions and letting VAR sort it out.

I was at the Burnley game on Saturday, the two handball decisions given against Bournemouth are still being argued over on a Clarets message board I frequent (I think they were both correctly given according to the present rules of the game).
There was actually another handball not given or shown in the BBC highlights which I thought as definitely a pen but not given and I don't think VAR even looked at it.


----------



## Piece (Feb 24, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Laws of the Game can only be changed by the IFAB with a 3/4 majority, I’d be shocked if any laws are changed because the PL has an issue.
VAR has been better on the continent were its use is ahead of us.
*I’d suggest all the problems with VAR is the Officials*.
		
Click to expand...

I've agreed with you on VAR, but not this one. We are ALL part of the VAR issue, not just the officials. And I mean, the fans, the managers, Sky money, the players, pundits, etc. 

If you have subjective decisions then it's impossible to get agreement across all parties. Heaven knows, we've all seen this on this thread!


----------



## Orikoru (Feb 24, 2020)

Scrap Stockley Park. VAR should only be about letting the referee have another view of incidents. Not taking the word of someone who's not even there as gospel.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 24, 2020)

Piece said:



			I've agreed with you on VAR, but not this one. We are ALL part of the VAR issue, not just the officials. And I mean, the fans, the managers, Sky money, the players, pundits, etc.

If you have subjective decisions then it's impossible to get agreement across all parties. Heaven knows, we've all seen this on this thread! 

Click to expand...

I mean from the point of view of the decision making process.


----------



## doublebogey7 (Feb 24, 2020)

The whole VAR debate will continue until fans accept that subjective decisions will always be subject to inconsistencies or FIFA take all subjectivity out of the rules. 

Was never in favour of it in the first place,  partly because I like the vagaries of the human aspect of the referee and I was and remain concerned that it would take away from the live experience.


----------



## Piece (Feb 24, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			I mean from the point of view of the decision making process.

Click to expand...

Oh sorry...


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 1, 2020)

So ManchestVAR United save a point at Goodison.  Absolute joke of a decision.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 1, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			So ManchestVAR United save a point at Goodison.  Absolute joke of a decision.
		
Click to expand...

He had to move out of the way of the ball. That’s being active. I know you’re angry at VAR right now but you’ve got that one dead wrong.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 1, 2020)

So, why not do VAR like X factor? 

Show the incident then we all vote for our flavoured outcome  - well  it's all silly enough as it is!


----------



## Papas1982 (Mar 1, 2020)

Kellfire said:



			He had to move out of the way of the ball. That’s being active. I know you’re angry at VAR right now but you’ve got that one dead wrong.
		
Click to expand...

lots of players walk back onside and move from a ball in the build up and aren’t deemed active. 
Imo De Gea isn’t saving that, not matter whether he’s there or not. 

I can see why its disallowed, if decision would have had support.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 1, 2020)

🤬🤬🤬


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 1, 2020)

Kellfire said:



			He had to move out of the way of the ball. That’s being active. I know you’re angry at VAR right now but you’ve got that one dead wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Would that be the ball played towards him by Maguire, the Manchester United player.  The Manchester United player who completely wrong footed his own keeper by the deflection.   The keeper who despite apparently not being able to see the ball watches it all the way into his net.  You think I've got it wrong despite the Manchester United player playing it towards him?  Take your red glasses off.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 1, 2020)

It was very very fortunate -Man Utd got away with that , can see why they disallowed out but can anyone really say De Gea was interfered by Sigurdsson? Nope he was diving to stop the shot he saw all the way and was wrong footed by the deflection.


----------



## Fish (Mar 1, 2020)

I couldn’t really care less, although an Everton win would be slightly better for us, but the fact is the offside rule states Sigurdsson wasn’t offside.

He doesn’t play the ball. He isn’t obstructing De Gea’s line of sight. He doesn’t stop De Gea from playing the ball.

Opinions don’t matter when no rules were broken!

In these situations everyone talks about grey areas, opinions, open to interpretation etc etc. The rules are the authority and none were broken!

This is exactly why the standard of refereeing in this country is so poor. They all just make it up as they go along each week.

This wasn’t the only awful decision today, by the way. At one point the referee gave a handball and a yellow card because the ball touched Fred’s knee.

That’s the level of officiating we have to put up with, its Pathetic.

(Copied)


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 1, 2020)

Fish said:



			I couldn’t really care less, although an Everton win would be slightly better for us, but the fact is the offside rule states Sigurdsson wasn’t offside.

He doesn’t play the ball. He isn’t obstructing De Gea’s line of sight. He doesn’t stop De Gea from playing the ball.

Opinions don’t matter when no rules were broken!

In these situations everyone talks about grey areas, opinions, open to interpretation etc etc. The rules are the authority and none were broken!

This is exactly why the standard of refereeing in this country is so poor. They all just make it up as they go along each week.

This wasn’t the only awful decision today, by the way. At one point the referee gave a handball and a yellow card because the ball touched Fred’s knee.

That’s the level of officiating we have to put up with, its Pathetic.

(Copied)
		
Click to expand...

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

“
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision “

That’s the line in the law - “clearly” obstructing- was De Gea “clearly” obstructed- can’t see how he was when he was diving for the ball in line with the ball just before it was then deflected.

The officials will be able to get away with by saying he was in line of the ball and the GK when it got deflection


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 1, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Would that be the ball played towards him by Maguire, the Manchester United player.  The Manchester United player who completely wrong footed his own keeper by the deflection.   The keeper who despite apparently not being able to see the ball watches it all the way into his net.  You think I've got it wrong despite the Manchester United player playing it towards him?  Take your red glasses off.
		
Click to expand...

I’m not wearing red glasses. Stop playing that default card to explain away a clear offside when all things are seen.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 1, 2020)

Kellfire said:



			I’m not wearing red glasses. Stop playing that default card to explain away a clear offside when all things are seen.
		
Click to expand...

So why wasn’t it given by the Ref or Linesman?


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 1, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			So why wasn’t it given by the Ref or Linesman?
		
Click to expand...

Because they didn’t have the views VAR did. “All things are seen” was in my post. 

If Everton want to complain about anything it’s the fact that they should’ve had a penalty for AWB cleaning Sigurdsson out. That’s why he was on the ground in the first place.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 1, 2020)

Kellfire said:



			Because they didn’t have the views VAR did. “All things are seen” was in my post.

If Everton want to complain about anything it’s the fact that they should’ve had a penalty for AWB cleaning Sigurdsson out. That’s why he was on the ground in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

Here’s the statement:
Refereeing body Premier League Game Match Officials Limited said in a statement: "The on-field decision was to award the goal, but the VAR advised the referee that Sigurdsson was in an offside position directly in the line of vision of David de Gea and made an obvious action that impacted de Gea's ability to make a save."

De Gea had full view of the ball and was moving to save save the shot, he was then wrong footed by the deflection.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 1, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Here’s the statement:
Refereeing body Premier League Game Match Officials Limited said in a statement: "The on-field decision was to award the goal, but the VAR advised the referee that Sigurdsson was in an offside position directly in the line of vision of David de Gea and made an obvious action that impacted de Gea's ability to make a save."

De Gea had full view of the ball and was moving to save save the shot, he was then wrong footed by the deflection.

View attachment 29279

Click to expand...

Yea exactly. He can’t assume that Sigurdsson won’t have an impact on the play that’s about to unfold. He’s interfering by being in DDG’s eyeline and he even has to move to get out of the way. Offside. Glad we agree.


----------



## rosecott (Mar 1, 2020)

You can see quite clearly that Sigurdsson is in an offside position as the ball is about to be struck so he must be considered to be offside. What happens after the ball is struck is irrelevant and doesn't change that.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 1, 2020)

rosecott said:



			You can see quite clearly that Sigurdsson is in an offside position as the ball is about to be struck so he must be considered to be offside. What happens after the ball is struck is irrelevant and doesn't change that.
		
Click to expand...

You can be in an offside position and not interfering with play. The Everton argument is that Sigurdsson has no impact on what happens, DeGea can see clearly and he is going in the other direction anyway. So yes, he is offside but no he does not interfere with play.

Unfortunately for Everton Fergie was standing over the officials at Stockley Park and the goal was overturned.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 1, 2020)

Lord Tyrion said:



			You can be in an offside position and not interfering with play. The Everton argument is that Sigurdsson has no impact on what happens, DeGea can see clearly and he is going in the other direction anyway. So yes, he is offside but *no he does not interfere with play.
*
Unfortunately for Everton Fergie was standing over the officials at Stockley Park and the goal was overturned.
		
Click to expand...


Letter of the law you could say he is 


“ being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision “


He was in the line of vision


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 1, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Letter of the law you could say he is 


“ being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision “


He was in the line of vision
		
Click to expand...

Was he "obstructing " the line of vision? I'd argue not, De Gea can see quite clearly that he's stuffed and wrong footed.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 1, 2020)

Kellfire said:



			Yea exactly. He can’t assume that Sigurdsson won’t have an impact on the play that’s about to unfold. He’s interfering by being in DDG’s eyeline and he even has to move to get out of the way. Offside. Glad we agree.
		
Click to expand...

What obvious action did Sigurdsson make which affect De Gea?

Why didn’t the lino put his flag up?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 1, 2020)

rosecott said:



			You can see quite clearly that Sigurdsson is in an offside position as the ball is about to be struck so he must be considered to be offside. What happens after the ball is struck is irrelevant and doesn't change that.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Jim, that’s not correct as per the Offside Law.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 1, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			What obvious action did Sigurdsson make which affect De Gea?

Why didn’t the lino put his flag up?
		
Click to expand...

 Because they’re are told not to when they aren’t sure and to let VAR rule definitely if or when a goal is scored.


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 1, 2020)

rosecott said:



			You can see quite clearly that Sigurdsson is in an offside position as the ball is about to be struck so he must be considered to be offside. What happens after the ball is struck is irrelevant and doesn't change that.
		
Click to expand...

But Jim the exact opposite happened for Man City earlier this year when KDB scored. David Silva claimed he had touched the ball and wanted the goal. The goal was awarded to KDB to Silvas disgust. But, if Silva had been awarded the goal VAR would of cancelled the goal as Stirling was in an offside position and deemed to be interfering with play In a sense of unsighting the keeper.

If you then Look at this disallowed goal today, the question is “ is he interfering with play”. If he had not moved his legs and it had hit him then he is deffo interfering with play. The fact he moved his legs he knew he was offside and did everything to get out of the way. So was he interfering with play. De Gea saw the ball all the way and was committed to the save, Maguires deflection took it the other way and wrong footed De Gea who watched it all the way in. If Sigurdsson was not there, the ball would of still gone in the net.

For me Everton have been hard done to.

Which then leaves us once more with the question of VAR. It has done its job,  but the same referees that were ballsing it up last season still continue to balls it up this season.
Ironically after the City game when KDB was awarded the goal, 30 minutes later when the game was still being played the goals committee awarded the goal to Silva. If that had of been the case during the actual scoring of the goal, VAR cancels the goal.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 1, 2020)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Was he "obstructing " the line of vision? I'd argue not, De Gea can see quite clearly that he's stuffed and wrong footed.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, you could argue any opposing player anywhere in the box would be in a Goalies vision, I’d also agree if Sigurdsson had been on his feet blocking De Gea’s view.

