How they use it is broken to me. Obviously there is an exageration with that post that such a clever poster like you couldn't have missed you
Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)
- Thread starter RedFish
- Start date
I've gotten around to watch the villa disallowed goal and....wow
Nothing to do with VAR. This wasn't just a mistake. If that ref is allowed anywhere near another PL game than i'm sorry but your FA and your league truly are a joke and should never be taken seriously anymore.
Because this is not a case of a ref misjudging an incident, or not seeing what happened, or anything like that. This is a case of a biased ref, letting his own bias get in the way of of his job. It is the single worst refereeing mistake i've ever seen, because it's single type of mistake that is absolutely unacceptable, at any level. I believe aston villa might even have a case to appeal to replay the game here
Nothing to do with VAR. This wasn't just a mistake. If that ref is allowed anywhere near another PL game than i'm sorry but your FA and your league truly are a joke and should never be taken seriously anymore.
Because this is not a case of a ref misjudging an incident, or not seeing what happened, or anything like that. This is a case of a biased ref, letting his own bias get in the way of of his job. It is the single worst refereeing mistake i've ever seen, because it's single type of mistake that is absolutely unacceptable, at any level. I believe aston villa might even have a case to appeal to replay the game here
It would still be a goal, as @montpelier said, the current explanation is that defense had time to reset.
This is not some interpretation of the the VaR in the PL, but that’s the VAR rule overall.
According to the VAR rules, a missed foul isn’t worth reviewing/reversing unless it results directly in a goal.
Ref in lazio-roma just did what friend was supposed to do in the villa game
That may explain the rashford situation but still doesn’t really explain a more direct circumstance.
Striker is marginally offside, linesman keeps his flag down incase, striker goes through on goal and shoots, keeper palms it wide for a corner.
If he scored it would have gone to var and be ruled out, because he didn’t score he gets a corner, while in the past he would have just been flagged offside (because the linesman thought he was).
It just feels a bit off
That escalated quickly.
But seriously, that guy should never be allowed to work in the PL again. Refs have to objective, a guy who is biased against a player and can't wait to punish him to the point of directly affecting the result with a clear, huge mistake, is clearly not capable of being a ref
That type of decision was what I thought VAR was for. VAR refs call ref and say "did you disallow that for a dive because if so, we think you should look at it again". Ref goes to side of pitch and says "sorry, it was a foul so advantage and goal".
Premier League seems to use VAR different to the World Cup (where I thought it worked pretty well).
He should have let the play end before calling the dive for VAR to intervene. He blows the play dead before the goal, so VAR can't interfere anymore
It's bonkers. One of the worst decisions i've ever seen
That's two things. A poor decision and a flawed way to use VAR.
Why restrict when VAR can or can't be used? I can't think of another sport where they have the technology but create some flawed process regarding its use.
It should be queried whenever the VAR panel think so (for key decisions) but ultimately onfield refs call... like the World Cup.
Because how does VAR tell players to ignore the whistle and keep playing?
Ahuh. In this case, the refs poor decision ruins it. But generally, VAR refs should be allowed to shout out more and call the ref to a screen at pitch side (imo). I don't like a ref making a decision, the VAR panel reviewing it and overruling the ref.
VAR is a good idea, used wrong and on top of that, the quality of refereeing is poor.
If a referee saw an incident on the pitch and deliberately chose not to act on it on the pitch we'd rightly be calling him corrupt or biased since the laws of the game aren't the only determinant in the making of his decision. Now we have a situation where a referee watches an incident multiple times, slowed down, on a screen and deliberately chooses not to act on it, and we're supposed to be fine with that? They really have to change the 'high threshold' thing and just go with the 'right decision', especially since the presence of VAR affects the referee's innate decision making (I'll let this slide because I have VAR to sort it out if I mess it up).
I'm starting to think it's slighty bent
I don't think cricket is trying particularly hard to get everything right with it, or they could be there all day looking at nearly every ball.
Teams get a challenge, supposedly for use where the umpire has made a whopper of a mistake, although it doesn't always pan out like that. And has a tactical element even.
I've softened on 'challenge' slightly for the football. But probably one each per half is plenty, on the basis that if they're right, they keep it. There WOULD be challenges occurring in the 2nd half though, I'm sure.
The search for TOTAL accuracy gets set aside a little bit, but that seems pretty unlikely to be achieved anyway.
