Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)

[montpelier]

It isn't though because their primary concern is supporting whatever the ref has given.

Sorry Hugh I was gonna agree about the Jones foul but messed up the posting and quoting.

 

[Marcus]

VAR is used to justify biases. The whole lot are willing Liverpool to win the league title. Akin to the 30 years of hope crap for England.

 

[El Zoido]

If Liverpool had conceded that goal it would have been disallowed, without any doubt.

 

[montpelier]

VAR is not the problem; it's the human ref making the interpretation who is.

VAR is not the problem; it's the human ref making the interpretation who is.

The interpretation is the VAR unless I'm missing something.

 

[Cpt Negative]

I called handball watching it live. It just looked like it was controlled by his arm and it was.

its touching his bicep, accidentally or not, I’ve seen lesser being disallowed this season. I was 100% confident when I saw the replay and was genuinely shocked when I was given.

jones needs to be stronger in the first one tough, should never let it get to that, being said, again, seen a lot less given for foul this season

 

[Acquire Me]

If Liverpool had conceded that goal it would have been disallowed, without any doubt.

No doubts about that.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

The Alli goal was deemed to have been correctly given upon review. Despite what you might think the rules are, the Alli goal was correct as per how the refs are told to interpret it. Which is important as refs base their decisions on the guidelines they are given. Bearing in mind that VAR have to be certain it was a handball to disallow the goal, that's more than enough reason not to disallow.

And I'd be fine (ish) if VAR said "were not overruling unless it's obvious", which is what I thought VAR was going to be for.

But they're changing really really tight calls, like Sterling yesterday.

Also, let the ref make the call by going to pitch side TV instead of some nameless, untouchable group in a shipping container miles away.

 

[Rado_N]

VAR is not the problem; it's the human ref making the interpretation who is.

You say that as though it’s separate. A human being involved is part of VAR.

 

[TheReligion]

The issue is that VAR aren't directly ruling on the two incidents, they're ruling based on the ref's initial interpretation of the two incidents.

So if the ref didn't see the push on Lovren at all it becomes more of a "clear and obvious error" than him seeing the Jones incident but interpreting it as shoulder to shoulder. Both could be fouls but one is more likely to be overturned as the ref has made a factual error (i.e. not seeing a push that took place) rather than an error of interpretation.

Which is why they should review such decisions again themselves.

And you agree with that?!

 

[RK]

And if I'm trying to be neutral, the saddest aspect of the VAR world is still this:

Blades manager Chris Wilder on VAR check for third goal:
"We celebrated. Scored in last minute. Somebody said the goal might get ruled out. A couple of times against Spurs last week it happened. It takes a a little bit away from the moment."

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

What foul? I watch league 2 football most weekends. It was shoulder to shoulder - not even close to a foul. You should be chuffed with a draw after being totally outplayed. You honestly think you deserved a win?

Maybe but this is a VAR thread not a "who deserves what" thread?

(And it's a foul. Anywhere else on the pitch, ref just says shove in the back, freekick, move on. That said, Jones is an idiot and should have put it out for a throw in)

 

[acnumber9]

The Alli goal was deemed to have been correctly given upon review. Despite what you might think the rules are, the Alli goal was correct as per how the refs are told to interpret it. Which is important as refs base their decisions on the guidelines they are given. Bearing in mind that VAR have to be certain it was a handball to disallow the goal, that's more than enough reason not to disallow.

Deemed by who though? They’re supposed to disallow any handball that leads directly to a goal. You may like to talk like you’re the oracle on all things VAR but you’ve already been proven wrong with your matter of fact posts before. It is clear as day that it hit his arm. Why don’t they have to be certain it’s offside to disallow a goal?

 

[acnumber9]

Where are you seeing a handball?

Do you see that badge on the sleeve of his shirt? Do you see the ball right beside it? That’s where you see the handball.

 

[RK]

Do you see that badge on the sleeve of his shirt? Do you see the ball right beside it? That’s where you see the handball.

It's difficult to know what to say to people like that. Can we send them back to Arm School? Maybe we're wrong. Maybe anything higher than your elbow is your shoulder. I'll ask the blokes down at the gym.

 

[Flying high]

When VAR is ready, I'll support it. Test it in lower leagues until they cement a system that works.

 

[sullydnl]

And you agree with that?!

Oh no, I think it's stupid. The protocols around VAR in the PL are a mess. I was just explaining why you can have two situations judged by entirely different standards.

 

[montpelier]

It's difficult to know what to say to people like that. Can we send them back to Arm School? Maybe we're wrong. Maybe anything higher than your elbow is your shoulder. I'll ask the blokes down at the gym.

I must say, I wasn't expecting the ''it hasn't hit him on the arm'' defence of VAR .

 

[montpelier]

Oh no, I think it's stupid. The protocols around VAR in the PL are a mess. I was just explaining why you can have two situations judged by entirely different standards.

Yeah, exactly like we were saying earlier, isn't it.

 

[sullydnl]

Deemed by who though? They’re supposed to disallow any handball that leads directly to a goal. You may like to talk like you’re the oracle on all things VAR but you’ve already been proven wrong with your matter of fact posts before. It is clear as day that it hit his arm. Why don’t they have to be certain it’s offside to disallow a goal?

I wasn't trying to be any sort of oracle on anything.

They are supposed to disallow a handball that leads to a goal. That's what they would have done if they thought it was a handball. Clearly they didn't, an interpretation that is in line with previous decisions that were deemed correct when reviewed again by the referee's body from whom they take direction. You're free to disagree with their interpretation as much as you like, it doesn't make them wrong.

 

[acnumber9]

I wasn't trying to be any sort of oracle on anything.