De Gea is 6ft 3 or 4 and Sigurdsson is lying down, De Gea clearly can see the ball.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 1, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			What obvious action did Sigurdsson make which affect De Gea?

Why didn’t the lino put his flag up?
		
Click to expand...


The linesman wouldn’t put the flag up because he can’t tell if the player is interfering with play - he can see the player is in an offside position but was clearly speaking to the ref and both letting VAR deal with it - in fact the linesman did what you want them to do. 

It’s a very hard call and one that if it goes for you it’s the right one and against you it’s all wrong.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 1, 2020)

Genuine question as I’m unsure after today:

If DCL shot had not hit McGuire and gone in the net, would the goal have stood or would it of been disallowed due to Sigurdsson’s position?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 1, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The linesman wouldn’t put the flag up because he can’t tell if the player is interfering with play - he can see the player is in an offside position but was clearly speaking to the ref and both letting VAR deal with it - in fact the linesman did what you want them to do.

It’s a very hard call and one that if it goes for you it’s the right one and against you it’s all wrong.
		
Click to expand...

The FA statement clearly states the on field decision was a goal and VAR overturned, therefore the Lino had no reason to raise his flag.
Normally if the Lino thinks it’s offside he should let the play develop, ie goal scored and then flag, so from his position there was nothing wrong, he wasn’t waiting for anything.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 1, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			The FA statement clearly states the on field decision was a goal and VAR overturned, therefore the Lino had no reason to raise his flag.
Normally if the Lino thinks it’s offside he should let the play develop, ie goal scored and then flag, so from his position there was nothing wrong, he wasn’t waiting for anything.
		
Click to expand...


As stated - the linesman from his angle cannot tell if the player is interfering or not - so both officials thought it was a goal , VAR checked and the official in VAR decided from the replays that he thought Sigurdssons position and potential movement by getting out of the way interfered with the play and in the vision of the keeper - by that letter of the law it’s hard to argue against.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 1, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			The FA statement clearly states the on field decision was a goal and VAR overturned, therefore the Lino had no reason to raise his flag.
Normally if the Lino thinks it’s offside he should let the play develop, ie goal scored and then flag, so from his position there was nothing wrong, he wasn’t waiting for anything.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder if the linesman was talking to the ref, told him he was offside but couldn't say if he was interfering. Refs replies no he isn't, goal stands. No need to raise his flag as the ball was dead and all communications were via the head sets. VAR then steps in.

I don't know this but it seems reasonable.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Mar 1, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Genuine question as I’m unsure after today:

If DCL shot had not hit McGuire and gone in the net, would the goal have stood or would it of been disallowed due to Sigurdsson’s position?
		
Click to expand...

Who knows, the refs are so poor that you can’t tell any more.
But to be offside I thought you have to make an attempt to play the ball.
But if in the keepers eyeline you are off , clearly neither and another posh poor decision depending on your allegiance of course.
But does show how people think the rule applies.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 1, 2020)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I wonder if the linesman was talking to the ref, told him he was offside but couldn't say if he was interfering. Refs replies no he isn't, goal stands. No need to raise his flag as the ball was dead and all communications were via the head sets. VAR then steps in.

I don't know this but it seems reasonable.
		
Click to expand...

I’ve no doubt if he’d of been stood up or even on his knees and if no deflection it wouldn’t of been discussed, De Gea, imo, knew that and that’s why he appealed.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 1, 2020)

I still think VAR is good for the game and will improve year on year.

There’ll still be decisions I/We don’t agree with, but that’ll be down to interpretations of the Laws by officials rather than VAR itself.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 1, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Letter of the law you could say he is


“ being able to play the ball by *clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision* “


He was in the line of vision
		
Click to expand...

If he's clearly obstructing De Gea's vision Phil, why does De Gea move to his right to cover the shot; if his vision is obstructed he can't see the shot so he can't move to cover it.

Is anyone seriously telling me that if that ball had gone the other side of the post Everton wouldn't have been given a corner?


----------



## pauljames87 (Mar 1, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			If he's clearly obstructing De Gea's vision Phil, why does De Gea move to his right to cover the shot; if his vision is obstructed he can't see the shot so he can't move to cover it.

Is anyone seriously telling me that if that ball had gone the other side of the post Everton wouldn't have been given a corner?
		
Click to expand...

The only thing about this last statement is 
They would 100% be given the corner because VAR doesn't get involved in decisions on corners etc (shown in the city game etc)


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 1, 2020)

Apparently the philosophy of VAR is "minimum interference, maximum benefit". So far it's proved to be maximum interference, minimum benefit.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 1, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Apparently the philosophy of VAR is "minimum interference, maximum benefit". So far it's proved to be maximum interference, minimum benefit. 

Click to expand...

In your opinion but the stats show it’s increasing correct decisions - you clearly have a bee in your bonnet because you think Chelsea are being unfairly targeted.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 1, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			If he's clearly obstructing De Gea's vision Phil, why does De Gea move to his right to cover the shot; if his vision is obstructed he can't see the shot so he can't move to cover it.

Is anyone seriously telling me that if that ball had gone the other side of the post Everton wouldn't have been given a corner?
		
Click to expand...


Heard on the radio someone was saying that Sigurdsson became “interfering” because the ball deflected towards him and he was inbetween the GK and the ball hence him moving - the initial shot he wasn’t interfering ( because he wasn’t in the line )


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 1, 2020)

Kellfire said:



			In your opinion but the stats show it’s increasing correct decisions - you clearly have a bee in your bonnet because you think Chelsea are being unfairly targeted.
		
Click to expand...

Funny that, if I mention red glasses you tell me not to use the default position, then tell me the only reason I'm bothered about it is because it adversely affects Chelsea; is that not the same default position you told me not to use?   

My issue with it is the complete & utter inconsistency.  The nearest thing to two identical circumstances that I've seen are the Son red card for the assault on Rudiger, and the Maguire non red card for the assault on Batshuayi.  Yet VAR, which is to supposed to sort out these inconsistencies, introduces one comes to two completely different decisions.  Even Gary Neville, whose glasses are even redder than yours, says Maguire should have gone. 

It is apparently supposed to be used for incidents of serious foul play, but does not seem to be consistently be applied to these; if it is, the in the stadium are not being informed.

The system is not technically good enough to be able to judge down to an inch or two, yet it is consistently used to disallow goals for offside on that margin.

There are incidents it could be used for but isn't.

The only incident that I can immediately remember VAR correctly changing was Gazzanega's foul on Alonso.  Unfortunately that's less a success of VAR than an indictment on the dreadful standard of refereeing that awarded the foul against Alonso in the first place

The system, which I hoped would cut down on cheating & professional fouling, has failed miserably and that is why I don't like it.  Because it's an utter pig's ear.  The crowning glory of which was the incident where VAR says no dangerous play, no red card against Lo Celso then says actually it was but then tells us it can't retrospectively ban him because it has already been looked at.  It is supposed to correct screw ups, but when it screws up, it can't then correct it. 

I've got far more respect for the European version where the referee goes to the screen & then makes a decision.  Chelsea fell foul of that last week but I don't have an issue with it.  Unfortunately that doesn't help your theory, does it.

Goodnight.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 1, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Heard on the radio someone was saying that Sigurdsson became “interfering” because the ball deflected towards him and he was inbetween the GK and the ball hence him moving - the initial shot he wasn’t interfering ( because he wasn’t in the line )
		
Click to expand...

So as the ball was deflected by Maguire how is he then offside?  If the shot had deflected off another Everton player I get that the subsequent interference is caused by the attacking team so the office is complete, but it's not the same when the ball is played by the defending team.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 1, 2020)

pauljames87 said:



			The only thing about this last statement is
They would 100% be given the corner because VAR doesn't get involved in decisions on corners etc (shown in the city game etc)
		
Click to expand...

And a clean goal is then scored from the corner.  Sigurdsson is as offside in either scenario, but one counts & one doesn't.  

VAR is a mess & needs sorting or binning.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 1, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Funny that, if I mention red glasses you tell me not to use the default position, then tell me the only reason I'm bothered about it is because it adversely affects Chelsea; is that not the same default position you told me not to use?  

My issue with it is the complete & utter inconsistency.  The nearest thing to two identical circumstances that I've seen are the Son red card for the assault on Rudiger, and the Maguire non red card for the assault on Batshuayi.  Yet VAR, which is to supposed to sort out these inconsistencies, introduces one comes to two completely different decisions.  Even Gary Neville, whose glasses are even redder than yours, says Maguire should have gone.

It is apparently supposed to be used for incidents of serious foul play, but does not seem to be consistently be applied to these; if it is, the in the stadium are not being informed.

The system is not technically good enough to be able to judge down to an inch or two, yet it is consistently used to disallow goals for offside on that margin.

There are incidents it could be used for but isn't.

The only incident that I can immediately remember VAR correctly changing was Gazzanega's foul on Alonso.  Unfortunately that's less a success of VAR than an indictment on the dreadful standard of refereeing that awarded the foul against Alonso in the first place

The system, which I hoped would cut down on cheating & professional fouling, has failed miserably and that is why I don't like it.  Because it's an utter pig's ear.  The crowning glory of which was the incident where VAR says no dangerous play, no red card against Lo Celso then says actually it was but then tells us it can't retrospectively ban him because it has already been looked at.  It is supposed to correct screw ups, but when it screws up, it can't then correct it.

I've got far more respect for the European version where the referee goes to the screen & then makes a decision.  Chelsea fell foul of that last week but I don't have an issue with it.  Unfortunately that doesn't help your theory, does it.

Goodnight.
		
Click to expand...

That’s a lot of words for “Evidence shows I’m angry because it’s worked against my team”.


----------



## 2blue (Mar 1, 2020)

I must say that when I saw it I called it as interfering as he was in the path of the ball & withdrew his legs for it to pass. As a neutral I thought they'd got it right.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 1, 2020)

2blue said:



			I must say that when I saw it I called it as interfering as he was in the path of the ball & withdrew his legs for it to pass. As a neutral I thought they'd got it right.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is, he’s given offside for the shot, not the deflection.

Withdrawing his legs was to ensure he was not becoming active.

How many times over the years have you seen a player in an offside position deliberately leave a ball for a team mate or get out the way because he know’s he’s in an offside position? 

Saying he’s in the keeper’s eye line when flat on the floor is the issue for me.


----------



## User62651 (Mar 2, 2020)

Rather than VAR maybe they should take the offside rule back to how it used to be - if any player of the attacking team is in an offside position (interfering or not) it's offside. Means players have to make a big effort to get back onside and their team needs to wait for them to get onside instead of them hanging about way up the pitch looking disinterested then suddenly getting involved in a 2nd phase of an attack.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			The problem is, he’s given offside for the shot, not the deflection.

Withdrawing his legs was to ensure he was not becoming active.

How many times over the years have you seen a player in an offside position deliberately leave a ball for a team mate or get out the way because he know’s he’s in an offside position?

Saying he’s in the keeper’s eye line when flat on the floor is the issue for me.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
One I don’t like is when a player is miles offside but no flag until he goes to play the ball .
So a defender can’t be sure and can pull a hamstring trying to get back .
Or one of them gets injured in an unnecessary tackle then the Lino puts the flag up.
Or forces the defender to concede a corner/ throw in and they get the decision.
The offside rule is as bad as the handball rule.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 2, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Letter of the law you could say he is


“ being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision “


He was in the line of vision
		
Click to expand...

