VAR and Refs | General Discussion

[Mshafeek]

People need to stop with the conspiracy shit. Every club can bring a case for there being a conspiracy against them based on events and mistakes. The actual issue is the incompetence and lack of practical vision. Scrapping VAR will just make everything much worse.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

But you are clearly interpreting things in the rule that aren't there. Maguire does not need to keep the other player from getting to the ball, that is not in the rule. He needs to clearly attempt to play the ball while it is close and also impact on an opponent while doing so. Maguire is clearly attempting to play the ball, he (and the defender) is close to reach it, and he is in physical contact with a defender doing so, so he is clearly impacting on him. Just because you want the rule to be something it is not does not mean it is.

That is 100% wrong. Merely trying to play the ball doesn't make you offside. Your attempt has to either result in touching the ball, or impacting your opponent. He does neither

 

[SadlerMUFC]

Attempts to play the ball. Without question is a yes. If you can’t see that clearly you need a visit to Specsavers
Makes an obvious action which impacts an opponent. Again without question yes.

Your denial of the facts is not just beyond the next level but in outer space.

Attempts to play a ball WHICH IMPACTS AN OPPONENT. Why do you keep leaving that out? Are you trying to be dishonest, or are you just an idiot? And no, his action does not impact the opponent. By suggesting that, you are suggesting that the opponent would have gotten to the ball if Maguire wasn't there. Not true. The ball was still beyond both and only Garnacho was going to get it. And I am not in denial. The only person in denial is the person who is leaving parts out of the laws of the game to try and suit their argument. I clearly included all of the law

 

[Yorkeontop]

Platini tried to warn us though, but we told him to "stick it up your sixth official." I loved VAR at the 2018 WC, it added to the drama. It's not for everyday use though it seems.

 

[gajender]

VAR would be easier to establish in a time when people weren't so infatuated with whining and claiming conspiracies and victimhood.

Name a fanbase that doesn't think the refs have an agenda against them.

Or you know do a better job of actually using the technology at hand be fecking consistent in implementing the rules and not make up things as you go along .

Var is not a problem officials are they are just incompetent they need to do better plain and simple .

 

[Champ]

People need to stop with the conspiracy shit. Every club can bring a case for there being a conspiracy against them based on events and mistakes. The actual issue is the incompetence and lack of practical vision. Scrapping VAR will just make everything much worse.

After Mike Dean admitting he deliberately didn't send a ref to the screen for what should have been a red card offence in a game, it's easy to see why people would scream conspiracy.

Refs/VARs are human after all and are fallible to subconscious biasness without realizing it.

There's zero doubt in my mind that some (not all) refs/VARs work on the principal of how giving a penalty/major decision to a team would look after the game, rather than a subjective decision there and then.

 

[NotChatGPT]

After Mike Dean admitting he deliberately didn't send a ref to the screen for what should have been a red card offence in a game, it's easy to see why people would scream conspiracy.

Refs/VARs are human after all and are fallible to subconscious biasness without realizing it.

There's zero doubt in my mind that some (not all) refs/VARs work on the principal of how giving a penalty/major decision to a team would look after the game, rather than a subjective decision there and then.

One thing is subconscious bias without realizing it, and Mike Deans quotes are bad, but then you have Clattenburg who took an active choice to have a major impact on how the match between Tottenham and Chelsea played out.

 

[Isotope]

There ws one of those Jackson goals last night doesn't really feel right to be given. He was well offside when the ball was played out to the right side then he started running a bit, checked his run and then scored.

He had a clear advantage on the defender and got into an onside position only after having a few metres start on the defender. Obviously it's technically within the rules but just doesn't seem right that that can stand.

That 2000's Barca used this for perfection. They had players in offside positions lurking behind CBs, and the passer just knew which player wasn't offside to pass to.

It's been loophole for decades, and I'm wondering why no more team use this trick.

 

[CoopersDream]

That is 100% wrong. Merely trying to play the ball doesn't make you offside. Your attempt has to either result in touching the ball, or impacting your opponent. He does neither

Your clearly do not understand what impact means. It doesn't mean that he 100% needs to have gotten the ball if the impact wasn't there. Just because you want it to mean that doesn't mean it actually means that. Maguire attempts to play the ball while he is close to it, is in an offside position and while doing so he is in physical contact with an opponent that also tries to play the ball and therefore impacting on him. He is offside.

What's even more important, you don't and cannot know whether the defender would have gotten there or not, you can just speculate in that. And while you want that to matter, it doesn't really matter.

 

[terraloo]

Attempts to play a ball WHICH IMPACTS AN OPPONENT. Why do you keep leaving that out? Are you trying to be dishonest, or are you just an idiot? And no, his action does not impact the opponent. By suggesting that, you are suggesting that the opponent would have gotten to the ball if Maguire wasn't there. Not true. The ball was still beyond both and only Garnacho was going to get it. And I am not in denial. The only person in denial is the person who is leaving parts out of the laws of the game to try and suit their argument. I clearly included all of the law

Include the words or not it’s pretty obvious that the moment, the players attempts to play the ball etc it impacts the player I just thought, wrongly that you had grasped that fundamental point
The irony is in all this you are in total denial as to how Maguires movement, his attempt to play fits the criteria is the odd couple and you are in clearly in that number don't grasp even the basics of this infringement
By the way I am not suggesting the Fulham player would have got the ball . That is not the threshold, requirement or what ever. You’re all for looking at the rule where does it say the opposing player has to be better placed ?

 

[terraloo]

Your clearly do not understand what impact means. It doesn't mean that he 100% needs to have gotten the ball if the impact wasn't there. Just because you want it to mean that doesn't mean it actually means that. Maguire attempts to play the ball while he is close to it, is in an offside position and while doing so he is in physical contact with an opponent that also tries to play the ball and therefore impacting on him. He is offside.

What's even more important, you don't and cannot know whether the defender would have gotten there or not, you can just speculate in that. And while you want that to matter, it doesn't really matter.

In one

 

[cyberman]

Your clearly do not understand what impact means. It doesn't mean that he 100% needs to have gotten the ball if the impact wasn't there. Just because you want it to mean that doesn't mean it actually means that. Maguire attempts to play the ball while he is close to it, is in an offside position and while doing so he is in physical contact with an opponent that also tries to play the ball and therefore impacting on him. He is offside.

What's even more important, you don't and cannot know whether the defender would have gotten there or not, you can just speculate in that. And while you want that to matter, it doesn't really matter.

If an offside player couldn’t get there then how could the defender? Maguire isn’t offside until the last second remember

 

[terraloo]

If an offside player couldn’t get there then how could the defender? Maguire isn’t offside until the last second remember

Mguire was in an offside position the second the ball was kicked. That’s not even up for debate the issue is was he active.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Mguire was in an offside position the second the ball was kicked. That’s not even up for debate the issue is was he active.

It is a good question though. Maguire was offside and did everything he could to get a touch on the ball but wasn't able to. Surely this means that the defender he nipped ahead of never had any chance of playing the ball?

 

[Scandi Red]

Another example of refs misinterpreting the freeze frame there for Maeda’s red.

Came here for this. Ridiculous decision.

 

[cyberman]

Mguire was in an offside position the second the ball was kicked. That’s not even up for debate the issue is was he active.

But that’s what I’m saying. Up until then he’s legal so the tv should be paused at the moment he raises his foot off the ground rather than when the ball is played. Does Harry at that spilt second, trying to play a ball he can’t reach, affect Fulham in any way? I can’t see how when even the offside player couldn’t reach it. Plus the defender didn’t choose to mark an offside player, he was chosen to mark Maguire as an onside player at a set piece before the ball was even played in. If this happened a few feet / yards back I’d say fair enough, there’s arguably enough time for the defender to race back if Harry wasn’t there but feck me it’s only a few feet off from reaching Garnacho when Harry reacted

Edit the referee was called over so it was subjective decision which means the high bar was in play. I’m sure he’s offside by the literal letter of the law but if it’s missed on field then it had to be a more obvious offside to be changed imo

 

[Jeppers7]

But that’s what I’m saying. Up until then he’s legal so the tv should be paused at the moment he raises his foot off the ground rather than when the ball is played. Does Harry at that spilt second, trying to play a ball he can’t reach, affect Fulham in any way? I can’t see how when even the offside player couldn’t reach it. Plus the defender didn’t choose to mark an offside player, he was chosen to mark Maguire as an onside player at a set piece before the ball was even played in. If this happened a few feet / yards back I’d say fair enough, there’s arguably enough time for the defender to race back if Harry wasn’t there but feck me it’s only a few feet off from reaching Garnacho when Harry reacted

Edit the referee was called over so it was subjective decision which means the high bar was in play. I’m sure he’s offside by the literal letter of the law but if it’s missed on field then it had to be a more obvious offside to be changed imo

Bingo. It’s why it doesn’t happen every week.

 

[SER19]

The massive thing that was overlooked with VAR, by me included, is the huge human failing that leads to refs simply not blowing or punishing and hoping VAR bails them out. We see it every week now, the most striking one being the blatant Kovacic red. Oliver bottled it, and then a video can be watched over and over and justified any way they see fit. Had Oliver given a red, they wouldn't have changed that decision. That was such an obvious red I don't know how var didnt simply advise him to change it, but you can see refs bottling calls now.

I'll say it again, officiating is worse than it's been in my lifetime, with a huge drop off in the last 2-3 years.

 

[arnie_ni]

It is a good question though. Maguire was offside and did everything he could to get a touch on the ball but wasn't able to. Surely this means that the defender he nipped ahead of never had any chance of playing the ball?

What did they say about rodri on the pen? He would have been in the landing zone of the ball or something along those lines? Maybe the same applies

 

[Daydreamer]

The massive thing that was overlooked with VAR, by me included, is the huge human failing that leads to refs simply not blowing or punishing and hoping VAR bails them out. We see it every week now, the most striking one being the blatant Kovacic red. Oliver bottled it, and then a video can be watched over and over and justified any way they see fit. Had Oliver given a red, they wouldn't have changed that decision. That was such an obvious red I don't know how var didnt simply advise him to change it, but you can see refs bottling calls now.

I'll say it again, officiating is worse than it's been in my lifetime, with a huge drop off in the last 2-3 years.

I agree. That’s why I’m personally enraged by the Newcastle goal. If VAR didn’t exist, I think it would have been disallowed for one of the three possible infringements. But refs and linemen now default to not avoiding making the tough decisions and relying on VAR to decide.

This is exactly what I would do in their situation, so I’m not hating on it. Martin Oliver has no excuse with the Kovacic debacle, though. The first tackle on Odegaard could have been a red and VAR should have helped him out. But VAR can’t advise him to to give a yellow card for the foul on Roce moments later. And if you can’t give a studs up slide tackle from behind (taking none of the ball and a whole lot of ankle) as a yellow when you have a perfect view, then it starts to feel fishy.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The massive thing that was overlooked with VAR, by me included, is the huge human failing that leads to refs simply not blowing or punishing and hoping VAR bails them out. We see it every week now, the most striking one being the blatant Kovacic red. Oliver bottled it, and then a video can be watched over and over and justified any way they see fit. Had Oliver given a red, they wouldn't have changed that decision. That was such an obvious red I don't know how var didnt simply advise him to change it, but you can see refs bottling calls now.

I'll say it again, officiating is worse than it's been in my lifetime, with a huge drop off in the last 2-3 years.

Yeah, that gets overlooked a lot. VAR is making the onfield decisions worse than they ever were before. So we're seeing incidents where VAR creates an incorrect call which gives the misleading impression we need VAR more than we do because, without VAR, the referee would have made the correct call but chose not to because they chose to let VAR make the call on their behalf.

 

[Withnail]

What did they say about rodri on the pen? He would have been in the landing zone of the ball or something along those lines? Maybe the same applies

That was ridiculous though. I don't see how Rodri would have gotten anywhere near that ball.

 

[BarcaSpurs]

Imo just bring in semi automated offsides and do away with Var.

For penalties, red cards etc we just have more controversy than ever which I think will always be the case with subjective rules. Does taking 10 minutes to make the 'correct decision' which remains incredibly controversial anyway make the game any better?

 

[cyberman]

What did they say about rodri on the pen? He would have been in the landing zone of the ball or something along those lines? Maybe the same applies

To be fair that was a retired ref on camera chatting shit to back up his mate.
If someone can find me landing zone in the rules I’d very much appreciate it

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

It is a good question though. Maguire was offside and did everything he could to get a touch on the ball but wasn't able to. Surely this means that the defender he nipped ahead of never had any chance of playing the ball?

Is this proposition not based on the assumption that Maguire is the peak of human athletic abilities?

 

[arnie_ni]

That was ridiculous though. I don't see how Rodri would have gotten anywhere near that ball.

Oh I agree he had no chance but that was their justication.

 

[arnie_ni]

To be fair that was a retired ref on camera chatting shit to back up his mate.
If someone can find me landing zone in the rules I’d very much appreciate it

Ohhhh. I took it for granted that was a thing

 

[CoopersDream]

If an offside player couldn’t get there then how could the defender? Maguire isn’t offside until the last second remember

Because everyone does not move at exactly the same speed. Anyone not named Maguire in our team would probably have reached the ball. The defender also makes up the headstart of Maguire and is neck on neck with him in the end. Anyway, it is still beside the point - the defender doesn't need to 100% have reached and played the ball for it to be called offside. This is just something that is made up on here. He might have reached the ball, he might not have but regardless there's clearly an impact.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

Your clearly do not understand what impact means. It doesn't mean that he 100% needs to have gotten the ball if the impact wasn't there. Just because you want it to mean that doesn't mean it actually means that. Maguire attempts to play the ball while he is close to it, is in an offside position and while doing so he is in physical contact with an opponent that also tries to play the ball and therefore impacting on him. He is offside.

What's even more important, you don't and cannot know whether the defender would have gotten there or not, you can just speculate in that. And while you want that to matter, it doesn't really matter.

That is exactly what impact means. And no, the defender wouldn't have gotten there. Maguire didn't block him. Again, had he impacted his ability to get to the ball then it would be offside. But he didn't. Otherwise he would have cleared it. This shouldn't be this difficult to understand

 

[MegadrivePerson]

Onana clatters into a defender - Talked about for weeks
Sanchez clatters into a defender - Never mentioned again

Utd ball out of play VAR ruling - No mention ever again
Arsenal/Newcastle ball of out play VAR ruling - Still going on now

I try to my best to be impartial but is this not a load of shite?

It's the inconsistency that really frustrates me too.

If there's no way that they can conclusively tell if Rashford ran the ball out against Brighton, why did they guess that he did? Then a few weeks later they can't tell if the ball went out for Newcastle but they guessed that it didn't!

This is an issue that could be easily fixed too. They already use it for goal-line technology, so why not extend it so that it is used for all lines?

Imagine if goal -line technology just became over the line technology, On both those incidents we would have a clear answer.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

Include the words or not it’s pretty obvious that the moment, the players attempts to play the ball etc it impacts the player I just thought, wrongly that you had grasped that fundamental point
The irony is in all this you are in total denial as to how Maguires movement, his attempt to play fits the criteria is the odd couple and you are in clearly in that number don't grasp even the basics of this infringement
By the way I am not suggesting the Fulham player would have got the ball . That is not the threshold, requirement or what ever. You’re all for looking at the rule where does it say the opposing player has to be better placed ?

That is exactly what the threshold is. By calling Maguire offside when he doesn't touch the ball it HAS to have an impact on the other player. It doesn't. Had Maguire not been there Garnacho still would have been the one winning the ball because it was ahead of the Fulham defender. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

 

[terraloo]

It is a good question though. Maguire was offside and did everything he could to get a touch on the ball but wasn't able to. Surely this means that the defender he nipped ahead of never had any chance of playing the ball?

I very much doubt the defender would have got the ball and perhaps there could be an argument to say that should be a consideration but it the subjective view was that he impacted the play

 

[cyberman]

Because everyone does not move at exactly the same speed. Anyone not named Maguire in our team would probably have reached the ball. The defender also makes up the headstart of Maguire and is neck on neck with him in the end. Anyway, it is still beside the point - the defender doesn't need to 100% have reached and played the ball for it to be called offside. This is just something that is made up on here. He might have reached the ball, he might not have but regardless there's clearly an impact.

