All this “it’s not VARs fault the people behind it are useless” nonsense has to stop. The people behind it are VAR, and they and it are fecking garbage and need to be fecked off out of the game immediately.
Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)
- Thread starter RedFish
- Start date
Tbf, thats a perfectably fair argument. Not all contacts in the penalty area is a penalty.
This was debatable so not a clear and obviuos error. He did go down easy. Could have been given also.
The pathetic thing is Mike Dean strutting forward on his chicken legs with a yellow card. Hope that is rescinded.
Hate the situation with the City offside goal from a defender's and goalie's point of view.
Yes, you should play to the whistle but there's players out there who have been playing 25 years or more in organised football and when the flag goes up have never seen anything but offside given by the ref. Now it might be or might not be so it's hard not to stop playing.
Linesman also shouldn't be putting his flag up anymore unless it's clear and that was somewhat close. Mind you, it's also habit for them and a hard one to break. Good job he got it right and VAR confirmed it rather than overruling him or we'd have all been livid.
Yes, you should play to the whistle but there's players out there who have been playing 25 years or more in organised football and when the flag goes up have never seen anything but offside given by the ref. Now it might be or might not be so it's hard not to stop playing.
Linesman also shouldn't be putting his flag up anymore unless it's clear and that was somewhat close. Mind you, it's also habit for them and a hard one to break. Good job he got it right and VAR confirmed it rather than overruling him or we'd have all been livid.
Just wanna point out that the linesman gave Aguero offside for a toenail without the use of VAR to crash the illusion of a pre VAR eutopia
The easiest thing they could just fix is added time. VAR should be in charge of it. It's ridiculous the way some games has a lot of added time and other games barely have any, it's just random.
It's usually depending on the scoreline.
Plenty of games where there's six subs, VAR delay, injuries but if one team is winning 3 or 4-0 you just play a minute or two and get it over with.
One goal in it and will always be more injury time, adds to the drama aswell of course.
Which largely benefits teams that love time wasting. A game that is being slowed down with a lot of fouls, throw-ins etc will have a greater effect on how much football is actually being played than quick subs. In the United-City game, the ball was in play the whole game with high-tempo and not breaks at all. Yet 5 minutes. It's just random, as a similar game could have 2 minutes added time. I don't think refs should make decisions based on creating a drama, it's not their job and is right on the line of corruption actually.
Well in Manchester derby you had Martial injured early in second half when he crashed into the post (was treated for over a minute), there was also a Man. City player down and minute VAR check on the Aguero offside. Add in all the subs and five minutes was right.
I can't remember the last time there was a close 1-0 game and there was only 2 or 3 minutes added on tbh. Four is always a minimum in those circumstances.
If you actually did a proper stop clock like in Rugby then the ball is rarely in play for more than an hour so would be even more injury time than Fergie demanded back in the day.
The Fred penalty decision was an example of where subjective decisions fall through the gaps of VAR protocol. I think it's fine to say it wasn't a penalty but to book him for diving was harsh. Yet once VAR decided not to overrule the call entirely there was nowhere for them to go as their options are limited. Equally I think a decision to give a penalty would probably have stood too, so that's quite a broad range of outcomes that VAR wouldn't intervene on.
As for the Aguero goal, it was (by VAR standards) a relatively clear offside in the end. Had it not been though then our players would have been stung for not playing to the whistle as they were told to do at the start of the season.
As for the Aguero goal, it was (by VAR standards) a relatively clear offside in the end. Had it not been though then our players would have been stung for not playing to the whistle as they were told to do at the start of the season.
Gray, Keys and our own Darren Fletcher lost their collective minds on beIN Sports over this. They seemed to be lamenting VAR ruling that goal out, when the assistant flagged it correctly offside and De Gea would have made a routine save if he hadn’t had a stroke.
I guess your right about this game in particular deserving 5 minutes, but it's just the inconsistencies.Well in Manchester derby you had Martial injured early in second half when he crashed into the post (was treated for over a minute), there was also a Man. City player down and minute VAR check on the Aguero offside. Add in all the subs and five minutes was right.
I can't remember the last time there was a close 1-0 game and there was only 2 or 3 minutes added on tbh. Four is always a minimum in those circumstances.
If you actually did a proper stop clock like in Rugby then the ball is rarely in play for more than an hour so would be even more injury time than Fergie demanded back in the day.
I think they could have a proper stop clock in the VAR-room as it would be a reference point for irregularities. If a particular game has been wasted beyond whats normal then they could propose to add time to the game. That way, time-wasting will not be seen as such an effective tactic. Say 10 minutes more than average have been wasted, you add that 10.
For me it shouldn't be called offside in this case, given that the attacker is LAYING DOWN & NOT IMPEDING THE KEEPER'S VIEW.
On the other hand if the keeper's view or path is blocked, then definitely offside for me.
