VAR - Thoughts

[Swango1980]

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look themselves, then make a judgement, it would be a far better way of going about things, the recent red cards rescinded by VAR, all looks rather silly in my opinion.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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

?????

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Swango1980]

?????

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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

 

[Old Colner]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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

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]

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

Don’t expect a simple answer!

 

[Swango1980]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?,

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.

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

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