Anyone got a "VARless" league table? I've not seen one for a few games, Chelsea were much better off pre-VAR in the last one I saw.
Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)
- Thread starter RedFish
- Start date
All VAR seems to be showing us is how marginal/subjective so many decisions are. For many of which VAR isn't a lot of help. Which technically isn't the fault of VAR but does make having it fairly pointless.
And it's pointless or not helping far too much, imo.
Doing far less checking isn't the answer to that either, I don't think. Or if it is, you may as well just have a referee and let him decide.
And it's pointless or not helping far too much, imo.
Doing far less checking isn't the answer to that either, I don't think. Or if it is, you may as well just have a referee and let him decide.
How does it take that long to give that goal? It was nowhere near offside.
That's a great idea.
i think it should only be used in goal decisions so to check the passage of play leading to a goal.
That Bailly one yestrday was madness. It was not a goal chance and all of a sudden there is a penalty !
That Bailly one yestrday was madness. It was not a goal chance and all of a sudden there is a penalty !
TIL. Colour me corrected.
But the ref was surrounded, talking to VAR almost immediately. VAR didnt flag that up, the players pressured the ref imo. I mean it was his heel, its by pure chance that players not in line and not at Matic as the ball was struck happened to be right
I think it would have been looked at but it was such an obvious onside he had to have been instructed to zero in on it if it took that long.
I defend VAR on here but Im sick of VAR checking nothing decisions because of players complaints on the field.
Players aren't actually allowed to appeal for VAR after all
Also thought this. I thought he was clearly offside for that goal, was it Greenwoods second?
But they hardly even looked at it.
Did any of you see the incident with Pieters from Burnley in the 1st half?
Absolute clear handball following a corner denying a clear goal chance from a few meters out. Wasn't given for some bizarre reason. It just makes no sense following the Bailly incident yesterday.
There's absolutely no consistency in this VAR madness.
There needs to be an accountability and public reviewing of all VAR and disputeted non-VAR situations after each round.
Absolute clear handball following a corner denying a clear goal chance from a few meters out. Wasn't given for some bizarre reason. It just makes no sense following the Bailly incident yesterday.
There's absolutely no consistency in this VAR madness.
There needs to be an accountability and public reviewing of all VAR and disputeted non-VAR situations after each round.
I equate VAR to someone giving me a phone to record the time of a 100m sprint. I definitely have the means to measure it accurately, and I'll come fairly close to getting it right... But you'd hardly base a world record time off my numbers.
I usually don’t like analogies but that made me laugh and is bang on
But that decision was given by Mike Dean was it not?
It was the ref who gave the penalty. Then VAR checked it.
It had nothing to do with players complaining. Every goal is checked by VAR regardless if players complain or not. Every possible penalty is checked by VAR regardless if players complain or not (for example the penalty against PSG where players did not complain).
Just that when players complain, it looks like VAR is checking because of that, when in fact they check for every goal regardless.
Yes and the cnut gave it from the halfway line. Could have never have saw it. Same with the linesman ruling out Rashfords goal which was level. He could never have saw it especially given the Bournemouth player was stood in between.
The scoreline masked some utterly ridiculous officiating yesterday.
Right. That makes it worse then.
It does not. Under the current rules, intention does not matter, if you have opposite players near you it does not matter. The only thing that matters is if the ball touches your hand/arm or not. It did. Which is why the pen was given.
Is the rule brain dead? Yes it is. Was it a pen under the rules? Yes it was.
I suppose this big question is, would he have made the decision had he not known he had VAR to fall back on?
And surely you can't do that? You either see it and give it or you don't? Otherwise no point in officials on the pitch.
I agree mate. I’m not a fan of VAR at all, or Mike Dean for that matter
Last edited:
Its a nothing point but Dean was talking to VAR before they were checking the goal, unless Im remembering it wrongly.
Ive never seen a goal scored direct from a freekick checked for offside, its a first for me.
I believe for every goal the ref checks with VAR. In any case, every goal is checked by VAR.
Watching the telly today the pundits seemed to think having no crowd made it easier for the ref to make decisions.