If we are to be pedantic - and by goodness there seems to be a load of pedantry around VAR - by definition 'line of vision' is quite different from 'field of view'.  Indeed there may not be a 'line of vision' in a person's 'field of view'.  Sigurdsson was 100% in de Gea's FOV, but 100% NOT in his LoV.


----------



## Orikoru (Mar 2, 2020)

As a neutral here I think offside is the correct call. Sigurdsson is lying between the shot-taker and the goalkeeper, and has made no effort to get himself back onside - he lies there for quite a few seconds. Despite the fact De Gea was beaten by a deflection, Sigurdsson's presence there still could have affected his decision-making, and thus he can be deemed to be interfering with play in an offside position. It's unlucky for Calvert-Lewin and Everton, but I think it's the right call - and fingers must be pointed at Sigurdsson for sitting around in the middle of the box instead of getting himself onside and out of the way. He's cost his team the winner there.


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 2, 2020)

Agree with Orikoru. Calling Sigurdsson as offside yesterday was absolutely correct. He was directly in line with the ball being struck and De Gea. Although you could argue De Gea could see the ball, it is also obvious that he can see Sigurdsson on the ground directly in front of him. That could influence De Gea's movement, (and potentially make it more difficult to track the ball as he is peering over the player). As Sigurdsson lies on the ground at his near post, any shot that is hit in that direction would very likely to be blocked by Sigurdsson himself. So, De Gea moves across to the right to start covering other side of the goal, as that is the most vulnerable part of his goal. Then the deflection moves ball straight at Sigurdsson, who has to move out of the way for the ball to go in. Had Sigurdsson not been there at all, the movement of De Gea may very well have been different.

So, to simply say Sigurdsson could have no impact on De Gea's decision making, simply because he could probably see the ball, is a stretch too far. The fact that De Gea claimed immediately and adamantly could even indicate that Sigurdsson was quite a significant factor in his head at that point. Maybe had he not claimed at all, or only half heartedly, would have indicated that Sigurdsson wasn't in his head, and it was only really clutching at straws.

But of course, I guess some people's opinion is anything but objective at times.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			As a neutral here I think offside is the correct call. Sigurdsson is *lying* between the shot-taker and the goalkeeper, and has made no effort to get himself back onside - he lies there for quite a few seconds. Despite the fact De Gea was beaten by a deflection, Sigurdsson's presence there still *could* have affected his decision-making, and thus he can be deemed to be interfering with play in an offside position. It's unlucky for Calvert-Lewin and Everton, but I think it's the right call - and fingers must be pointed at Sigurdsson for sitting around in the middle of the box instead of getting himself onside and out of the way. He's cost his team the winner there.
		
Click to expand...

4 seconds between Sigurdsson being wiped out by Wan-Bisakke and DCL’s shot, even your explanation has doubt. So not clear and obvious.

DeGea had no doubt as he attempted to save the shot, obviously wasn’t put off by Sigurdsson.

If Sigurdsson had jumped to his feet and moved back to the centre he would of gone in front of De Gea and definitely interfered! Lying on the floor he was not active, blaming Sigurdsson is ridiculous.

Question to yourself as very few have answered it.

The decision was given when DCL shot, not the deflection or Sigurdsson moving his legs. Can you honestly say Sigurdsson was blocking De Gea’s view?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Agree with Orikoru. Calling Sigurdsson as offside yesterday was absolutely correct. He was directly in line with the ball being struck and De Gea. Although you could argue De Gea could see the ball, it is also obvious that he can see Sigurdsson on the ground directly in front of him. That could influence De Gea's movement, (and potentially make it more difficult to track the ball as he is peering over the player). As Sigurdsson lies on the ground at his near post, any shot that is hit in that direction would very likely to be blocked by Sigurdsson himself. So, De Gea moves across to the right to start covering other side of the goal, as that is the most vulnerable part of his goal. Then the deflection moves ball straight at Sigurdsson, who has to move out of the way for the ball to go in. Had Sigurdsson not been there at all, the movement of De Gea may very well have been different.

So, to simply say Sigurdsson could have no impact on De Gea's decision making, simply because he could probably see the ball, is a stretch too far. The fact that De Gea claimed immediately and adamantly could even indicate that Sigurdsson was quite a significant factor in his head at that point. Maybe had he not claimed at all, or only half heartedly, would have indicated that Sigurdsson wasn't in his head, and it was only really clutching at straws.

But of course, I guess some people's opinion is anything but objective at times.
		
Click to expand...



Can you be anymore condescending?
You’re a Man Utd fan who agrees with the decision and then have the laugh to put “ I guess some people's opinion is anything but objective at times.”

You need to look in the mirror.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			The fact that De Gea claimed immediately and adamantly could even indicate that Sigurdsson was quite a significant factor in his head at that point.
		
Click to expand...

For that to be correct needs a degree of honesty from footballers. Players look to con the ref constantly, keepers particularly. Our own Jordan Pickford has made some hashes this year and then runs to the ref claiming an arm on him at a corner, a mystery block or foul. It is what they do to try to fool the ref. In this and other instances the VAR should be above that as they do not have the keeper in their ear pleading for the goal to be taken away.

This is a subjective one that is not going to get universal approval. Obviously, my decision is the correct one though


----------



## Orikoru (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			4 seconds between Sigurdsson being wiped out by Wan-Bisakke and DCL’s shot, even your explanation has doubt. So not clear and obvious.

DeGea had no doubt as he attempted to save the shot, obviously wasn’t put off by Sigurdsson.

If Sigurdsson had jumped to his feet and moved back to the centre he would of gone in front of De Gea and definitely interfered! Lying on the floor he was not active, blaming Sigurdsson is ridiculous.

Question to yourself as very few have answered it.

The decision was given when DCL shot, not the deflection or Sigurdsson moving his legs. Can you honestly say Sigurdsson was blocking De Gea’s view?
		
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to be blocking his view to affect his decision-making. I think Swango made a good point that De Gea would assume any low straight shot hits Sigurdsson and therefore doesn't go in. But even without trying to guess what De Gea was thinking, Sigurdsson is between him and the shot-taker, and he definitely would have considered him in some way, therefore I think he's interfering with play. I mean the ball very nearly hit him.

Was Clough that said "if he's not interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch"?


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Mar 2, 2020)

Opinions on VAR by a fan or manager can be summed up by "did it benefit or impede my team?"


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			He doesn't have to be blocking his view to affect his decision-making. I think Swango made a good point that De Gea would assume any low straight shot hits Sigurdsson and therefore doesn't go in. But even without trying to guess what De Gea was thinking, Sigurdsson is between him and the shot-taker, and he definitely would have considered him in some way, therefore I think he's interfering with play. I mean the ball very nearly hit him.

Was Clough that said "if he's not interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch"? 

Click to expand...

Doesn’t answer the question, you know full well attackers can be in an offside position and be deemed not interfering with play.

De Gea reacted to the shot going to the far side, absolutely everyone has agreed that!


----------



## Orikoru (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Doesn’t answer the question, *you know full well attackers can be in an offside position and be deemed not interfering with play.*

De Gea reacted to the shot going to the far side, absolutely everyone has agreed that!
		
Click to expand...

Yeah if they're well out of the way, not directly in between the guy shooting and the goal! I think you're just clutching at straws here and not for the first time. It wasn't a stonewall decision by any means, but surely it's at least acceptable that he could be deemed as interfering with play when he's directly between the ball and the goal and even has to shift his legs at the last second to avoid it hitting him? I don't really have any more to say on it, I just gave my opinion on it as a neutral that's all. I'm not going to argue the toss since it doesn't affect me at all.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			4 seconds between Sigurdsson being wiped out by Wan-Bisakke and DCL’s shot, even your explanation has doubt. So not clear and obvious.

DeGea had no doubt as he attempted to save the shot, obviously wasn’t put off by Sigurdsson.

If Sigurdsson had jumped to his feet and moved back to the centre he would of gone in front of De Gea and definitely interfered! Lying on the floor he was not active, blaming Sigurdsson is ridiculous.

Question to yourself as very few have answered it.

The decision was given when DCL shot, not the deflection or Sigurdsson moving his legs. Can you honestly say Sigurdsson was blocking De Gea’s view?
		
Click to expand...

He didn’t say he was blocking his view. Ugh. This is so ridiculous how people can’t see it’s so obviously offside.


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:





Can you be anymore condescending?
*You’re a Man Utd fan who agrees with the decision* and then have the laugh to put “ I guess some people's opinion is anything but objective at times.”

You need to look in the mirror. 

Click to expand...

Let me guess, you are NOT a Man Utd fan, who doesn't agree with the decision? Who do you support?

I will happily admit when a decision has gone Uniteds way, when it shouldn't have. I'm not the only one that thought it was offside. VAR thought it was offside. The Premier League (or whoever represents the referees), made a statement confirming why it was offside. The pundits on Sky agreed it was offside. The pundits on Match of the Day 2 agreed it was offside. Even Ancelotti, once the dust settled, was still obviously frustrated, but could see why that decision was made.

So, although individual sources can often get it wrong, there seems to be a lot of agreement between a range of sources that the decision was correct, most of who could be considered to have a neutral opinion.

Yet, you say that the only reason I agree with the decision is that I am a Man Utd fan. Well, does that mean I shouldn't be allowed an opinion on anything to do with Man Utd?

If this had happened against Liverpool, and the goal was given, Liverpool fans would be enranged. Same with Everton fans, Man City fans, Chelsea fans, Arsenal fans, etc. And, they'd have every right, because it WAS offside.

Maybe you're the one being condescending if you simply think others should agree with your opinion? Which, in my opinion, is wrong.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Let me guess, you are NOT a Man Utd fan, who doesn't agree with the decision? Who do you support?

I will happily admit when a decision has gone Uniteds way, when it shouldn't have. I'm not the only one that thought it was offside. VAR thought it was offside. The Premier League (or whoever represents the referees), made a statement confirming why it was offside. The pundits on Sky agreed it was offside. The pundits on Match of the Day 2 agreed it was offside. Even Ancelotti, once the dust settled, was still obviously frustrated, but could see why that decision was made.

So, although individual sources can often get it wrong, there seems to be a lot of agreement between a range of sources that the decision was correct, most of who could be considered to have a neutral opinion.

Yet, you say that the only reason I agree with the decision is that I am a Man Utd fan. Well, does that mean I shouldn't be allowed an opinion on anything to do with Man Utd?

If this had happened against Liverpool, and the goal was given, Liverpool fans would be enranged. Same with Everton fans, Man City fans, Chelsea fans, Arsenal fans, etc. And, they'd have every right, because it WAS offside.

Maybe you're the one being condescending if you simply think others should agree with your opinion? Which, in my opinion, is wrong.
		
Click to expand...

You’re going to struggle to get biased fans to agree with you.


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 2, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			So as the ball was deflected by Maguire how is he then offside?  If the shot had deflected off another Everton player I get that the subsequent interference is caused by the attacking team so the office is complete, but it's not the same when the ball is played by the defending team.
		
Click to expand...

I don't understand this quote.

What are you trying to say here? Are you saying that if a player is an offside position when a teammate plays the ball, but the ball is subsequently touched by an opposition player, you are no longer offside?

So, is your logic that, Sigurdsson was in an offside position when the Everton player kicked the ball. However, once it was deflected by Maguire, then he was not in an offside position, because the ball arrived to Sigurdsson from a player in the opposition?