And... feel free to disagree, I don't want to go over to the Pro side just yet, 
.
I am tentatively reckoning that we are seeing much improved player behaviour & a fair bit more actual football being played. Which I am liking quite a lot, 2nd halves of games had got really tedious with constant stoppages for faffing about & winning teams doing anything to break the play up. Seems to be less of this to me.
.I am tentatively reckoning that we are seeing much improved player behaviour & a fair bit more actual football being played. Which I am liking quite a lot, 2nd halves of games had got really tedious with constant stoppages for faffing about & winning teams doing anything to break the play up. Seems to be less of this to me.
A VAR Question shamelessly stolen from FW
Jonathan Wilson posed the following question:
Say it's the last minute against Leicester and we have a corner. The ball comes in, bobbles around and Pogba hits a shot. Evans has his hands firmly by his side in the natural silhouette position and be blocks the shot, with the ball hitting his arm.
The ball lands at his feet, he smashes it 80 yards and Vardy out paces our last man and with his first or second touch lashes it past the keeper.
What is the decision? As a ball can't be assisted with a hand, but handball rule dictates that if you're in the silhouette there is no penalty...
Jonathan Wilson posed the following question:
Say it's the last minute against Leicester and we have a corner. The ball comes in, bobbles around and Pogba hits a shot. Evans has his hands firmly by his side in the natural silhouette position and be blocks the shot, with the ball hitting his arm.
The ball lands at his feet, he smashes it 80 yards and Vardy out paces our last man and with his first or second touch lashes it past the keeper.
What is the decision? As a ball can't be assisted with a hand, but handball rule dictates that if you're in the silhouette there is no penalty...
I’d say Evans the defender becomes an attacker in that scenario as he’s played an assist.
Which leads me to another question but it’s more handball related, not VAR. what makes a defender? The number on shirt? Position on team sheet? Position on field at time of handball?
Football is turning into a mind feck
Which leads me to another question but it’s more handball related, not VAR. what makes a defender? The number on shirt? Position on team sheet? Position on field at time of handball?
Football is turning into a mind feck
I picked Evans randomly, could be anyone but the point is it happens in the Leicester box.
It is a handball rule question to be fair... Probably in the wrong thread
If handball leads to a goal being scored then it’s a foul even if it’s a natural silhouette and accidental (see city v spurs), so logically the correct call under current rules would be penalty. Not that I would expect the idiots in the premier league to follow their own guidelines though.
They’d probably give a drop ball and force United to give the ball to Leicester for some reason.
interesting scenario, 
what's the restart if the ref has (wrongly) blown for a penalty that is overturned?
but common-sense wise, I'd suggest an uncontested drop ball where Evans biffs it up the field to return possession
what's the restart if the ref has (wrongly) blown for a penalty that is overturned?
but common-sense wise, I'd suggest an uncontested drop ball where Evans biffs it up the field to return possession
But as @Anustart89 pointed out, if it leads to a goal it’s a foul, anywhere else in the pitch it would be a handball free kick so really the handball assist should lead to a penalty. Such funinteresting scenario,
what's the restart if the ref has (wrongly) blown for a penalty that is overturned?
but common-sense wise, I'd suggest an uncontested drop ball where Evans biffs it up the field to return possession
Goal. Handball in question does not assist the goal or even particularly effect it given it's an 80 yard hoofball followed by vardy turning that into a goal
As for overturned penalty, ball goes back to the team that had possession at the moment of the whistle, if the ball was still in play and no other foul was committed(such as a dive, in this scenario)
As for overturned penalty, ball goes back to the team that had possession at the moment of the whistle, if the ball was still in play and no other foul was committed(such as a dive, in this scenario)
But the handball leads to winning possession and then to the assist. If a player has the ball touch his hand and he assists the goalscorer with a cut-back then it’s disallowed. Why should it be different just because the assist is an 80-yard hoof and not an incisive through ball?
He’d still get an assist in the stat column, wouldn’t he?
OK then, I've got the ball/hand contact existing on this decision/phase of play continuum reading down the page
defending phase, not a penalty because blah blah blah
---------------THE BALL HITS HIS HAND---------------- (end of def phase AND start of attack phase)
attacking phase - you're not having a goal for that
Through the use of this model I can visualise that Evans is participating in the play in 2 different ways.
I also conclude that phases of play can exist as either separate blocks or they can share what I am going to call ''incident boundaries.''