Now I've read the umpteen reasons VAR supporters have given as to why VAR is so essential, and as far as I can see every single one of them would also apply to helping the referee by having all games behind closed doors.
If total accuracy of decisions is what VAR people want, then surely every VAR supporter should want matches behind closed doors as well? We've already established that the fans enjoyment doesn't count, haven't we?
Now I've read the umpteen reasons VAR supporters have given as to why VAR is so essential, and as far as I can see every single one of them would also apply to helping the referee by having all games behind closed doors.
If total accuracy of decisions is what VAR people want, then surely every VAR supporter should want matches behind closed doors as well? We've already established that the fans enjoyment doesn't count, haven't we?
I can't quite work out whether or how much it was hoped 'more correct decisions' would mean 'loads more goals' - they never seem very happy with the correctly disallowed stuff.
It's all, "Oh that didn't need looking at" or "let's change the rule" when that happens.
It's all, "Oh that didn't need looking at" or "let's change the rule" when that happens.
No. Not true at all. The fact you could even think this shows how VAR is fecking with our minds. The only situation in which intent doesn’t matter for a handball is when it hits an attacking player’s arm before a goal is scored.
As you wish. After all, projecting wishes into reality is trendy nowadays.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1263332
Points to emphasize from the list there:
(second line) The handball rule now has extra clarity because it does not consider intent by a player.
(fourth line) If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded.
(fifth line) 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.
In all three cases, it applies to Bailly: (1) intent does not matter; (2) the ball hit the arm where Bailly was trying to make his body bigger (by jumping in trying to get the ball); (3) the arm was above shoulder height.
That confirms my point. The only scenario where it’s an automatic handball if the ball touches your hand is leading up to a goal.
For penalties all the usual crap about “unnatural position” still applies and a player can inadvertently handle the ball without conceding a penalty.
As it happens, I think Bailly probably did concede a penalty, because he raised his arm the way he did. Which was a really stupid thing to do. Although I can’t be certain that a) it definitely hit his arm and b) it was definitely inside the box. So that’s yet another example of VAR being feck all help when needed most, in a game made annoyingly stop/start due to repeated VAR referrals.
Last edited:
No, it does not. Under section Handballs, the second point is saying that "The handball rule now has extra clarity because it does not consider intent by a player." (and I posted in the above post the fourth and fifth directives that have to do with unnatural positions). It is the first point, who is talking for goals scored by hand "Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental.".
That confirms my point. The only scenario where it’s an automatic handball if the ball touches your hand is leading up to a goal.
For penalties all the usual crap about “unnatural position” still applies and a player can inadvertently handle the ball without conceding a penalty.
I mean, we had Collina in World Cup going live saying that the directives to the referees are to give handballs regardless of the intent of the player, but people were still spouting nonsense that 'it was not a pen cause there was no intent'. When the rule is explicitly saying that the intent does not matter anymore.
Oh, and yes, it is a quite ridiculous rule.
I think the second line refers to the first line you haven't quoted, "Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental" that is when a goal is scored, rather than referring to the subsequent lines.
It's not very well laid out and I can see why someone might argue otherwise, but that's the way I read it, and the refs and commentators seem to see it that way as well.
Exactly.
You can’t state that intent is irrelevant for all handballs and then list specific examples where someone can accidentally handle the ball without being penalised (hands in natural position, when breaking a fall etc)
The intent is irrelevant bit clearly only applies in the lead up to a goal. Which has been repeatedly confirmed by commentators/analysts. And yet people are still confused about this, thanks mainly to the clusterfeck that is VAR.
It must or should involve intent though. And I've seen that happen.
Where a defender with a nice normal body shape leans to block the ball as against same body shape, no movement from defender, but ball hits him.
First rightly given as a pen. 2nd wasn't, and again correctly imo.
Where a defender with a nice normal body shape leans to block the ball as against same body shape, no movement from defender, but ball hits him.
First rightly given as a pen. 2nd wasn't, and again correctly imo.
Makes absolutely no sense. It’s not like a decision makes the other team unable to score for the rest of the game, hence the table would have no value. Before we had incorrect offside calls and disallowed goals, again, the team feeling unjust has time to score or concede more goals
Why though? Cause we want it to be so, or why?
