Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)
- Thread starter RedFish
- Start date
Sigurdson made an obvious action which clearly impacted DDG. Clear and easy offside, never doubted it when it was being reviewed and the ref agreed
Unlucky Everton, but people doing mental gymnastics here by saying he's not interfering are funny. 
I said from the beginning VAR got introduced we're going to be one of the biggest net beneficiaries since we were getting screwed over by refs to a laughable degree last couple of years.
I said from the beginning VAR got introduced we're going to be one of the biggest net beneficiaries since we were getting screwed over by refs to a laughable degree last couple of years.Let's try and turn this round a second. You all agree there is a question of offside yes? Concerning a player sat on the floor about 5 yards out who has to move out of the way of the ball rolling into the net?
With the allowance being made for him that he isn't in the keepers way or putting him off?
It's a stretch towards the attacking side that is so large as to be ludicrous.
With the allowance being made for him that he isn't in the keepers way or putting him off?
It's a stretch towards the attacking side that is so large as to be ludicrous.
If that's not offside, might as well just have someone lying in front of the keeper all the time... Cos why not? As long as he doesn't touch it or won't matter apparently.
I'm quoting exactly what the law says.
Why should we expect the premier League to care about that though?
They haven't for the rest of the season?
They'll just make up whatever VAR descision that suits the plot lines this week. Liverpool champions, check, top 4 battle check etc.
Have to say as a Chelsea fan gave up after the lo celso stamp. Laughable.
Even if we get CL, don't see much point. Even spending huge money won't make us competitive.
Just get schooled as soon as we meet a decent side again.
English football at it's lowest eb in my time as a supporter with the VAR farce this year in my opinion.
What..? I mean that’s ridiculous. It’s textbook interfering with play.
He’s clearly distracting DDG just by being in an offside position right in front of him! I don’t care if he’s on the floor that’s distracting as hell. Who’s to say if DDG can see everything from the boot of the player who has the shot anyway due to Sugurdsson sat on his arse right in front of him.
Secondly he actually has to move his legs to get out of the way of the ball otherwise it his him & it’s a no goal & gets blown for offside.
I’m actually shocked there’s even a debate about this- it’s crazy. Almost like just because it benefited us no one likes it...
You don't have much faith in Lampard then? If you make CL, and get some top players in, it wouldn't take that much for you to become competitive again, (assuming Lampard can become a top manager).
You have to look at the images from when the shot is taken. To me it looks like De Gea has clear sight of the ball regardless of Sigurdsson’s position.
Him having to move out of the way is no different to a player walking back from an offside position and ignoring the ball so that another player can get
I’d be annoyed if that was given as offside against my team.
Still, Sigurdsson didn’t help the situation by just sitting there.
This is just after the deflection.
Sigurdsson is sitting upright and he clearly obstructs De Gea‘s view. As he was offside when the ball was passed, it‘s a very clear offside call. The only debatable issue here is — once more — the offside rule itself.
Sigurdsson is sitting upright and he clearly obstructs De Gea‘s view. As he was offside when the ball was passed, it‘s a very clear offside call. The only debatable issue here is — once more — the offside rule itself.
Var is a bit better than the refs but to offset this is the time it takes/kills spontaneity
I am totally against VAR and I know that we have been beneficiary of some decisions by VAR in the past few weeks but I think that is a clear offside call.
People need to understand that the only reason a team ‘benefits from VAR’ is because they have (clearly and obviously by the PL’s own criteria) been shafted by the on-field referees.
Same goes for the teams that have been ‘shafted’ who have been given (clearly and obviously) favourable calls from the referees, which are obviously understandable in the case of offsides where they’re under instruction to not flag and where clear and obvious doesn’t come into it.
In summary, without VAR we would’ve been the victims of refereeing bias on the pitch with no way to achieve any sort of justice. Especially since the for/against charts don’t include that we’ve been shafted against palace (Cahill red card, martial penalty) and Everton in the previous meeting, since VAR confirmed the on-field call and it doesn’t end up in any for/against column.
So can anyone explain why VAR couldn't have been used to rule out a possible goal from the free kick after the incorrect Fred handball decision?
PS. I am totally in favour of VAR as it benefits teams who play football and are honest over those who play kick and rush with an unsportsmanlike approach.
I hope they don't change the laws of the game to accommodate VAR decisions for these vile teams just because they're the darlings of the moment...
