VAR decisions

I read it as GD meant 'teams' as in the actual players on the pitch seem still to be able to perform well over the season despite whatever nonsense VAR throws their way.

 

Are you suggesting they get lines out for a Sheff Utd game but give benefit of doubt to a Man Utd incident? Bit conspiracy theory!??

 

Yep!

 

Who saw the VAR decision in the match Chelsea v Spurs? Lo Celso escaped a red card for a stamp on Azpilicueta. David Coote was the VAR official and saw it as a fair challenge.

Since then the PGMOL has come out to say it should have been a red card and put it down to human error. Human error? Seriously? Human error can occur in the moment. I except Michael Oliver missed it or didn't have the right angle to see it, but you cannot watch it several times on the TV replays and think that's not a red card. That's not human error, that's just sheer incompetence. This is a Premier League referee who thinks a stamp on a player is ok. You cannot have these guys officiating matches. They are just not up to it. Yet another example of an severe lack of knowing what he should be doing.

With VAR there are zero excuses. All that's in question is does the referee know the laws of the game. Is he educated enough to know what is a foul and what is not. David Coote should be instantly struck off. I'm going to start a campaign. "Give Coote the boot"

What makes it worse is because the referee saw the incident, there cannot be a retrospective ban, even though they've come out and publicly said it was a wrong decision and should have been a red card. It's just insane.

The only saving grace was this occurred in a Chelsea v Spurs game and will be talked about to death. Had it been Brighton v Watford, nothing would have been said and it would have been brushed under the carpet.

 

PGMOL will hear "Give Coote the boot" and interpret it as "Give Coote the Watford v Liverpool match".

 

The bit in bold is what's being lost in all the furore over VAR. As a match going fan myself, this is the most disappointing thing for me.

 

Of all the things that have changed in football during the time I've been watching it, the universal acceptance of 'diving' is possibly the most irritating. For the penalty, Fernandes' knees were collapsing a split second before Foster arrived. It was not the subsequent contact that made him fall over. However I cannot claim it shouldn't have been a penalty because of the way the rules are applied today. I'm afraid it happens all the time; they don't call it diving but players win free kicks and penalties with the acquiescence of the officials and the game in general accepts it.

 

This is the point though, when fans start chanting against VAR it should be against referees and those using VAR not the technology itself. VAR is just a tool the same way that a football is a tool. No-one would ever say the football scored a great goal there. Its insane at how bad our officials are. Either they do not understand the rules very well or more likely they have it at as a priority to get the decisions that will be the most popular decision rather than the right decision.

This is just madness. I am fairly sure the refs are not bribed but they are so so weak. It must surely be part of their training to give the correct decision and not be swayed by the crowd - so why are they being swayed on their judgement when watching replays on a screen depending on the team being affected? They must surely have assessments and reviews on their performance where mistakes are highlighted? If not then their organisation is not fit for purpose.

It is beyond a joke that Mike Riley who was one of the most biased referees I have ever seen - especially when refereeing matches at Old Trafford is in charge. He is was often reffing the popular decision rather than the correct decision and it seems that the gang of refs in the Premier League are under an authority that is clueless and more interested in pandering to the big clubs rather than following the rules of the game stringently.

 

I thought, and maybe I'm wrong, that VAR was brought in to sort out clear and obvious errors like it has done in cricket. Anything that takes over 30 seconds to work out can not be a clear and obvious error. Any decision should also be made by the guy refereeing the match otherwise what's the point in him being there. No matter how many time you see some of the handball/shoulder incidents it is still virtually impossible to tell exactly where it hits somebody so in those cases the original decision should stand. Sounds like the offside law may change which can only be a good thing.