But how? Maguire doesn’t block his view of the ball, he doesn’t block his path to the ball since it goes beyond Harry.
I think you’re a bit lost in this by taking it the whole way back to the cross. Harry is legal until the very last second, no defender can get beyond Harry and get to the ball in the split second between trying to kick the ball and it landing at Garnachos feet. The fact you’re saying he out sped Harry and nearly got there shows Harry didn’t impede him at all
Watch it again and pause the screen at exactly when Harry raises his foot. That’s the only sequence that matters since he’s legal until then. Who is he impeding other than Garnacho? Who is marking him? The flash?remember for the defender to get there he has to go beyondMaguire and that’s impossible.
Here’s the kicker for me, you’re talking as if it’s black and white.That’s impossible since the ruling wasn’t made in the VAR room and the ref was called over so it became a subjective matter.

 

[Snow]

To be fair that was a retired ref on camera chatting shit to back up his mate.
If someone can find me landing zone in the rules I’d very much appreciate it

You won't because there isn't one. These are subjective rulings by individual referees. Akanji earlier in the season stood right in front of the keeper in a deep offside position blocking the goalkeeper's view and deemed to not have affected the game.

 

[CoopersDream]

That is exactly what impact means. And no, the defender wouldn't have gotten there. Maguire didn't block him. Again, had he impacted his ability to get to the ball then it would be offside. But he didn't. Otherwise he would have cleared it. This shouldn't be this difficult to understand

It feels like talking to a brick wall. You are literally making things up here. He was offside exactly becsuse he was judged, by the rules, to have impacted. You making things up that arent't in the actual rules won't change that.

 

[Withnail]

It feels like talking to a brick wall. You are literally making things up here. He was offside exactly becsuse he was judged, by the rules, to have impacted. You making things up that arent't in the actual rules won't change that.

As you can see by this thread he hasn't clearly impacted the defenders ability to play the ball. It there's debate, it's not clear. I'm not sure there was enough in it to over-rule the awarding of the goal or to warrant sending the ref to the monitor.

 

[CoopersDream]

As you can see by this thread he hasn't clearly impacted the defenders ability to play the ball. It there's debate, it's not clear. I'm not sure there was enough in it to over-rule the awarding of the goal or to warrant sending the ref to the monitor.

Whatever you say. That is not what is discussed though. And I am not sure how clear and obvious comes into play with offsides, if it even does. The correct call in this instance, however, is offside considering he commits an offside offence from an offside position.

 

[Withnail]

Whatever you say. That is not what is discussed though. And I am not sure how clear and obvious comes into play with offsides, if it even does. The correct call in this instance, however, is offside considering he commits an offside offence from an offside position.

I'm using the word clearly because the rules use that qualificatier ans as I said I'm not sure it's clear.

 

[CoopersDream]

I'm using the word clearly because the rules use that qualificatier ans as I said I'm not sure it's clear.

While I think he ticks that part of the rule, he clearly ticks the part of the rule that states "clearly attempt to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent". Nothing about clearly (apart from clearly attempting to play the ball, and that he does 100%) in that part, and to say there's no impact at all is not really reasonable at all to me.

 

[SER19]

Yeah, that gets overlooked a lot. VAR is making the onfield decisions worse than they ever were before. So we're seeing incidents where VAR creates an incorrect call which gives the misleading impression we need VAR more than we do because, without VAR, the referee would have made the correct call but chose not to because they chose to let VAR make the call on their behalf.

100%. It's just human nature on their part, but I just don't believe refs haven't tuned their attempts at precision and accuracy down a margin, because in their mind they know there's a video to help them or undermine them. Then the application of this video technolody just enrages people more as it opens up a second layer of often subjective opinion.

The disallowed McTominay one at the weekend for example - nothing is ruled out on field. Then we have 4 minutes, where Var suggest it's a subjective offisde call, and the goal gets disallowed with people perfectly capable of arguing it both ways. Pre VAR, had that goal stood, there would have been a minimal sense of injustice from Fulham fans. The stakes of goals in tight games are too high for this sort of thing, and I wonder if we wouldn't be better off returning to the old school idea that the ref tries his best and might make a mistake.

At least then we could celebrate goals. I miss the glance of an attacker towards the linesman, and knowing when he keeps celebrating that the flag stayed down. Now I just wait until the game has restarted, and give a pathetic little fist bump.