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I don't understand this quote.

What are you trying to say here? Are you saying that if a player is an offside position when a teammate plays the ball, but the ball is subsequently touched by an opposition player, you are no longer offside?

So, is your logic that, Sigurdsson was in an offside position when the Everton player kicked the ball. However, once it was deflected by Maguire, then he was not in an offside position, because the ball arrived to Sigurdsson from a player in the opposition?
		
Click to expand...

He’s consistently showing both a lack of understanding of the offside rule and how VAR works. Don’t waste your time because you’ll just be met with more unwarranted aggression.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Let me guess, you are NOT a Man Utd fan, who doesn't agree with the decision? Who do you support?

I will happily admit when a decision has gone Uniteds way, when it shouldn't have. I'm not the only one that thought it was offside. VAR thought it was offside. The Premier League (or whoever represents the referees), made a statement confirming why it was offside. The pundits on Sky agreed it was offside. The pundits on Match of the Day 2 agreed it was offside. Even Ancelotti, once the dust settled, was still obviously frustrated, but could see why that decision was made.

So, although individual sources can often get it wrong, there seems to be a lot of agreement between a range of sources that the decision was correct, most of who could be considered to have a neutral opinion.

Yet, you say that the only reason I agree with the decision is that I am a Man Utd fan. Well, does that mean I shouldn't be allowed an opinion on anything to do with Man Utd?

If this had happened against Liverpool, and the goal was given, Liverpool fans would be enranged. Same with Everton fans, Man City fans, Chelsea fans, Arsenal fans, etc. And, they'd have every right, because it WAS offside.

Maybe you're the one being condescending if you simply think others should agree with your opinion? Which, in my opinion, is wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Look at your last paragraph in the post I replied too! I’m not the one trying to be holier than thou and debating the issue rather than having cheap, childish, snidey digs at other posters.

Of course I accept the decision, you have made up all sorts of reasons why it was ruled out, even what De Gea was thinking!

I’m also not interested what pundits have said, or maybe I should quote Rio Ferdinand or Howard Webb or the Officials on the pitch.

You’ve time and time again made excuses as to why it was not clear and obvious.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I don't understand this quote.

What are you trying to say here? Are you saying that if a player is an offside position when a teammate plays the ball, but the ball is subsequently touched by an opposition player, you are no longer offside?

So, is your logic that, Sigurdsson was in an offside position when the Everton player kicked the ball. However, once it was deflected by Maguire, then he was not in an offside position, because the ball arrived to Sigurdsson from a player in the opposition?
		
Click to expand...

You don’t understand it because you’re clueless!! And are still missing the point of yesterday’s decision🤔

Do you remember last season when Spurs got a decision v LPool after the ball deflected off Lovren? Despite the Spurs player being in an offside position.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Kellfire said:



			He’s consistently showing both a lack of understanding of the offside rule and how VAR works. Don’t waste your time because you’ll just be met with more unwarranted aggression.
		
Click to expand...

 It’s you who doesn’t understand the offside rule!


A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



 It’s you who doesn’t understand the offside rule!


A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.


Click to expand...

 Nope, it’s you who doesn’t. He’s offside the moment the shot is hit. He doesn’t then magically become onside again because it touches Maguire.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Kellfire said:



			Nope, it’s you who doesn’t. He’s offside the moment the shot is hit. He doesn’t then magically become onside again because it touches Maguire.
		
Click to expand...

Again you show your ignorance, yesterday VAR deemed him offside as interfering with De Gea’s line of sight.

If the ball had sailed over the bar and not hit Maguire the linesman still would of not flagged and VAR wouldn’t of got involved, but Sigurdsson and De Gea would of had the exact same roles.

Please try and open your eyes to more than yesterday.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Again you show your ignorance, yesterday VAR deemed him offside as interfering with De Gea’s line of sight.

If the ball had sailed over the bar and not hit Maguire the linesman still would of not flagged and VAR wouldn’t of got involved, but Sigurdsson and De Gea would of had the exact same roles.

Please try and open your eyes to more than yesterday.
		
Click to expand...

 Please, stop. It’s getting embarrassing now. Why can’t you just say you got it wrong and move on? Or just stop replying? Why the need to have the last word when you must know you’re wrong.


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Again you show your ignorance, yesterday VAR deemed him offside as interfering with De Gea’s line of sight.

If the ball had sailed over the bar and not hit Maguire the linesman still would of not flagged and VAR wouldn’t of got involved, but Sigurdsson and De Gea would of had the exact same roles.

Please try and open your eyes to more than yesterday.
		
Click to expand...

Paul

You have just embarrassed yourself here. Trying to have a debate when you clearly don't understand the offside rule to begin with. If the shot had gone straight over the bar, then the role of both De Gea and Sigurdsson would be completely irrelevant. However, if the ball ends up in the back of the nett, that assumption can no longer be applied.

What if a team mate played a ball through to a player who was offside, but the ball got a nick off a defender on the way through? You saying it should not be offside because it last came off the defender. CLEARLY, he would still be offside.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Again you show your ignorance, yesterday VAR deemed him offside as interfering with De Gea’s line of sight.

If the ball had sailed over the bar and not hit Maguire the linesman still would of not flagged and VAR wouldn’t of got involved, but Sigurdsson and De Gea would of had the exact same roles.

Please try and open your eyes to more than yesterday.
		
Click to expand...


I’m struggling with the point you are trying to make here ?

You already know why the linesman didn’t flag - he can’t see from his angle if he is interfering or not. 


Why would VAR need to get involved if the ball went sailing over the bar ?


Its been a big discussion on phones etc today mainly on talksport and all refs said it was down to interpretation and that all bar one ( Clattenburg) believed it to be the right call - lots of guests etc all seemed to think it was the right call with the odd saying it was wrong 

At the end of the day it was down to the VAR referee interpretation that Sigurdsson was interfering with play


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Paul

You have just embarrassed yourself here. Trying to have a debate when you clearly don't understand the offside rule to begin with. If the shot had gone straight over the bar, then the role of both De Gea and Sigurdsson would be completely irrelevant. However, if the ball ends up in the back of the nett, that assumption can no longer be applied.

What if a team mate played a ball through to a player who was offside, but the ball got a nick off a defender on the way through? You saying it should not be offside because it last came off the defender. *CLEARLY*, he would still be offside.
		
Click to expand...

Can a LPool or Spurs fan explain the Lovren incident at Anfield last year please.

Found it:
https://www.espn.com/soccer/blog/es...tottenham-have-had-two-penalties-at-liverpool

Await your apology.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I’m struggling with the point you are trying to make here ?

You already know why the linesman didn’t flag - he can’t see from his angle if he is interfering or not.


Why would VAR need to get involved if the ball went sailing over the bar ?


Its been a big discussion on phones etc today mainly on talksport and all refs said it was down to interpretation and that all bar one ( Clattenburg) believed it to be the right call - lots of guests etc all seemed to think it was the right call with the odd saying it was wrong

At the end of the day it was down to the VAR referee interpretation that Sigurdsson was interfering with play
		
Click to expand...

I’ve said and clarified the offside is based on the moment Calvert-Lewin struck the ball. End of story for the decision.

People bringing Maguire and Sigurdsson’s position after the deflection is irrelevant, therefore I’m trying to clarify/ask why it keeps getting brought into the discussion.

The offside law didn’t change yesterday, so I can’t see the relevance.


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 2, 2020)

Soooo, was Sigurdson (spelling 😁) offside when the initial shot was taken? Before the deflection I mean.


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			I’ve said and clarified the offside is based on the moment Calvert-Lewin struck the ball. End of story for the decision.

People bringing Maguire and Sigurdsson’s position after the deflection is irrelevant, therefore I’m trying to clarify/ask why it keeps getting brought into the discussion.

The offside law didn’t change yesterday, so I can’t see the relevance.
		
Click to expand...

Right, so you are saying offside was the correct decision yesterday?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			I’ve said and clarified the offside is based on the moment Calvert-Lewin struck the ball. End of story for the decision.

People bringing Maguire and Sigurdsson’s position after the deflection is irrelevant, therefore I’m trying to clarify/ask why it keeps getting brought into the discussion.

The offside law didn’t change yesterday, so I can’t see the relevance.
		
Click to expand...


I’m still struggling to understand the point you are making - when the ball was struck the player was in an offside position , the ball was then deflected by Maguire and the player then was deemed by the VAR to be interfering - it wasn’t deemed to be a new phase in play which allows Siggurdsson to become active and I suspect they also don’t see Maguire as making a deliberate play at the ball.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

Beezerk said:



			Soooo, was Sigurdson (spelling 😁) offside when the initial shot was taken? Before the deflection I mean.
		
Click to expand...

Yes. And that’s ALL that matters here.


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 2, 2020)

Bloody hell Paul 24hrs later and you're still banging on about that goal 😂

Let it go fella 🤭🤭


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Right, so you are saying offside was the correct decision yesterday?
		
Click to expand...

Answer post #351


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I’m still struggling to understand the point you are making - when the ball was struck the player was in an offside position , the ball was then deflected by Maguire and the player then was deemed by the VAR to be interfering - it wasn’t deemed to be a new phase in play which allows Siggurdsson to become active and I suspect they also don’t see Maguire as making a deliberate play at the ball.
		
Click to expand...

No, as soon as the ball was struck he was interfering with De Gea, everything else is irrelevant.

The clarification from the ruling body does not mention Maguire.

Whether they see Maguires action as deliberate, again, not come out and said.


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			It’s these d***heads who don’t understand football laws, just trying to educate them Stu!
		
Click to expand...

😂😂😂😂

If Sigurdsson would've done better you wouldn't have had  to educate them now 🤭


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I don't understand this quote.

What are you trying to say here? Are you saying that if a player is an offside position when a teammate plays the ball, but the ball is subsequently touched by an opposition player, you are no longer offside?

So, is your logic that, Sigurdsson was in an offside position when the Everton player kicked the ball. However, once it was deflected by Maguire, then he was not in an offside position, because the ball arrived to Sigurdsson from a player in the opposition?
		
Click to expand...

When the Everton player shot, he shot away from Sigurdsson, and De Gea moved to his right to cover the shot.  Although Sigurdsson is clearly in an offside position, he is not interfering with play as the ball is going away from him and De Gea's movement clearly shows that he can see the ball.  Maguire then plays the ball towards his own goal & Sigurdsson.  De Gea still clearly sees this as he turns his head to follow the path of the ball into his net, so there is no question of Sigurdsson obstructing De Gea's vision.  Sigurdsson's interference, if there is any, has only come about as a result of the opponent playing the ball so is not offside.  The ball has been put into the net by Maguire completely wrong footing his own keeper so I'm not sure what interference Sigurdsson has actually had.  He didn't touch the ball, he didn't attempt to play the ball and he didn't obstruct De Gea's vision.  