PS. I am totally in favour of VAR as it benefits teams who play football and are honest over those who play kick and rush with an unsportsmanlike approach.
I hope they don't change the laws of the game to accommodate VAR decisions for these vile teams just because they're the darlings of the moment...
Because as soon as play resumes, you can't go back and review something. That's the guidelines they've set out.
Obviously they could if they wanted to, but they've set up the usage for VAR guidelines to be that stops in play are when VAR decisions are made... probably so that 5/10 minutes of games don't go on and then something is brought back.
Also, again with the guidelines they've set out - VAR is just for major incidents (Pens, Red Cards, Goals) it's not for everything... otherwise all decisions would get reviewed and it would take all day.
I mean just about everything you just said is completely wrong.
Pretty standard online posters not understanding basic rules.
Man United way out in front at plus 8! Liverpool on plus 1.
is this enough to convince people that VAR wasn't designed to help Liverpool win a title?
My own feelings on VAR now are that it's mainly exposing how bad the referees in this country are. I am still not a fan of it, but it's not going anywhere is it?
Hopefully it will be better used once people understand it a bit more?
VAR needs consistency, which will always be an issue considering the human factor.
The other thing it's exposing is how little football fans/pundits actually know the rules of football. I'd say I've learned more about the rules of offside and handball from trying to figure out arbitrary VAR decisions than I had in the two previous decades.
How so?
Those are the rules quoted directly from IFAB documentation:
https://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/793/103202_200519_LotG_201920_EN_SinglePage.pdf
It's also in the laws of the game that the referee on the pitch must have the final say over decisions, not turn VAR in VR. But the premier league aren't bothering with that either. Need to use the screens like everywhere else...
I say again, 1 it's not a deflection, Maguire deliberately tries to play the ball and in moving his foot side on directs the ball for an og ( go ahead watch it again), 2, De Gea view is not obstructed anyway so per the laws can't be offside for that, 3 there is a foul leaving Sigurdson in the position he's in on the pitch too, he gets taken out after the ball has gone.
Pretty obviously the premier league has it's own laws of the game, separate to the everywhere else these days, so I guess they can do what they like. Also why even a stamp isn't a red card too?
From a Bundesliga referee instructor:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
There was nothing unique to the PL about how that decision was judged.
Hackett thought it was marginal 50/50 odd, though that was just on the assumption it's a deflection, which it isn't. He's deliberately playing the ball
Also ignores the foul on Sigurdson.
You can make Hackett argument if you ignore those two parts of the incident and say Sigurdson directly in line of vision.
For me it's a terrible descision and the referee should also check in on the screen to check the foul before the "offside" call.
Also ignores the foul on Sigurdson.
You can make Hackett argument if you ignore those two parts of the incident and say Sigurdson directly in line of vision.
For me it's a terrible descision and the referee should also check in on the screen to check the foul before the "offside" call.
For you its a terrible decision, for the majority is the right decision. Move on.
What do you mean maguire is deliberately playing the ball? He blocked a shot, he didnt make a pass
Just some Chelsea biased fan trying to say it wasn’t the right decision.
When it was so fcking obvious- such a hypocritical partisan view of the incident which was 100% an easy & correct call
When it was so fcking obvious- such a hypocritical partisan view of the incident which was 100% an easy & correct call
1. It is an attempt at a block, which is dealt with the same as a save. At no point does Maguire intentionally play the ball and nor does it directly quote anywhere in the laws that a shot block is intentionally playing the ball. You're understanding on intentionally playing the ball seems to be completely made up.
2. He is clearly interfering with the play. You're understanding of interfering with play is also completely made up.
3. The referee on the pitch has made the final call. The VAR and linesman have instructed him on what happened, the referee on the pitch agreed and made the call. You're understanding of how VAR works also seems to be completely made up.
What is pretty obvious is you have you're own laws of the game which you are for some strange reason expecting the game to be called on despite them being completely different that the actual laws of the game and opinions of professional refs. Rather ironic really.
He deliberately stays offside for feck sake. Where is the controversy?
It is a deflection. Maguire just moved out from his position, turned his body and the ball hit him before he was able to react fully. If that was to be considered an own goal, you'd have to prove the initial shot was off target and that Maguire directed the ball into the net with his feet by mistake. Just because it hit his leg and not his shoulder doesn't mean he completed his action to play the ball, it was simply a reaction due to the speed of the shot. Deflections like these rarely counts as own goals, as they shouldn't.