They are supposed to disallow a handball that leads to a goal. That's what they would have done if they thought it was a handball. Clearly they didn't, an interpretation that is in line with previous decisions that were deemed correct when reviewed again by the referee's body from whom they take direction. You're free to disagree with their interpretation as much as you like, it doesn't make them wrong.

It doesn’t make them right either no matter how much you try to shut down debate that they weren’t.

 

[Zlatan 7]

So handball is only handball sometimes depending on guidelines. Ok, now we’re clear on that

 

[fergiesarmy1]

Didn’t look a very impressive operation at stockley park or whatever they call it either. Look like they were all crowding round monitors that you would use for emails not scrutinising fine details. Was expecting high def mac screens not shitty looking 19” monitors from what I could see.

 

[sullydnl]

It doesn’t make them right either no matter how much you try to shut down debate that they weren’t.

How am I shutting down debate? I'm just arguing like everyone else, you're free to blame VAR all you like. Yeesh.

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

Do you see that badge on the sleeve of his shirt? Do you see the ball right beside it? That’s where you see the handball.

The ball hit his chest. I think you are confusing the badges. His hands are clearly out of the way.

 

[montpelier]

So handball is only handball sometimes depending on guidelines. Ok, now we’re clear on that

Mainly the ref's original decision I think.

 

[Sandikan]

If Liverpool had conceded that goal it would have been disallowed, without any doubt.

Guaranteed. I'm shocked there doesn't seem to be any sort of debate about it, and the commentators barely gave it a mention.

 

[Sandikan]

So handball is only handball sometimes depending on guidelines. Ok, now we’re clear on that

Handball can only be handball if....it hits a hand/arm.
The Sheff Utd guy didn't handle it!

 

[Sandikan]

Deemed by who though? They’re supposed to disallow any handball that leads directly to a goal. You may like to talk like you’re the oracle on all things VAR but you’ve already been proven wrong with your matter of fact posts before. It is clear as day that it hit his arm. Why don’t they have to be certain it’s offside to disallow a goal?

It didn't hit his hand or his arm though?

 

[Oldham]

It's just horrible...

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I thought it was a foul on Jones (too much force) but didn't think it was a handball.

 

[DickDastardly]

Handball can only be handball if....it hits a hand/arm.
The Sheff Utd guy didn't handle it!

Sure.

Try shouldering a ball like that.

And he sure as hell didn't chest it down.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Handball can only be handball if....it hits a hand/arm.
The Sheff Utd guy didn't handle it!

So it didn’t hit the top of his arm? I thought it clearly did

 

[VanHaal'sRedArmy]

You say that as though it’s separate. A human being involved is part of VAR.

I think I understand where you're coming from. You're talking about VAR as the officiating system (including refs) and I'm making a distinction between the human ref and the video feed.

Handball rule:

Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental.
The handball rule now has extra clarity because it does not consider intent by a player.
Another big change is to do with the position of a player's hand/arm.
If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded.
IFAB says that having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a "natural" position and a player is "taking a risk" by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding.
It is, however, considered natural for a player to put their arm between their body and the ground for support when falling, so long as the arm is not extended to make the body bigger.

I take issue with the "unnaturally bigger" interpretation. What can you deem accidental/natural vs clear intent disguised as part of a natural motion?
So the rulebook added an extra clause in hopes of taking away the confusion if a deflection is involved:

Premier League players will be allowed extra leeway when it comes to ricocheted handballs.
It is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball if it has deflected off the body of an opponent, team-mate, or even another part of the own player.
So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby.

So in the VAR replay, we all agree the ball ricochets off McBurnie's thigh onto his shoulder then the shot deflects off Maguire & De Gea into the net.
So if you deem is an unavoidable deflection, it's not a handball; but if you think the player made his "body bigger" it's a handball -- the interpretation all comes down to the VAR official.

For the record, I think the right call was made in this case--unfortunately for us.

 

[acnumber9]

How am I shutting down debate? I'm just arguing like everyone else, you're free to blame VAR all you like. Yeesh.

You aren’t. You’re just telling people they’re wrong. But we’ll leave it at that.

 

[acnumber9]

The ball hit his chest. I think you are confusing the badges. His hands are clearly out of the way.

It hit his arm. The hands are not the only part of of the body that can lead to handball. The badge is on the sleeve.

 

[acnumber9]

It didn't hit his hand or his arm though?

I would say it did. As is shown by the picture of the ball right beside the badge on the players sleeve.

 

[VanHaal'sRedArmy]

I would say it did. As is shown by the picture of the ball right beside the badge on the players sleeve.

Doesn't matter. Rules state deflections off the arm from any part of their body isn't considered handball.

Now you can argue the rules are stupid and need to be amended, but in this match, there were more issues with coaching than a dodgy rule.

 

[Heinzesight]

Neither the Ali, the Sheffield United or the CL final ones are handball but in this shitty VAR version of the game, they are.

As I’ve said before, the fact most Liverpool fans are in favour of VAR speaks for itself.

 

[Red_Aaron]

I thought it was a foul on Jones (too much force) but didn't think it was a handball.

The more I see the first goal the more I'm certain it was a foul on Jones. I wasn't massively bothered at the time as I was angry with how we'd played and we deserved the punishment, Jones also had plenty of opportunity to deal with it but pissed about instead so I was more mad at him. Watching the replays with a cooler head though and there's no question its a foul, hugely excessive force - which btw shef u were guilty of on a few occasions for me, they were off their feet in nearly every tackle but the ref let it go.

Agreed on the handball, nothing in it for me

 

[OldSchoolManc]

If it wasn’t for the arm of McBurnie, the ball would have glanced off his chest and gone for goal kick or throw in.
I don’t recall when humans developed pectorals that could stop a ball dead.
simple as.