I'm saying that if he wasn't interfering with play when the first shot went in (and if he was that should have been given by the match officials), he can't be offside when Maguire puts the ball into his own net.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			When the Everton player shot, he shot away from Sigurdsson, and De Gea moved to his right to cover the shot.  Although Sigurdsson is clearly in an offside position, he is not interfering with play as the ball is going away from him and De Gea's movement clearly shows that he can see the ball.  Maguire then plays the ball towards his own goal & Sigurdsson.  De Gea still clearly sees this as he turns his head to follow the path of the ball into his net, so there is no question of Sigurdsson obstructing De Gea's vision.  Sigurdsson's interference, if there is any, has only come about as a result of the opponent playing the ball so is not offside.  The ball has been put into the net by Maguire completely wrong footing his own keeper so I'm not sure what interference Sigurdsson has actually had.  He didn't touch the ball, he didn't attempt to play the ball and he didn't obstruct De Gea's vision. 

I'm saying that if he wasn't interfering with play when the first shot went in (and if he was that should have been given by the match officials), he can't be offside when Maguire puts the ball into his own net.
		
Click to expand...

He was interfering at that point. You still just don’t get it and you never will. Accept that you’re vastly outnumbered in your interpretation of the laws of the game and move on before you have a heart attack.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Stuart_C said:



			😂😂😂😂

If Sigurdsson would've done better you wouldn't have had  to educate them now 🤭
		
Click to expand...

Manure fans mate, they’d of found something else for VAR to overturn it.

Haven’t they had more decisions overturned than that team at the top they call LiVARpool?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 2, 2020)

Kellfire said:



			He was interfering at that point. You still just don’t get it and you never will. Accept that you’re vastly outnumbered in your interpretation of the laws of the game and move on before *you have a heart attack*.
		
Click to expand...

That's in remarkably poor taste even by your standards.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 2, 2020)

Kellfire said:



			He was interfering at that point. You still just don’t get it and you never will. Accept that you’re vastly outnumbered in your interpretation of the laws of the game and move on before you have a heart attack.
		
Click to expand...


Calm down now - there is a way to talk to people and right now that is a really poor way


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Calm down now - there is a way to talk to people and right now that is a really poor way
		
Click to expand...




Blue in Munich said:



			That's in remarkably poor taste even by your standards.
		
Click to expand...

I genuinely don’t get it? If I’ve missed a member of the forum being affected by this issue recently then I definitely apologise, but it’s not an uncommon expression to tell someone to calm down before they have a heart attack or stroke etc.


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 2, 2020)

Blue in Munich, your interpretation is just completely wrong, in my opinion, and it seems in the opinion of people that are more qualified in the area of offside.

Paul, I really have no idea what point you are trying to make now. Do you? Not sure why you are directly comparing it to the Lovren / Kane incident. I cant remember it perfectly, so I can't even make an opinion whether it was borderline or not. But, I think  if I remember rightly, the argument was whether Lovren DELIBERATELY played the ball, and started a new phase of play. This argument doesn't apply from yesterdays incident


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Blue in Munich, your interpretation is just completely wrong, in my opinion, and it seems in the opinion of people that are more qualified in the area of offside.

Paul, I really have no idea what point you are trying to make now. Do you? Not sure why you are directly comparing it to the Lovren / Kane incident. I cant remember it perfectly, so I can't even make an opinion whether it was borderline or not. But, I think  if I remember rightly, the argument was whether Lovren DELIBERATELY played the ball, and started a new phase of play. This argument doesn't apply from yesterdays incident
		
Click to expand...

Seeing as how in post #349 you made accusations towards me and my behaviour, you then made a statement putting a word in Capitals, which had nothing to do with yesterday, but a wide statement, which I have completely, 100% proved you wrong on and instead of holding your hands up you once again deflect it back on to me, despite stating you can’t remember it completely and you can’t make an opinion, then give an opinion.

I’m out.


----------



## TheDiablo (Mar 2, 2020)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234457590605713408
Week in week out this guy provides the best insight to the weekends VAR decisions in a digestable format. Worth a follow.


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Seeing as how in post #349 you made accusations towards me and my behaviour, you then made a statement putting a word in Capitals, which had nothing to do with yesterday, but a wide statement, which I have completely, 100% proved you wrong on and instead of holding your hands up you once again deflect it back on to me, despite stating you can’t remember it completely and you can’t make an opinion, then give an opinion.

I’m out.
		
Click to expand...

Proved me wrong? You are very much mistaken. I put a word in capitals because I was simply trying to highlight that word. If you are offended by that (maybe you thought I was shouting at you), would you prefer I highlighted words using a bold font instead? Or italics, or underline?

Probably best for you to opt out on this one. No point in debating offside when you dont understand offside  

I wonder what the next VaR debate will be about


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

Dando said:



			What do you expect mate, he’s a knob
		
Click to expand...

Do you want to explain this one to me because so far no one has?


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 2, 2020)

Anyway else where in the world of VAR. It is reported in the Manchester evening news that VAR people are looking at making the conversations between the Referee and Stockley park heard by fans in the ground at this weekend Manchester v Salford game.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

TheDiablo said:




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234457590605713408
Week in week out this guy provides the best insight to the weekends VAR decisions in a digestable format. Worth a follow.
		
Click to expand...

This guy says nothing that myself, Swango, Phil et al haven’t said already. I assume those who keep claiming it wasn’t offside will now magically say this “new information” has cleared it up for them.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Blue in Munich, your interpretation is just completely wrong, in my opinion, and it seems in the opinion of people that are more qualified in the area of offside.
		
Click to expand...

Here's the VAR explanation;

“In the 91st minute of Everton v Manchester United, Dominic Calvert-Lewin’s goal was disallowed following a VAR Review for an offside offence against Gylfi Sigurdsson.

”The on-field decision was to award the goal, but the VAR advised the referee that Sigurdsson was in an offside position *directly in the line of vision* of David de Gea and made an obvious action that impacted de Gea’s ability to make a save.”

Here's the extract from the laws of the game;

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

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
When the people in charge of VAR release an explanation that clearly differentiates from, and contradicts the laws of the game that they are supposed to be clarifying and enforcing I'll stick with trusting my own judgement thanks, no offence intended.  Whilst Sigurdsson was in De Gea's line of vision, he clearly did not obstruct his vision as De Gea's head movement proves.  The only thing that prevents De Gea making the save is Maguire deflecting the ball, Sigurdsson's actions have no impact on this.  It's another wrong one for me.  

Not sure there's anything more to discuss on this incident.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Proved me wrong? You are very much mistaken. I put a word in capitals because I was simply trying to highlight that word. If you are offended by that (maybe you thought I was shouting at you), would you prefer I highlighted words using a bold font instead? Or italics, or underline?

Probably best for you to opt out on this one. No point in debating offside when you dont understand offside 

I wonder what the next VaR debate will be about
		
Click to expand...

You stated I’d embarrassed myself then posted the following:

“What if a team mate played a ball through to a player who was offside, but the ball got a nick off a defender on the way through? You saying it should not be offside because it last came off the defender. CLEARLY, he would still be offside.”

Kane was in an offside position. The ball nicked/deflected/sliced etc off Lovren, Kane was then onside, CLEARLY he wasn’t any longer offside, which happened 100% in a PL Match making your statement above incorrect. So if you are 100% behind yesterday’s decision, why the doubt on the Lovren incident? Has the result changed in either match on your opinion.

And please don’t try engage me in small talk and winking emoji’s.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

Move on, lads. You don’t understand the situation despite multiple attempts to explain it to you. Just accept it.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			You stated I’d embarrassed myself then posted the following:

“What if a team mate played a ball through to a player who was offside, but the ball got a nick off a defender on the way through? You saying it should not be offside because it last came off the defender. CLEARLY, he would still be offside.”

Kane was in an offside position. The ball nicked/deflected/sliced etc off Lovren, Kane was then onside, CLEARLY he wasn’t any longer offside, which happened 100% in a PL Match making your statement above incorrect. So if you are 100% behind yesterday’s decision, why the doubt on the Lovren incident? Has the result changed in either match on your opinion.

And please don’t try engage me in small talk and winking emoji’s.
		
Click to expand...

I think the difference between the two incidents is that Lovren was deemed to have deliberately played the ball which put Kane onside. Maguire didn't try to play the ball, it deflected off him, which means Sigurrdson would still be offside.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

ColchesterFC said:



			I think the difference between the two incidents is that Lovren was deemed to have deliberately played the ball which put Kane onside. Maguire didn't try to play the ball, it deflected off him, which means Sigurrdson would still be offside.
		
Click to expand...

That’s been pointed out before. No point saying it again. He doesn’t understand that aspect of the rule.


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			You stated I’d embarrassed myself then posted the following:

“What if a team mate played a ball through to a player who was offside, but the ball got a nick off a defender on the way through? You saying it should not be offside because it last came off the defender. CLEARLY, he would still be offside.”

Kane was in an offside position. The ball nicked/deflected/sliced etc off Lovren, Kane was then onside, CLEARLY he wasn’t any longer offside, which happened 100% in a PL Match making your statement above incorrect. So if you are 100% behind yesterday’s decision, why the doubt on the Lovren incident? Has the result changed in either match on your opinion.

And please don’t try engage me in small talk and winking emoji’s.
		
Click to expand...

Thought you had gone? But coming back for more punishment? I already said I do not remember the Lovren incident vividly. But, if memory serves me correctly, he took a swing at the ball and kicked it. Deliberately. So, if that is the case  you cannot say it took a Nick of him, or a deflection.

Unless you are talking about a different incident of course. Otherwise, stop, just stop


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

ColchesterFC said:



			I think the difference between the two incidents is that Lovren was deemed to have deliberately played the ball which put Kane onside. Maguire didn't try to play the ball, it deflected off him, which means Sigurrdson would still be offside.
		
Click to expand...

No, Maguire moved to block the ball and it spun off his leg, remember, the on field decision was goal, so the 2 officials must of thought it was a deliberate movement by Maguire.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Thought you had gone? But coming back for more punishment? I already said I do not remember the Lovren incident vividly. But, if memory serves me correctly, he took a swing at the ball and kicked it. Deliberately. So, if that is the case  you cannot say it took a Nick of him, or a deflection.

Unless you are talking about a different incident of course. Otherwise, stop, just stop 

Click to expand...

More deflection, more rubbish, more trolling.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Mar 2, 2020)

Right, just fished out 3 infractions on this thread.
If you can’t keep yourselves under control then it’s going to get very messy

Who’s next for a Fraggering?


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 2, 2020)

So


Blue in Munich said:



			Here's the VAR explanation;

“In the 91st minute of Everton v Manchester United, Dominic Calvert-Lewin’s goal was disallowed following a VAR Review for an offside offence against Gylfi Sigurdsson.

”The on-field decision was to award the goal, but the VAR advised the referee that Sigurdsson was in an offside position *directly in the line of vision* of David de Gea and made an obvious action that impacted de Gea’s ability to make a save.”

Here's the extract from the laws of the game;

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

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
When the people in charge of VAR release an explanation that clearly differentiates from, and contradicts the laws of the game that they are supposed to be clarifying and enforcing I'll stick with trusting my own judgement thanks, no offence intended.  Whilst Sigurdsson was in De Gea's line of vision, he clearly did not obstruct his vision as De Gea's head movement proves.  The only thing that prevents De Gea making the save is Maguire deflecting the ball, Sigurdsson's actions have no impact on this.  It's another wrong one for me. 

Not sure there's anything more to discuss on this incident.
		
Click to expand...

You should have highlighted the last bullet point. But, no need. You just don't see it.