 

On the subject of rules that need changing, the farcical asymmetric handball rule, which was a complete overreaction to a goal actually scored via a player’s arm, is the single biggest piece of nonsense ever dreamt up by the game’s overseers. I’m just about ok with the idea that a goal can’t be directly scored using an arm or hand inadvertently, although that’s still asymmetric in itself, but this ‘anywhere in the build-up’ thing has to be canned.
And the clear risk/ reward benefit of cynically breaking up dangerous attacking moves for a yellow card, sometimes not even that with some of our pathetic officials, the ‘Man City foul’, is the biggest issue in today’s game.
Virtually everything emanating from VAR, rule changes and supine referring interpretations is goalscoring-negative.

 

You think things are bad now, just wait til they introduce a 'tolerance' to offside decisions.

People will be crying out for the days when offside was offside.

 

The reason we have ended up with this silly handball rule can be traced back many years to when people started to bemoan different interpretations of incidents in different matches by different referees. In those days discretion was allowed by officials handling matches which helped in controlling players. Deciding on ‘intent’ in fouls and handballs was part of the ref’s job but gradually over time that was taken away from them by various directives and finally by rewriting the rules. What we have now is the logical conclusion of trying to make a certainty out of something which can only ever be a matter of opinion or interpretation.

 

Personally, I'd have no problem with the handball reverting back to its original interpretation. Most of the goals, if not all, that have been disallowed for handball this season have been clearly accidental. It's a farce when defenders can get away with accidental handball, whereas forwards cannot.

I'd have no issue with those 4 goals that should have been disallowed against us, being correctly awarded. They all were accidental handballs and in the spirit of the game, they should be allowed to stand. The fact that they were allowed to stand anyway is neither here nor there. Under the current rules they were all incorrect decisions. We know we'll always be on the receiving end of such decisions. If they get it wrong it will to our disadvantage and that's just the way it is and always will be.

Dawson's arm involvement during the "goal" on Saturday should have been ignored. Not under the current rules of course, but in the spirit of the game. We can go back to the natural silhouette. He's used his upper part of the shoulder, just as Ali and Mina did when they scored their goals against us. These should be allowed to stand.

Referees or supporters have no problem in spotting and accepting what is an accentual handball. When a ball bounces up and strikes an arm when the player looking in another direction is also accidental. These should be allowed to stand. Basically, whatever a defending player can get away with, then so should a forward player.

What cannot be accepted are the deliberate handballs. Such as the infamous Maradona or Henry goals. These were intentional and deliberate. These are surprisingly rare events and it is correct to rule these out.

What VAR has shown me this season, is how bad officials actually are. The PGMOL are incompetent, arrogant and a law unto themselves. Any suspicions people may have had over their lack of judgement have been well and truly justified this season. To get so many obvious things wrong after a VAR check just highlights this. All that benefit of the doubt, that officials enjoyed in the past is over. They have no excuse for getting so many things wrong this season.

I've always maintained, VAR should only be used for blatantly obvious injustices. If a play is a yard offside, if a player deliberately punches a ball into the goal, if a player stamps on an opponent but the on-field official misses it etc. These are the things it should be used for. How often does that happen? It's very rare. VAR should only be used on very rare occasions.

All this microscopic analysing of offsides has to stop. If it looks blatantly offside and you can see it is in the first review, then award offside. If you need to get the ruler out then go with the original decision. In fact, I'd take away the ruler facility altogether on the VAR equipment.

VAR is just too intrusive, and it has to become unnoticed. GLT is hardly thought of. It works, but is rarely needed. It's also trusted.

They have to simplify the usage of VAR. It's a great system, but is being used by idiots. This is the problem. They have made it overcomplicated, with silly rules like microscopic offsides and penalising handballs for forward players, but not defensive players. This HAS to be stripped out.

Their mantra is "clear and obvious". Stick to it and only use VAR when the decision is CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY wrong.

 

Pretty sure this handball change was on the back of Millwall beating Snakey's Everton last season wasn't it?

Guess the FA lost a lot of money with them going out early.

 

But the thing is, the first time we have a goal that's offside against us with your criteria, you and others will claim that it was blatent because it was against us irrespective of how offside it is.