The foul is a weird one. I think sometimes they should be given, but they never are. He wasn't being impeded in taking his shot, so by the rules the followthrough doesn't matter. However, say in a 1vs1 just before before the goalkeeper comes out and misses the ball and catches the player, the player gets his shot off, but it hits the post. The ball then gets cleared by a defender. Not a penalty. Why isn't that a penalty when a penalty is always given in the same situation if the player didn't shoot but barely got a touch on the ball and passed it out of play. It doesn't make sense.
Did you put the link without reading it?
It is fecking written there
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage. "
He tried to save the ball. It is clear and obvious that Maguire attempt to stop the ball is an attempt to save the ball which make it in this case an offside. FFS I asked my friend who is an international assistant referee and he said "why is it even a question?" it is so obvious.
I thank VAR every day because it shows us how much we have been damaged previously by referees. Mike Dean, Atkinson, Clattenburg and the child referee Oliver, all of you feck off.
And that doesn't even count some of the marginal decisions that VAR didn't intervene for like the blatant body check on De Gea for the Everton goal in the last fixture.
No surprise to see evidence referees favour Chelsea and West Ham on the pitch.
Why is this still being debated? They've introduced it now, it's here to stay, no amount of moaning and complaining is going to make the FA admit a mistake and remove VAR. I don't particularly like it, I feel it's spoiling the game but it's here to stay.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...lskjaers-men-decisions-overturned-favour.html
It seems we are the club that has benefited most from VAR decision. Factor in City ban and Ole must be the most luckiest manager on earth.
I would think it would have been Liverpool or Spurs if you had read Redcafe and nothing else.
Edit: Already been posted above
It seems we are the club that has benefited most from VAR decision. Factor in City ban and Ole must be the most luckiest manager on earth.
I would think it would have been Liverpool or Spurs if you had read Redcafe and nothing else.
Edit: Already been posted above
It seems as if we’re the club that would’ve been shafted the most by referees if we didn’t have VAR.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...lskjaers-men-decisions-overturned-favour.html
It seems we are the club that has benefited most from VAR decision. Factor in City ban and Ole must be the most luckiest manager on earth.
I would think it would have been Liverpool or Spurs if you had read Redcafe and nothing else.
Edit: Already been posted above
Funny how you can turn the argument around like that.
It does and it did
That's blatantly not a comprehensive list of VAR reviews. Just off the top of my head, there is no mention in that article of Sheffield United's last minute equaliser against United that was (rightly or wrongly) deemed to have hit the striker's shoulder or chest rather than arm. Similarly, there was an incident in the Liverpool v City game at Anfield where a penalty for handball should have been awarded in City's favour, but Liverpool progressed straight down to the other end and scored. Whatever the merits of these decisions, they were certainly reviewed by VAR and should certainly be included in those "For" and "Against" stats.
Edit: Just realised the article doesn't reference Everton's goal at Old Trafford following the blatant push on De Gea, either.
Calls are worse and refs are weaker because of it. They obviously can't use it properly at times, so for every time it's saved a massively blown call, it's probably made the general level of refereeing worse.
They just include situations where VAR har disagreed with the on-field ref's opinion, and then gone with what VAR ended up overturning to. That means that the Everton goal doesn't count, and neither does the Martial penalty against Palace.
It's basically "Which team has had the most clearly and obviously wrong calls against them by the refs (except offsides)?"
The Everton one from Sunday will be another in the pro-United column, because the linesman missed an obvious offside. Then everyone will go "look at how VAR is helping United" when without it, we would've been shafted on the pitch a number of times.
I'm thinking that they shouldn't get rid of VAR but simplify it. The beauty of goal line technology is how simple it is.
Ditch Stockley Park and simply allow the referee to consult with the fourth official and a screen when he's not sure on a possible red card, penalty call, handball/foul leading to a goal or an offside. Maybe even introduce a 'challenge' system where managers have a limited number of appeals per game if they think a decision has gone against them.
Ditch Stockley Park and simply allow the referee to consult with the fourth official and a screen when he's not sure on a possible red card, penalty call, handball/foul leading to a goal or an offside. Maybe even introduce a 'challenge' system where managers have a limited number of appeals per game if they think a decision has gone against them.