Of course, had the ball gone in against Chelsea in similar circumstances, you'd hold your hands up and call it a fair goal. After all, the fact that an opponent was a few yards directly in front of your keeper would have zero influence on your keepers actions at all.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 2, 2020)

ColchesterFC said:



			I think the difference between the two incidents is that Lovren was deemed to have deliberately played the ball which put Kane onside.* Maguire didn't try to play the ball*, it deflected off him, which means Sigurrdson would still be offside.
		
Click to expand...

Maguire turns his foot to attempt to block the ball.


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			More deflection, more rubbish, more trolling.
		
Click to expand...

How can you accuse someone of trolling when they are trying to respond to you when you bring up the Lovren incident?

Just because I say it is irrelevant in this case, and you don't like that, doesn't make it trolling. 

You have confused several posters about your previous comments relating to offside, and when they've looked for clarification you've just added to the confusion.

It's best you just leave it by saying you think it was offside (or do you), and that's that.


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Blue in Munich, your interpretation is just completely wrong, in my opinion, and it seems in the opinion of people that are more qualified in the area of offside.

Paul, I really have no idea what point you are trying to make now. Do you? Not sure why you are directly comparing it to the Lovren / Kane incident. I cant remember it perfectly, so I can't even make an opinion whether it was borderline or not. But, I think  if I remember rightly, the argument was whether Lovren DELIBERATELY played the ball, and started a new phase of play. This argument doesn't apply from yesterdays incident
		
Click to expand...

Can  I answer this? 

LOVREN made an attempt to play the ball but never made contact.

Not sure what this has got to do with sigurdsson not being able to score from 5yrds  though 😉


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			So


You should have highlighted the last bullet point. But, no need. You just don't see it.

Of course, had the ball gone in against Chelsea in similar circumstances, you'd hold your hands up and call it a fair goal. After all, the fact that an opponent was a few yards directly in front of your keeper would have zero influence on your keepers actions at all.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't highlight the last bullet point because Sigurdsson hasn't affected De Gea's ability to play the ball.  He can't because De Gea has no ability to play the ball as he is completely wrong footed.

As a former goalkeeper, I'd have no issue with the visibility available in the circumstances; neither does De Gea as he never fails to follow the path of the ball.

The only bit you've got right is that if it went in against Chelsea I would call it a fair goal.  Unfortunate that having never met me you'd consider that I'd change my tune dependant on the team involved;  there's more than a few football fans on here who have met me and I'm sure would be happy to confirm that I would call it fair.  I might not be happy about it, but that's different from considering it fair.

Goodnight.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			How can you accuse someone of trolling when they are trying to respond to you when you bring up the Lovren incident?

Just because I say it is irrelevant in this case, and you don't like that, doesn't make it trolling.

You have confused several posters about your previous comments relating to offside, and when they've looked for clarification you've just added to the confusion.

It's best you just leave it by saying you think it was offside (or do you), and that's that.
		
Click to expand...

Because those who don’t agree with you have tried to engage you in a debate and instead of answering the points raised you’ve continually told me and others they haven’t got a clue or should give up or best leave it etc.
You really need to learn as I’m sure after tonight there’ll be a least another 2 forum members who will no longer bother with you and your attitude.

None of us can change the result, but discussing different points of view is allowed, if you don’t want that I’d suggest you don’t post anymore threads.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Stuart_C said:



			Can  I answer this?

LOVREN made an attempt to play the ball but never made contact.

Not sure what this has got to do with sigurdsson not being able to score from 5yrds  though 😉
		
Click to expand...

Lovren did touch it, replays proved it, however, some on here believe everything a player claims is true.


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 2, 2020)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Right, just fished out 3 infractions on this thread.
If you can’t keep yourselves under control then it’s going to get very messy

Who’s next for a Fraggering?
		
Click to expand...

😯😯😯😯Grinder is that way >>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 2, 2020)

pauldj42 said:



			Lovren did touch it, replays proved it, however, some on here believe everything a player claims is true.

Click to expand...

You're wrong. Now shut up or you'll be banned 🤭


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 2, 2020)

Stuart_C said:



			You're wrong. Now shut up or you'll be banned 🤭
		
Click to expand...

If I get banned, I’ll make sure the first/last post is directed at you.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Mar 2, 2020)

Opinions vary on this but it’s stockleys opinion that counts.
I have read all the thread and all can be right and wrong.
That’s the problem it’s an opinion , so that might as well be the on field refs.VAR is a mess!
When the ball was struck he was offside.
Did he interfere ? That’s an opinion.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 2, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			I didn't highlight the last bullet point because Sigurdsson hasn't affected De Gea's ability to play the ball.  He can't because De Gea has no ability to play the ball as he is completely wrong footed.

As a former goalkeeper, I'd have no issue with the visibility available in the circumstances; neither does De Gea as he never fails to follow the path of the ball.

The only bit you've got right is that if it went in against Chelsea I would call it a fair goal.  Unfortunate that having never met me you'd consider that I'd change my tune dependant on the team involved;  there's more than a few football fans on here who have met me and I'm sure would be happy to confirm that I would call it fair.  I might not be happy about it, but that's different from considering it fair.

Goodnight.
		
Click to expand...

But you aren’t calling it fair. You’re wrong. You say one thing but the evidence is the opposite.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 2, 2020)

clubchamp98 said:



			Opinions vary on this but it’s stockleys opinion that counts.
I have read all the thread and all can be right and wrong.
That’s the problem it’s an opinion , so that might as well be the on field refs.VAR is a mess!
*When the ball was struck he was offside.*
Did he interfere ? That’s an opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Was he offside; or was he in an offside position, which is no longer the same thing as being offside.  The problem is the first bit is now as much of an opinion as whether or not he is interfering.

We could agree that it's a fact that VAR is a mess.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Mar 2, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Was he offside; or was he in an offside position, which is no longer the same thing as being offside.  The problem is the first bit is now as much of an opinion as whether or not he is interfering.

We could agree that it's a fact that VAR is a mess.
		
Click to expand...

.
there is a difference but I think if your in the six yard box you are going to be given offside.
Given one week not the next is just not good enough.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 3, 2020)

clubchamp98 said:



			.
there is a difference but I think if your in the six yard box you are going to be given offside.
Given one week not the next is just not good enough.
		
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

I take it you mean like the fouls that are given anywhere else on the pitch but not in the penalty area. It shouldn’t be the case for me, you’re offside or you’re not, but I see your point. 

Fully agree with your second point, especially now they have VAR. Could understand the discrepancies when different refs get one view but not now, and the Son and Maguire kick outs are the best, or worst example of the double standards that VAR has introduced.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Mar 3, 2020)

I take it you mean like the fouls that are given anywhere else on the pitch but not in the penalty area. It shouldn’t be the case for me, you’re offside or you’re not, but I see your point.

Fully agree with your second point, especially now they have VAR. Could understand the discrepancies when different refs get one view but not now, and the Son and Maguire kick outs are the best, or worst example of the double standards that VAR has introduced.[/QUOTE]

Yes they should go back to the old  rule if your off your off and it’s up to lazy players to stay onside even if not interfering with play.


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 3, 2020)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Right, just fished out 3 infractions on this thread.
If you can’t keep yourselves under control then it’s going to get very messy

Who’s next for a Fraggering?
		
Click to expand...

Can we nominate 👍


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 3, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			I didn't highlight the last bullet point because Sigurdsson hasn't affected De Gea's ability to play the ball.  He can't because De Gea has no ability to play the ball as he is completely wrong footed.

As a former goalkeeper, I'd have no issue with the visibility available in the circumstances; neither does De Gea as he never fails to follow the path of the ball.

The only bit you've got right is that if it went in against Chelsea I would call it a fair goal.  Unfortunate that having never met me you'd consider that I'd change my tune dependant on the team involved;  there's more than a few football fans on here who have met me and I'm sure would be happy to confirm that I would call it fair.  I might not be happy about it, but that's different from considering it fair.

Goodnight.
		
Click to expand...

BIM, as an ex goalie, thoughts on this one. My lad had trials Forsest  and Notts County back in the day as a kid. He was told that if you have time to watch it you have time to move for it. De Gea watched it all the way, he moved in the initial direction of the shot. But never Moved his body, arms and legs after the deflection. Would you agree he had no chance of saving the deflection.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Mar 3, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			BIM, as an ex goalie, thoughts on this one. My lad had trials Forsest  and Notts County back in the day as a kid. He was told that if you have time to watch it you have time to move for it. De Gea watched it all the way, he moved in the initial direction of the shot. But never Moved his body, arms and legs after the deflection. Would you agree he had no chance of saving the deflection.
		
Click to expand...

Tash me man, you are attributing an element of skill to BIM’s previous incarnation of a keeper of the goal.

In fact he’s so big he blocks the entire goal so therefore had little need to move  

Sorry Richard, couldn’t resist 😂😎


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 3, 2020)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Tash me man, you are attributing an element of skill to BIM’s previous incarnation of a keeper of the goal.

In fact he’s so big he blocks the entire goal so therefore had little need to move 

Sorry Richard, couldn’t resist 😂😎
		
Click to expand...

😳😳  Big, more to love 😳

So BIM could of saved it. Just think if BIM played for Utd, it would of been saved, no VAR and no infractions. 🤗


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 3, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			BIM, as an ex goalie, thoughts on this one. My lad had trials Forsest  and Notts County back in the day as a kid. He was told that if you have time to watch it you have time to move for it. De Gea watched it all the way, he moved in the initial direction of the shot. But never Moved his body, arms and legs after the deflection. Would you agree he had no chance of saving the deflection.
		
Click to expand...

Yes De Gea has committed to the right and was completely done by the deflection. No chance to recover. If your momentum is taking you one way sometimes you just can’t change direction. That was one of those times for me.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 3, 2020)

Tashyboy said:



			😳😳  Big, more to love 😳

So BIM could of saved it. Just think if BIM played for Utd, it would of been saved, no VAR and no infractions. 🤗
		
Click to expand...

I feel sick just thinking about playing for United. 🤢🤢🤢🤢


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 3, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			I feel sick just thinking about playing for United. 🤢🤢🤢🤢
		
Click to expand...

Don't know why, you seem to like talking about them a lot. Guess what, Chelsea are playing, and they're beating liverpool. I recommend watching that.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Mar 3, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Don't know why, you seem to like talking about them a lot. Guess what, Chelsea are playing, and they're beating liverpool. I recommend watching that.
		
Click to expand...

Do you realise how guilty you are of doing what you are castigating others for?

At least twice in 24 hours.

Take your own ill-conceived advice.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 3, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Don't know why, you seem to like talking about them a lot. Guess what, Chelsea are playing, and they're beating liverpool. I recommend watching that.
		
Click to expand...

I did, usual seat in the Matthew Harding Upper but thanks for your concern. 👍


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 3, 2020)

Liverbirdie said:



			Do you realise how guilty you are of doing what you are castigating others for?

At least twice in 24 hours.

Take your own ill-conceived advice.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't know this was the thread where non Man Utd fans came to moan about United. Still talking about a correct offside from a game 2 days ago that has no impact on their season.

But, sure, please continue. Also, for those that moaned that Son should have had a straight red (and not overturned) for the Gomes challenge. I am waiting for you to tell us Milner should have had a straight red for the tackle on Pedro tonight. I'd respect you if you showed a bit of consistency in your arguments


----------



## ColchesterFC (Mar 3, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Sorry, I didn't know this was the thread where non Man Utd fans came to moan about United. Still talking about a correct offside from a game 2 days ago that has no impact on their season.