The issue is the speed of the delivery decision. Improve that and it's fine.

 

But the problem is it's a system which comes with its own control centre, bureaucracy, staff appointments and significant investment. The Premier League was never going to spend all that money setting it all up for it to be seen a handful of times a season.

The new handball law has nothing to do with VAR either. It's typically enforced by VAR but the law itself applies across all levels of the game.

 

It's a combination of a lot of things. Silly rules and laws have been allowed to creep in. VAR has been an overwhelming disaster. No one likes it, even those who were strong supporters of it initially. I think the system is good, but poorly applied. The rules also need tweaking or changing completely.

It cannot be as intrusive as it currently is now. I do not believe, for one second, next season will be anything like this one in terms of how VAR is applied. I do not think football people running the game will stand for it.

 

Not really. Whatever the current rules are will be ignored or conveniently forgotten about when it comes to us. That's something I've had to come to terms with. The accident handball applies to everyone apart from when an opponent scores against us, for example. This is how it is, so a change of the offside will not effect us in any way whatsoever.

Martial at the weekend was a tight call, but wasn't really looked at, and no one has spoken about it since. However, when Pukki strolls through for Norwich to score a goal against Spurs earlier in the season, they did everything they could in order to disallow it. I heavily suspect had we scored a goal like Marital did at the weekend, it would have been reviewed to death, until they found a still with a small part of the body ahead of the last defender.

It's how the laws are applied that is the problem, with the subtle prejudices and biases that creep in. The human nature aspect can never be overridden unfortunately.

So this is not with Watford in mind when I say this about VAR offside checks. It takes far too long and is far to technical. VAR should only be there for clear errors. It's insane that they are taking this to such ridiculous levels in the Premier League. No other country does this. Even Gianni Infantino, the head of FIFA, could not believe it when a reporter told him this is how it's being used in the Premier League.

 

Yeah but that's only because his bribe to turn a blind eye had arrived yet.

 

It only counts when the attacking player handles it. It did touch the back of his hand, so I expect he's gutted it wasn't against the other team in yellow. That's the only way that one would have stood. Cracking finish.

 

Should of been a goal for Everton

 

Chris Kavanagh reminds me of a mate's husband. He's an arrogant **** as well.

 

Looked right to me. Sigurdsson blocked De Gea’s line of sight. He wouldn’t have saved it but never had a chance to try as I don’t think he could see the deflection immediately.

 

I don't agree, but you must be right because you agree with VAR

 

For all the talk this season of LiVARpool which I think is an exaggerated myth as they have had few incorrect decisions go there way by VAR if you analyse their matches ( aside from arguably their opening goal at home to man city) its actually Man Utd who seem to get endless favourable ref decisions or VAR overrules because of who they are. This season Man Utd are top of the league for penalties awarded and in their last 3 games have conceded 1 goal that actually stood and 4 goals that the ref has allowed but have been ruled out by VAR, at least 2 of which I think are have been incorrectly disallowed.

 

Actually the rule is that if the offside player does not go for the ball he is not offside so it should of been allowed. Besides De Gea is not getting there anyway he was diving the other way and the deflection took it away from him being able to save it. If Man Utd had scored that same goal against us as the winner last week at Old Trafford does the goal get disallowed?

 

Don’t think so?

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

He was in the offside position when Calvert-Lewin shot. And became active by obstructing De Gea’s view. It’s a subjective call whether he was ‘clearly obstructing’ but then a lot of offside is.

 

De Gea moves to the right and watches the ball all the way he is not obstructed in my opinion and is not getting there. The on field officials gave the goal. If a subjective decision, where there is no clear and obvious error made by the on field officials they are supposed to let the original decision stand.

 

He did definitely not prevent an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision.

1. he did not block his line of vision.
2. the only thing that prevented De Gea from playing or being able to play the ball was that he he stepped the wrong way due to the deflection.