VAR - Thoughts

[Swango1980]

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.

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]

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.

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]

@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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Swango1980]

@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.

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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.

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]

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

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

 

[Swango1980]

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

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]

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.

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

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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.

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]

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

Apologies fat fingers, have edited initial post.

 

[Swango1980]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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