I mean, it is under section "Handballs" not under imaginary section "Goals scored from handballs". It is under a new line/paragraph, not in the same line as the first rule.
It is also totally consistent with FIFA rules: https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/how-does-the-new-handball-rule-work-football-rules-explained/baj7pi2kk191qyeu9ay8wlrn#:~:text=There%20will%20be%20no%20penalty%20if%3A&text=the%20ball%20touches%20a%20player's%20hand%2Farm%20close%20to%20their,to%20make%20the%20body%20bigger). which deal only with the silhouette of the person, never with intent.
It is how the referees have been refereeing it all year long, it is how referees in Europe and World Cup have been awarding pens (check our pen vs PSG), and it is exactly how Collina said how are the directives for the referees.
I don't get anywhere where this rule is considering only the scored goals. I mean, I might be wrong about it, but if so, please find me a source that says so.
The main problem I see is that they changed the handball rules one year after they introduced VAR (while in England that happened at the same time, but in other leagues VAR started on 17-18 season, with the rules changing on summer of 2018 with the World Cup). And then people put these two things together and decided to blame VAR, when in fact, the rule was deliberately changed VAR or no VAR. I mean, we saw yesterday the referee giving the penalty in real time, he did not wait for VAR to say so, VAR just confirmed that it was inside and it touched the ball.
Rules are extremely consistent. And stupid.
I totally agree. But it is not the way it is. The forces who decided these things decided that intent does not matter anymore.
I don't know when you have seen it happening, but I guess before the change in rules (summer 2018 for most of the world, summer of 2019 for England).
The only time the handball is not awarded is for deflections, if the keeper shoots/passes straight on the arm of a player, or if the arm is behind the body.
So it's a coincidence the rule got changed, and will do again, as I understand it.
And not related to VAR.
I don't think it's a terrible change tbh. But as soon as the ball goes in the goal, people who wanted VAR complain about VAR correctly applying the rules.
And not related to VAR.
I don't think it's a terrible change tbh. But as soon as the ball goes in the goal, people who wanted VAR complain about VAR correctly applying the rules.
To be fair, as far as I know, the intent was never part of the rule, it was just the way how it was interpreted. And indeed, it generated a lot of controversies (for example Barca vs Chelsea). Now, this has been explicitly removed, instead, it has been replaced with the silhouette (whatever it means).
I think that a middle-ground would have been better. Keep the intent, with the referee being able to personally check VAR and make his best judgement if there was intent or it was accidental. But for now they decided to go with this choice of 'if it touches the ball, it is handball'.
I think yesterday's was particularly clear though. He jumped with his arm, under any circumstances it was a penalty. It was bizarre, but it was a penalty under both the new and the old rules. Sure, there was no player near him, but if a keeper goes out of the zone with the ball in his hand, an indirect kick is given even if no player is near him.
I think that a middle-ground would have been better. Keep the intent, with the referee being able to personally check VAR and make his best judgement if there was intent or it was accidental. But for now they decided to go with this choice of 'if it touches the ball, it is handball'.
I think yesterday's was particularly clear though. He jumped with his arm, under any circumstances it was a penalty. It was bizarre, but it was a penalty under both the new and the old rules. Sure, there was no player near him, but if a keeper goes out of the zone with the ball in his hand, an indirect kick is given even if no player is near him.
What you say just isn't true though. It isn't just deflections.
Players with a normal body shape are getting hit on the arms "all the time" - there hasn't been a string of penalties of this kind at all. Which is sensible refereeing/VAR tbf.
Yeah, you're right. I corrected it with the silhouette thingy in the other post. Essentially, as long as the arm is attached to the body instead of making yourself bigger and/or having it above your shoulder, you're fine. Which I assume this is what they meant by the silhouette (though the arm can be behind your body, in which case it is fine too).
I think the main problem I have with the new rule is that it gives a handball even if a skilled player throws the ball directly on the arm of a defender if the defender is not extremely careful at keeping the hand attached with the body. It kind of happened in the final of World Cup for France's penalty.
Yes, that is its weakness, for me too.