I have foreseen this situation well before VAR was introduced and expect more of this to come. The whole "encouraged to keep flags down" thing is nonsense, nonpractical and not fair at all.
Linesmen are trained to make "yes" or "no" decision in a blink of an eye. It's hard to classify another "marginal" category which flags are kept down. If most of the plays are allowed to go on, it's also unfair to the defensive side and the linesman will be questioned by players and fans.
It's another debate on how long the offside call can be traced back to. If an attacker is offside but not called, after a few minutes and clearances the ball is in the back of the net, should the goal stand? If yes, it would be really frustrating for the defensive side; if no, I don't understand the meaning of the few minutes being played.
The idea is he should keep his flag down if the striker is through on goal and raise his flag once he scored.
If it is not scored directly because it is either saved / cleared and no immediate threat then he should raise his flag and the referee blow his whistle.
It is common sense really.
But most referees don't have that unfortunately.
When people do that, they just wanna separate the technology which can be pretty useful and the imbeciles who use it.
Things are easier said than done. Football is much more complicated and a few words can't reflect what is actually going on.
For example, how to define "no immediate threat"? When the ball is out of the box? But could it be a golden counterattack opportunity for the defensive side?
Everyone has different interpretations on the same play. There is a grey zone in football where things don't belong to either black or white, so it is a bit more than common sense imo.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the refs and I agree they have a lot to improve on. Problem is, the implementation of the immature VAR makes things worse. Even as fans, we can't reach a concensus on the exact execution of VAR, there is no surprise that so many controversies arise.
If the defensive side have the ball and the flag is raised, sometimes the referee chooses to wave play on and not blow the whistle so I am not sure what is the problem there?
No immediate threat means the ball will not end up in the goal easily and the referee have enough time to blow his whistle to stop play. For example the ball is cleared far away, a tackle is done and no one is going to get to the ball anytime soon etc. Its really not that hard if you had watched enough of games and have a sense of the situation, which as a professional assistant referee that’s the bare minimum?
But you can’t have one without the other, so it’s redundant.
The entire system is crap.
The decision on Fred was a joke.
The issue is we've seen penalties given for similar, or even a lot less contact.
Fred is running at full speed and jinks to the left, then his standing foot is clearly kicked/tripped.
I can understand why the referee gave the decision as it was hard to spot in real time - but on the replay it was clearly not a dive and there was contact.
Thank god that decision didn't cost us in the end, i'm almost certain it would have been given the other way around.
The issue is we've seen penalties given for similar, or even a lot less contact.
Fred is running at full speed and jinks to the left, then his standing foot is clearly kicked/tripped.
I can understand why the referee gave the decision as it was hard to spot in real time - but on the replay it was clearly not a dive and there was contact.
Thank god that decision didn't cost us in the end, i'm almost certain it would have been given the other way around.
I wouldn't be this extreme. VAR has been giving us many good decisions this season and sometimes after long reviews. The entire system isn't crap, some referees do blatantly protect their mates at times like yesterday and that can be very annoying.
The VAR/Fred situation yesterday highlights the a problem I have with VAR. There's going to be ever increasing pressure to use the tech for more and more decisions because its illogical to have one set of decisions be super human accurate and another not. In a sport where a single goal can win you the game, entire matches, or even seasons, can turn on a single decision. A game can be settled by a corner, a free kick or a second yellow given the wrong way by a referee. As you accept that VAR should be used for one class of decisions, it becomes inevitable that it will be used for others.
The notion that goals and penalties are more important & therefore are more worth checking than other decisions is flawed. Picture this scenario - last day of next season, United and Liverpool playing head to head top of the table on points, winner takes the league. With a minute to go its 0-0, but Liverpool get a corner when it actually came off a Liverpool attacker. They score to win the league. No VAR to check that decision. Meanwhile, Sheffield United and Crystal Palace are playing out a dead rubber, both in mid-table, both totally safe. Sheffield United are 3-0 up when Palace get a last minute goal back. VAR is used to check the offside. Absolutely nobody would consider the Palace goal to be more important than the Liverpool corner.
Once you accept the principle that 'important' decisions should be checked, there can only be one direction of travel, using VAR for more and more things. Anything else just creates an illogical state of affairs where some game changing decisions get checked but others don't. VAR just ends up creating as many problems as it solves.
The notion that goals and penalties are more important & therefore are more worth checking than other decisions is flawed. Picture this scenario - last day of next season, United and Liverpool playing head to head top of the table on points, winner takes the league. With a minute to go its 0-0, but Liverpool get a corner when it actually came off a Liverpool attacker. They score to win the league. No VAR to check that decision. Meanwhile, Sheffield United and Crystal Palace are playing out a dead rubber, both in mid-table, both totally safe. Sheffield United are 3-0 up when Palace get a last minute goal back. VAR is used to check the offside. Absolutely nobody would consider the Palace goal to be more important than the Liverpool corner.