But, sure, please continue. Also, for those that moaned that Son should have had a straight red (and not overturned) for the Gomes challenge. I am waiting for you to tell us Milner should have had a straight red for the tackle on Pedro tonight. I'd respect you if you showed a bit of consistency in your arguments
		
Click to expand...

Son should have had a straight red for his tackle on Gomes. Milner should've had a straight red for his tackle on Pedro. Choudhury should've had a straight red for his tackle on Salah. IMO if you make a tackle where there is no intent to play the ball then you deserve a straight red.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Mar 4, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			Sorry, I didn't know this was the thread where non Man Utd fans came to moan about United. Still talking about a correct offside from a game 2 days ago that has no impact on their season.

But, sure, please continue. Also, for those that moaned that Son should have had a straight red (and not overturned) for the Gomes challenge. I am waiting for you to tell us Milner should have had a straight red for the tackle on Pedro tonight. I'd respect you if you showed a bit of consistency in your arguments
		
Click to expand...

You reply to my post, but dont reply to the subject matter.

Why are you castigating people for doing what you are consistently doing yourself? 

......and then you go and do it again......  We've got a live one here, lads.


----------



## Swango1980 (Mar 4, 2020)

Liverbirdie said:



			You reply to my post, but dont reply to the subject matter.

Why are you castigating people for doing what you are consistently doing yourself?

......and then you go and do it again......  We've got a live one here, lads.

Click to expand...

No, no. You misunderstand. I'm done explaining why offside was correct. And, if others want to continue banging their head against a wall trying to say otherwise, by all means go ahead. I was only trying to suggest it may be time to stop, as it may bring a bit of calm and peace to those that are still worrying about it. After all, they have their own teams to support and worry about.


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Mar 5, 2020)

VAR will work but the managers, players and fans have to accept it.

Tuesday night, the top two teams in the NHL were playing, Tampa Bay and Boston.  At 1-0 Bruins, the Lightning tied the scores but the play was challenged for offside.  One player, not involved in the actual scoring, was about 10mm offside so the goal was waved off.   No histrionics, a few boos, no player complaints - everyone just got on with it.  Because those are the rules.   The final score was 2-1 Boston but not once did anyone start blaming the officials or the replay for the decision "costing them the game".    

There is probably no chance that managers, players and fans in football will ever accept VAR as it is an easy scapegoat for their own team's shortcomings.  And therein lies the fault.


----------



## Orikoru (Mar 5, 2020)

Pathetic Shark said:



			VAR will work but the managers, players and fans have to accept it.

Tuesday night, the top two teams in the NHL were playing, Tampa Bay and Boston.  At 1-0 Bruins, the Lightning tied the scores but the play was challenged for offside.  One player, not involved in the actual scoring, was about 10mm offside so the goal was waved off.   No histrionics, a few boos, no player complaints - everyone just got on with it.  Because those are the rules.   The final score was 2-1 Boston but not once did anyone start blaming the officials or the replay for the decision "costing them the game".   

There is probably no chance that managers, players and fans in football will ever accept VAR as it is an easy scapegoat for their own team's shortcomings.  And therein lies the fault.
		
Click to expand...

The problem with the rules in football I guess is that a lot of them are not black and white, so many of them rely on interpretation and judgement of the officials. This is why even VAR can't provide 100% one way or the other. I think part of the problem with VAR is that they have _tried_ to make it black and white when it never can be, so in the end the decisions on there have become way too clinical and it's unpalatable to the general football fan - and takes far too long into the bargain. All that was needed was to give the ref another chance to view incidents on a screen to help him make up his mind. It sounds so simple when you put it like that...

It's like that old analogy that the American space programme wasted millions of dollars and years of research & development to invent an anti-gravity pen that could write in space, while the Russians just used pencils. (I know it's a myth but I couldn't think of a better real-world analogy, ha.)


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jul 10, 2020)

Pathetic Shark said:



*VAR will work but the managers, players and fans have to accept it.*

Tuesday night, the top two teams in the NHL were playing, Tampa Bay and Boston.  At 1-0 Bruins, the Lightning tied the scores but the play was challenged for offside.  One player, not involved in the actual scoring, was about 10mm offside so the goal was waved off.   No histrionics, a few boos, no player complaints - everyone just got on with it.  Because those are the rules.   The final score was 2-1 Boston but not once did anyone start blaming the officials or the replay for the decision "costing them the game".   

There is probably no chance that managers, players and fans in football will ever accept VAR as it is an easy scapegoat for their own team's shortcomings.  And therein lies the fault.
		
Click to expand...

Well on last night's evidence, no it won't work and fans will not accept it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53357841

Major screw ups in all 3 of last nights games.  The one in the Villa United game was an absolute joke.  I'm not sure you can excuse Moss for getting that wrong real time; there is absolutely no defence of the VAR team.  Fans of all teams including United fans can clearly see it is not a penalty.  It is a foul on the Villa defender and, in my opinion, a yellow card for Fernandes for simulation.  I'm sure the authorities will put the icing on the cake shortly by fining Dean Smith for his comments.   The very thing I hoped VAR would help to stamp out it actually endorsed last night.

Unless they sort this mess out, RIP football.


----------



## Dan2501 (Jul 10, 2020)

It will work, they just need to sort out who's running the system. Some of the people they have running and making the VAR decisions are not capable and are making poor decisions. The system would be great and a step forward for the game if the people using it knew what they were doing.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 10, 2020)

Dan2501 said:



			It will work, they just need to sort out who's running the system. Some of the people they have running and making the VAR decisions are not capable and are making poor decisions. The system would be great and a step forward for the game if the people using it knew what they were doing.
		
Click to expand...

This completely. What do we golfers know about equipment? it's not the arrow................. The concept is fine, the pictures supplied are first class, it is the people making the decisions who are at fault. Improve the decision making, speed up the decision making and complaints against VAR will reduce significantly.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jul 10, 2020)

Lord Tyrion said:



			This completely. What do we golfers know about equipment? it's not the arrow................. The concept is fine, the pictures supplied are first class, it is the people making the decisions who are at fault. Improve the decision making, speed up the decision making and complaints against VAR will reduce significantly.
		
Click to expand...

I agree the concept is fine but how do you improve the decision making. The people making the decision are referees and so the best qualified (or so you'd think) but they aren't getting it right despite time to see it many times. How can it get better because it needs to. It isn't working acceptably often enough


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jul 10, 2020)

Dan2501 said:



			It will work, they just need to sort out who's running the system. Some of the people they have running and making the VAR decisions are not capable and are making poor decisions. The system would be great and a step forward for the game if the people using it knew what they were doing.
		
Click to expand...




Lord Tyrion said:



			This completely. What do we golfers know about equipment? it's not the arrow................. The concept is fine, the pictures supplied are first class, it is the people making the decisions who are at fault. Improve the decision making, speed up the decision making and complaints against VAR will reduce significantly.
		
Click to expand...

Neither of which will change the situation whereby I've given up celebrating goals in the ground because you're just waiting for VAR to chalk it off.  And the complete inconsistency between matches & officials is beyond belief.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 10, 2020)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I agree the concept is fine but how do you improve the decision making. The people making the decision are referees and so the best qualified (or so you'd think) but they aren't getting it right despite time to see it many times. How can it get better because it needs to. It isn't working acceptably often enough
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps it needs more than one person. Maybe it needs to go like the dubious goals panel and you have a small group, official plus one former player, looking at each game. The ref makes the ulitmate decision but the player can give their input as guidance.

I get your point, and BIM, it is a weakness in the pro VAR argument. I din't see the other games last night but the VAR backed the Southampton penalty and the non red card, both of which were clear wrong decisions to me, and to other refs over night. How to resolve bad off field decisions is pretty key but sharing the decison may help. Has to be worth a trial at least.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 10, 2020)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Perhaps it needs more than one person. Maybe it needs to go like the dubious goals panel and you have a small group, official plus one former player, looking at each game. The ref makes the ulitmate decision but the player can give their input as guidance.

I get your point, and BIM, it is a weakness in the pro VAR argument. I din't see the other games last night but the VAR backed the Southampton penalty and the non red card, both of which were clear wrong decisions to me, and to other refs over night. How to resolve bad off field decisions is pretty key but sharing the decison may help. Has to be worth a trial at least.
		
Click to expand...

More people, that seems to be the problem in football too many people. We have assistant referees, many won’t step in when a decision is obviously wrong, a ref who uses VAR as an excuse not to make a decision and a highly played ref on the sidelines whos only job appears as to be to hold a board up and now a person sat in a studio somewhere taking an age and still comes up with a poor decision.
Get back to three guys running around the pitch, if they make a wrong decision so be it, people make mistakes. That’s how lower league football is played. All that happens now is football pays more to make the same mistakes. It’s a refs association money making scam.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 10, 2020)

Old Skier said:



			More people, that seems to be the problem in football too many people. We have assistant referees, many won’t step in when a decision is obviously wrong, a ref who uses VAR as an excuse not to make a decision and a highly played ref on the sidelines whos only job appears as to be to hold a board up and now a person sat in a studio somewhere taking an age and still comes up with a poor decision.
Get back to three guys running around the pitch, if they make a wrong decision so be it, people make mistakes. That’s how lower league football is played. All that happens now is football pays more to make the same mistakes. It’s a refs association money making scam.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree. The 4th official is an absolute waste of space, I can't see anyone arguing against that. The two assistants run the line and are in contact with the ref through mics. They are likely communicating at all times, we are just not aware of it. I believe FIFA are about to step in and push associations towards the onfield ref coming across and looking at a screen but if that does not happen I think 2 people, official and ex player, should be VAR, official having the final say. Discussing the incident may help the thought process and give better answers.

Lower league football does not have 15 camera angles highlighting every error, each match is not picked apart by fans and media post match. Decisions are made, people move on without ever really knowing if they were right or wrong. At PL level the whole world can see.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 10, 2020)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I disagree. The 4th official is an absolute waste of space, I can't see anyone arguing against that. The two assistants run the line and are in contact with the ref through mics. They are likely communicating at all times, we are just not aware of it. I believe FIFA are about to step in and push associations towards the onfield ref coming across and looking at a screen but if that does not happen I think 2 people, official and ex player, should be VAR, official having the final say. Discussing the incident may help the thought process and give better answers.

Lower league football does not have 15 camera angles highlighting every error, each match is not picked apart by fans and media post match. Decisions are made, people move on without ever really knowing if they were right or wrong. At PL level the whole world can see.
		
Click to expand...

Your right, in lower leagues the decision is made and we move on. At the top we have so called experts and officials pouring over decisions and still not agreeing so making a decision and moving on seems a good and cheap alternative.


----------



## Crazyface (Jul 10, 2020)

Hell no! Keep it. It may eventually stop all those foreign players from diving all over the place. 

And VAR will never stop the agruements over offside. This rule needs to be changed. I've got an idea, but no one gets it because they cannot see past what is already in place.

And also with it in place, England will stop getting dodgey decisions against them. Semi Finals last time out with a carp team. If we ever get a good one we will win everything.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 10, 2020)

Old Skier said:



			Your right, in lower leagues the decision is made and we move on. At the top we have so called experts and officials pouring over decisions and still not agreeing so making a decision and moving on seems a good and cheap alternative.
		
Click to expand...

I think 'moving on' is a much healthier option but the genie is out of the bottle on that one. I'd happily agree to that but you would need all of the media to buy into that as well.

