VAR - Thoughts

[Lord Tyrion]

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

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]

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.

What obvious action did Sigurdsson make which affect De Gea?

Why didn’t the lino put his flag up?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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.

Sorry Jim, that’s not correct as per the Offside Law.

 

[Kellfire]

What obvious action did Sigurdsson make which affect De Gea?

Why didn’t the lino put his flag up?

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]

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.

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]

Was he "obstructing " the line of vision? I'd argue not, De Gea can see quite clearly that he's stuffed and wrong footed.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

What obvious action did Sigurdsson make which affect De Gea?

Why didn’t the lino put his flag up?

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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?

 

[PJ87]

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?

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]

Apparently the philosophy of VAR is "minimum interference, maximum benefit". So far it's proved to be maximum interference, minimum benefit.

 

[Kellfire]

Apparently the philosophy of VAR is "minimum interference, maximum benefit". So far it's proved to be maximum interference, minimum benefit.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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?

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]

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.

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.