Once you accept the principle that 'important' decisions should be checked, there can only be one direction of travel, using VAR for more and more things. Anything else just creates an illogical state of affairs where some game changing decisions get checked but others don't. VAR just ends up creating as many problems as it solves.
I can see me getting stick for this but it's probably possible to think Fred has just knocked the ball past and then run into the defender.
I don't believe the VAR proves it is a penalty.
I don't believe the VAR proves it is a penalty.
No need to shout, even if your delayed comment seems to indicate you have just awoken from a coma. Your flawed reasoning has been corrected and explained multiple times during the past week. Not just in this thread but also in the thread that was created just because of this decision.
Key point regarding the Fred decision is, yet again, the particularly high bar for overturns in the PL.
From twitter: Premier League has 1 penalty related overturn every 14.35 games, Bundesliga has 1 penalty related overturn every 6.92 games.
In other words the PL (much more than other leagues with VAR) gives particular weight to the on-field ref's initial decision. They would say it's to reduce time being wasted on needless interventions but it also works to ensure that the on-field ref's calls aren't challenged as much as in other leagues.
What that essentially meant is that whatever the decision the ref gave in the Fred incident (penalty, no penalty or no penalty and card) there was never going to be an overturn.
From twitter: Premier League has 1 penalty related overturn every 14.35 games, Bundesliga has 1 penalty related overturn every 6.92 games.
In other words the PL (much more than other leagues with VAR) gives particular weight to the on-field ref's initial decision. They would say it's to reduce time being wasted on needless interventions but it also works to ensure that the on-field ref's calls aren't challenged as much as in other leagues.
What that essentially meant is that whatever the decision the ref gave in the Fred incident (penalty, no penalty or no penalty and card) there was never going to be an overturn.
VAR as a system is fine, our refs in England are just incompetent though. Painfully poor.
Yep, VAR has exposed how bad our refs really are.
How fecking bad is VAR / the use of VAR.
It gets so much wrong it's unreal.
Literally in two games it got our peno for Fred wrong and gave a penalty for handball when the ball hit Ming's shoulder.
Despite the fact they have been using shoulders to call offsides all season. If you can score with your shoulder you can defend with it you twats.
It gets so much wrong it's unreal.
Literally in two games it got our peno for Fred wrong and gave a penalty for handball when the ball hit Ming's shoulder.
Despite the fact they have been using shoulders to call offsides all season. If you can score with your shoulder you can defend with it you twats.
I cannot get over that "handball" decision.
It's so bad that them trying to self sabotage VAR is the only thing that makes sense.
Otherwise whoever made that decision should never be reffing a game again.
It's so bad that them trying to self sabotage VAR is the only thing that makes sense.
Otherwise whoever made that decision should never be reffing a game again.
This won't be popular but...
Pretty sure that was a handball as per how they've been instructed to judge the point of contact. Which is exactly why they've already said they're changing that interpretation for next season.
Pretty sure that was a handball as per how they've been instructed to judge the point of contact. Which is exactly why they've already said they're changing that interpretation for next season.
The top of the shoulder? In that case Aguero might well have been onside yesterday!
Yep, top of the sleeve (which many would call the shoulder) is currently penalised, as seen in the Adam Smith handball back in February.
From next season it will be lowered.
That wasn't top of the sleeve, that was the top of the shoulder.
They draw offside lines from after that.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Ignore what that random tweeter is saying (*cough*) and look at the point of contact. Touching blue = touching the sleeve. Plus you have to remember that for VAR to overturn it they have to decide it was definitely a wrong call, which is tough on what is a fairly subjective distinction. If people want to argue that's the shoulder then they can but nonetheless, that was the logic for it not being overturned. And that interpretation is in line with several others from earlier this season.
They've been famously drawing offside lines from the armpit this season as the standard measurement for the divide. Presumably nobody thought it was the literal armpits they were penalizing as that would be weird.
Edit: Just to further my point, the Dele Alli handball below is one they admit they got wrong.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
David Munday needs to go and get his eyes tested.
Did PL explain why Fred's incident wasn't a penalty?
They said there wasn't enough contact to warrant Fred going down.
Which has two problems... a) if thats the bar for penalties, then they'll be reversing a lot of decisions and b) Would love to see one of them get kicked by Otamendi and continue as normal.
Both Dermot Gallagher and Chris Foy - who usually go out of their way to agree with the on-field decision - thought it should have been a penalty.
So 2 players are moving in opposite direction, defender kicks attacker's shin and that wasn't enough contact?
Any idea who was the VAR ref?
All I know is that it was a raving moron.
Yeah, also funny how quickly they made the decision.
Of course you can, the 2018 World Cup is a good proof of that.