VAR - Thoughts

[Papas1982]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

We guessed that from your posts!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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

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]

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.

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

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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!

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]

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

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Read the thread.

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]

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]

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!

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.