Half of MotD and other football shows were taken up with dissecting decisions and destroying refs pre VAR, it was becoming destructive. Now clearly there are VAR discussions but they are not quite as constant. Other sports have managed it pretty well, football needs to learn from them (it seemingly has not)


----------



## PaulS (Jul 10, 2020)

Yesterday saw two of the worst decisions seen and then compounded by VAR unbelievably failing to change the decision 

It was a clear pen for Kane 

And Fernades again throwing himself to the floor and potentially causing serious injury but getting a penalty !!


----------



## Billysboots (Jul 10, 2020)

Sorry, but VAR is causing far more controversy than we had before it was introduced in the first place. That controversy will never be eradicated for the simple reason that the decision making is subjective.

I know BIM has referred to the United penalty last night as an example, but the one awarded to Southampton was an absolute embarrassment. Ward-Prowse was on the way down prior to any contact with the Everton player. It was a such a clear and obvious error by the on-field referee, the sort of error VAR was designed to resolve, and yet still the decision makers got it wrong.

The whole system is flawed, and is ruining the game, especially for those in the grounds. I have been at Old Trafford more than once when fans have waited in complete bemusement whilst a VAR check is completed, the check often taking several minutes. It’s a nonsense. So, too, are the examples we see when potential offsides are being reviewed. For goodness sake, if the official has to view a call from half a dozen angles, half a dozen times each, in real time, slow-mo, super slow-mo and frame by frame because it’s THAT close a call, just give the benefit to the striker.

I was very much in favour of VAR when it was introduced. I now can’t wait to see the back of it.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 10, 2020)

3 VAR decisions last night and all three according to officials and experts after the match said the decision was wrong, this apparently according to Dan Walker was also the view of all the 4th officials.


----------



## Orikoru (Jul 10, 2020)

The biggest factor against VAR is not the VAR itself, it's the fact that they needlessly changed the offside and handball rules to try and give them clearer definition, when in fact all the did was make them both grossly unfair to the attacking team. The whole concept of "benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker" is out the window. Forwards can't keep themselves level with the defence anymore, they have to be onside by an extra one foot margin just to ensure one of their toenails or their ear aren't offside by a centimetre. If a defender hoofs it off your arm from half a yard, then sorry that's the end of the attack. It's like the rules were rewritten by people who have never watched football. (Maybe they were!) 

On top of it all, it hasn't eradicated any of the inconsistency at all, because the person reviewing the decisions isn't in the game so has no idea of the context. It should be reviewed by the match referee pitchside, if he feels he needs to. And not be forced to give a stupid illogical handball because that's the rule now, he should be free to use his judgement like before. As Mourinho says, the match referee isn't reffing the game anymore, they're just a spokesman for the bloody VAR team who are miles away.


----------



## Orikoru (Jul 10, 2020)

Billysboots said:



			I was very much in favour of VAR when it was introduced. I now can’t wait to see the back of it.
		
Click to expand...

Same here - but it won't be going anywhere. Too much money invested, and the football authorities will never, ever admit that they've got something so badly wrong. They'll just say it needs 'minor tweaks'.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Jul 10, 2020)

Dan2501 said:



			It will work, they just need to sort out who's running the system. Some of the people they have running and making the VAR decisions are not capable and are making poor decisions. The system would be great and a step forward for the game if the people using it knew what they were doing.
		
Click to expand...

Well if you put OGS in charge he would still give it.
His comments  on motd were embarrassing for a manager and ex player.

There was a ref who went to the pitch side monitor this week ( can’t remember what game) he changed his yellow to a red.
I just don’t understand why the refs don’t use this to help them get the right decision.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jul 10, 2020)

Billysboots said:



			Sorry, but VAR is causing far more controversy than we had before it was introduced in the first place. That controversy will never be eradicated for the simple reason that the decision making is subjective.

I know BIM has referred to the United penalty last night as an example, but the one awarded to Southampton was an absolute embarrassment. Ward-Prowse was on the way down prior to any contact with the Everton player. It was a such a clear and obvious error by the on-field referee, the sort of error VAR was designed to resolve, and yet still the decision makers got it wrong.

The whole system is flawed, and is ruining the game, especially for those in the grounds. I have been at Old Trafford more than once when fans have waited in complete bemusement whilst a VAR check is completed, the check often taking several minutes. It’s a nonsense. So, too, are the examples we see when potential offsides are being reviewed. For goodness sake, if the official has to view a call from half a dozen angles, half a dozen times each, in real time, slow-mo, super slow-mo and frame by frame because it’s THAT close a call, just give the benefit to the striker.

I was very much in favour of VAR when it was introduced. I now can’t wait to see the back of it.
		
Click to expand...

I referred to the United one last night as we watched it; we'd been out to the cinema earlier so I hadn't seen any of the other ones.  Having now seen them, I find it utterly incredible that there was a penalty awarded to Everton, even more incredible that Kane didn't get a penalty (although I do feel a little dirty typing that  ) and possibly the most incredible is that Bednarek doesn't get a red card for scything down Richarlison.  I cannot think of a bigger display of incompetence across one game day in the Premier League.

I'm like you, I wanted VAR to drive the cheats out & get rid of the dodgy decisions; now I wish it had never been invented.


----------



## harpo_72 (Jul 10, 2020)

It’s not really helping its own cause .. or shall we say the application is a little too prescriptive


----------



## apj0524 (Jul 10, 2020)

Next year FIFA are taking over how VAR is run and premier league will have to come into line with their instructions, not sure how that is going to improve an element that in my view is farcical and sucking the life out of the game


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 10, 2020)

apj0524 said:



			Next year FIFA are taking over how VAR is run and premier league will have to come into line with their instructions, not sure how that is going to improve an element that in my view is farcical and sucking the life out of the game
		
Click to expand...

First taste of this was at a world cup. I remember it working well, no holding at corners was a big plus. I had high hopes for it at that stage......Fifa ran that so hopefully it will be a positive.


----------



## Billysboots (Jul 10, 2020)

Lord Tyrion said:



			First taste of this was at a world cup. I remember it working well, no holding at corners was a big plus. I had high hopes for it at that stage......Fifa ran that so hopefully it will be a positive.
		
Click to expand...

It certainly can’t get any worse. Can it?


----------



## Swango1980 (Jul 10, 2020)

Blue in Munich said:



			Well on last night's evidence, no it won't work and fans will not accept it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53357841

Major screw ups in all 3 of last nights games.  The one in the Villa United game was an absolute joke.  I'm not sure you can excuse Moss for getting that wrong real time; there is absolutely no defence of the VAR team.  Fans of all teams including United fans can clearly see it is not a penalty.  It is a foul on the Villa defender and, in my opinion, a yellow card for Fernandes for simulation.  I'm sure the authorities will put the icing on the cake shortly by fining Dean Smith for his comments.   The very thing I hoped VAR would help to stamp out it actually endorsed last night.

Unless they sort this mess out, RIP football.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, although interesting you focused on that particular incident, and didn't mention the clear penalty on Harry Kane . PS, how on earth was it simulation. There was still contact, which caused him to fall. Like to see you try and stay on your feet.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jul 10, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I agree, although interesting you focused on that particular incident, and didn't mention the clear penalty on Harry Kane . PS, *how on earth was it simulation*. There was still contact, which caused him to fall. Like to see you try and stay on your feet.
		
Click to expand...

Rolling round the floor holding his ankle like he's been caught,no?

My eyes must be deceiving me because Fernandes definitely stood on the Villa player.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jul 10, 2020)

Orikoru said:



			Same here - but it won't be going anywhere. Too much money invested, and the football authorities will never, ever admit that they've got something so badly wrong. *They'll just say it needs 'minor tweaks'.*

Click to expand...

Or use an increase in %’s for getting decisions right.

Which will just gloss over the howlers and the blatant incorrect ones.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jul 10, 2020)

Crazyface said:



			Hell no! Keep it. It may eventually stop all those foreign players from diving all over the place.

And VAR will never stop the agruements over offside. This rule needs to be changed. *I've got an idea, but no one gets it because they cannot see past what is already in place.*

And also with it in place, England will stop getting dodgey decisions against them. Semi Finals last time out with a carp team. If we ever get a good one we will win everything.
		
Click to expand...

Am I the only one whose dying to know your proposal?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jul 10, 2020)

Swango1980 said:



			I agree, although interesting you focused on that particular incident, and didn't mention the clear penalty on Harry Kane . PS, how on earth was it simulation. There was still contact, which caused him to fall. Like to see you try and stay on your feet.
		
Click to expand...

Well if you look at the time it was posted and the explanation in post #431 the reason why I was commenting on the United game is clearly explained.  I have now mentioned the Harry Kane incident having seen it.

As for the simulation, Fernandes wasn't kicked anywhere near the point on his leg that he was holding and squealing about; he actually wasn't kicked at all.  If that's not simulation then I don't know what is.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jul 10, 2020)

Stuart_C said:



			Am I the only one whose dying to know your proposal?
		
Click to expand...

Probably.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 10, 2020)

I first came across this live when I watched City v Spurs in last years Champions league.  Because it was the first domestic incident and against City everyone Thought it was funny. That’s fine but it spoils the game when you watch it live. Again first game of the season spurs again and VAR again.  Faceless person sat in a data centre many many miles away. UEFA are bent, refs are bent, the media are bent, social media is full for trolls. I am done with football it’s shite.
Now the bent refs, delay in the matches and sheer incompetence of it all means all fans are upset.  What took you so long.


----------



## Kellfire (Jul 11, 2020)

Var is ruining football. 

Other things that have ruined football include substitutes, the back pass law, television coverage, numbers on shirts, three points for a win, stadium announcers, foreign fans, not having any fans, overrated English players, foreign players, not having oranges at half time, foul throws, indirect free kicks, too much money in the game, the media and not having any money in the game. 

But yes. Var is ruining the game.


----------



## nickjdavis (Jul 11, 2020)

The thing that has failed with VAR is the original phrase that was bandied about when VAR was introduced that it would clear up  "clear and obvious errors by the on pitch officials".

It seemed to have been dropped like a hot stone pretty much immediately and instead VAR has been used to determine if a players big toe extends beyond the defenders ear. 

The VAR folks should not be making the end decision. They should review it once or twice, taking 15 seconds at the most (if it takes longer than that then it plainly wasn't a clear and obvious error!!), and if they feel that the ref needs to reconsider his on-pitch decision they tell him to do so and he goes and looks at the pitch side monitor, if the ref feels like the mistake is pretty obvious then he corrects his onfield decision, not the folks in Stockley Park.....Thats pretty much how it worked at the World Cup and in general it worked pretty well.


----------



## Crazyface (Jul 11, 2020)

Stuart_C said:



			Am I the only one whose dying to know your proposal?
		
Click to expand...

Do you really want to know? It will sound complicated, because it is different, but is really really simple.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jul 11, 2020)

Crazyface said:



			Do you really want to know? It will sound complicated, because it is different, but is really really simple.
		
Click to expand...

Of course, I've hardly slept with the anticipation.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jul 11, 2020)

Oh Lordy, CrazyF has a cunning plan ... come on, out with it before one of us dies


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 11, 2020)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Oh Lordy, CrazyF has a cunning plan ... come on, out with it before one of us dies 

Click to expand...

There are times when encouragement is not required.


----------