There you go, no penalty & no goal. Simples.
defending phase, not a penalty because blah blah blah
---------------THE BALL HITS HIS HAND---------------- (end of def phase AND start of attack phase)
attacking phase - you're not having a goal for that
Through the use of this model I can visualise that Evans is participating in the play in 2 different ways.
I also conclude that phases of play can exist as either separate blocks or they can share what I am going to call ''incident boundaries.''
There you go, no penalty & no goal. Simples.
Wat?
So no foul was committed yet you’re not going to award a goal? How do you disallow a goal if no offense has been committed? It doesn’t make any logical sense. Why would you stop the game if no offense was committed and how would you restart the game?
You’re going to tell Vardy “no goal” and when he asks you “why, was there a foul?” you’re just gonna go “nope no foul but no goal either”.
To be fair though, that sounds like PL ref logic/arrogance so you’ve got that down.
So no foul was committed yet you’re not going to award a goal? How do you disallow a goal if no offense has been committed? It doesn’t make any logical sense. Why would you stop the game if no offense was committed and how would you restart the game?
You’re going to tell Vardy “no goal” and when he asks you “why, was there a foul?” you’re just gonna go “nope no foul but no goal either”.
To be fair though, that sounds like PL ref logic/arrogance so you’ve got that down.
I'm splitting the 'handball' in 2 essentially. It's 2 'handballs' - so I make 2 decisions, both of which are right.
Because, allowing the goal is clearly nonsense.
Because, allowing the goal is clearly nonsense.
No you’re wrong in the second one because winning possession with the hand and then assisting a goal is a foul so correct decision is a penalty.
- Deliberate handball remains an offense. The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:
- The ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm
- A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
- The ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
- The ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm
Possibly, but at least I'm trying to be fair. I'm not letting them have a goal for that. They are gaining an unfair advantage - like what the rule was amended to, to try & cut that out.
And, also in my scenario, Bigfoot Klopp is on the sideline & he doesn't look very happy.
And, also in my scenario, Bigfoot Klopp is on the sideline & he doesn't look very happy.
There is some massive feckup on the way, there really is, .
Either the refs have got to go back to blowing the whistle when there is 'an incident; or the VAR people need to be prepared to show some decision-making ability/willingness.
.Either the refs have got to go back to blowing the whistle when there is 'an incident; or the VAR people need to be prepared to show some decision-making ability/willingness.
If you’re a ref you shouldn’t be thinking about “letting them have a goal”. You’re supposed to apply the laws of the game without bias. If the laws of the game are stupid, then change the laws of the game.
And in our scenario, United get the penalty and miss anyway so you haven’t given anyone an advantage
I probably know & agree with that. But referees don't always make fair decisions or decisions that are in full accordance with the Laws. For all sorts of reasons - mainly control of the game, maybe they gave the last 3 to one side & not the other. A lot is 50/50, and a lot is subjective.
.I should have started a new thread for this!
VAR is ridiculous when the fault is so small it can hardly be spotted by the naked eye. You need to see it again and again is slow motion, for minutes, to decide. And no goal celebration. First you have to wait for VAR.
It should be used only in clear cases, when it just take a few seconds to decide.
It´s not so bad in the PL, anyway. In Spain, on the other hand, it interrupts the games so much, it´s damaging for football.
It should be used only in clear cases, when it just take a few seconds to decide.
It´s not so bad in the PL, anyway. In Spain, on the other hand, it interrupts the games so much, it´s damaging for football.
Because if the whistle is blown the players can argue they stopped. What if the keeper said awk i didnt try because I heard the whistle.
This wasnt a var fault. It was a horrible referring mistake
No. I mean that decision was a poor ref decision but (separately), they're restricting when VAR is used.
Does an 80 yard hoof count as creating a goal-scoring opportunity?
Btw, in case your answer is yes, then the goal comes off and the ref drops the ball in midfield, no fouls
An assist is an assist, regardless of whether it’s an 80 yard pass or a 3 yard one. It’s a pass leading directly to a goal.
Do you think Beckham would be thrilled if we took half his assists away because they’re all 50 yard hoofs?
Leicester basically won the league with 80 yard hoofs to Vardy, would you not count those goals as being assisted because they were ugly assists?
My answer is yes and your response makes no sense because if the handball’s a foul then it’s a foul for the opposition and since it happened in the penalty box it’s a penalty. You can’t just pick and choose where to apply the rules.
Last edited: