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

VAR - Love or Hate?


  • Total voters
    1,268

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
18,355
There’s nothing in the rules about contact. The rules cover careless tackles. If it was just reckless or excessive force there wouldn’t be thirty plus fouls a game. Whether it is careless is down to interpretation, as many of the rules in the game are. That’s why it can be considered not a clear and obvious error. Doesn’t mean it definitely isn’t a foul just because he got a slight touch on the ball. The most important thing isn’t exactly how the rules are worded but how they are routinely applied. Routinely that is given as a foul more of than not in my opinion.

I don’t like having to make this argument because the current attention every decision United are getting is pissing me off. But I still think a penalty would’ve been a fair enough call.
You've misunderstood. I'm arguing that I've never seen careless routinely interpreted as you're arguing it should be here. About the best I can think of is when players go through the back or side of a player first to get the ball. Lindelof did not do that. I'd love to see some examples of you think the law is routinely applied as you've suggested.

I have seen fouls routinely given for reckless tackles or tackles using excessive force which win the ball first, but this certainly isn't one of them.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
15,069
You've misunderstood. I'm arguing that I've never seen careless routinely interpreted as you're arguing it should be here. About the best I can think of is when players go through the back or side of a player first to get the ball. Lindelof did not do that. I'd love to see some examples of you think the law is routinely applied as you've suggested.

I have seen fouls routinely given for reckless tackles or tackles using excessive force which win the ball first, but this certainly isn't one of them.
The tackle was made both from behind Zaha’s leg and from the side though. What do you think happened? Fouling a player from behind is never careless, it is reckless because the opponent can’t see it coming.
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
18,355
The tackle was made both from behind Zaha’s leg and from the side though. What do you think happened? Fouling a player from behind is never careless, it is reckless because the opponent can’t see it coming.
'first' was the operative word in the sentence. He, quite clearly in my opinion, pokes the ball from between Zaha's legs and then makes contact with his right foot.

I have absolutely never seen the laws applied as you're suggesting they should be here.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
4,643
The past page debate shows that VAR worked exactly as it should have last night, ref made on field decision, the debate shows it wasn’t a clear or obvious error so the decision was left as was.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
15,069
'first' was the operative word in the sentence. He, quite clearly in my opinion, pokes the ball from between Zaha's legs and then makes contact with his right foot.

I have absolutely never seen the laws applied as you're suggesting they should be here.
And quite clearly the rules don’t matter whether he gets a touch or not if then proceeds to foul a player who still has the ball. We see fouls given for things like that all the time. If you haven’t seen it then there’s nothing more for us to debate.
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
2,597
I wouldn’t feel strongly enough to really argue that point. I think most fans on here would’ve expected a penalty in United’s favour for it though. I think we got lucky but it definitely doesn’t deserve the attention it is getting. It’s always the way with United though because the media know what gets people riled up.
Yeah you only have to look at the headlines on the back pages of some of the tabloids today to see just how much those decisions last night have really riled the media up. I am looking forward to seeing what kind of coverage it gets when the media darling Liverpool next win a game as a result of a VAR call because it will happen.
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
17,130
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
I wouldn’t feel strongly enough to really argue that point. I think most fans on here would’ve expected a penalty in United’s favour for it though. I think we got lucky but it definitely doesn’t deserve the attention it is getting. It’s always the way with United though because the media know what gets people riled up.
Yes, I think the problem is that the media and 'neutrals' sympathetic to Palace as the underdog here are transferring their frustrations away from the narrow offside call to this decision - because that was black-and-white whereas this one is more subjective.
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
18,355
And quite clearly the rules don’t matter whether he gets a touch or not if then proceeds to foul a player who still has the ball. We see fouls given for things like that all the time. If you haven’t seen it then there’s nothing more for us to debate.

What you mean is that getting the ball doesn't prevent you from committing a foul, if you tackle in a way that is either careless, reckless or uses excessive force whilst making first contact with the ball. What does not logically follow from that is that getting the ball does not matter, it is always a foul if you do not do so and sometimes a foul even if you do.

In this instance the fact Lindelof pokes the ball out from between Zaha's legs before any contact is made is incredibly important. If he had not done so it is, obviously, a penalty. The fact he did makes it very difficult for me to understand how you see this tackle as careless or reckless. Your wish to ignore that touch means you're trying to referee a completely different tackle to the one that was made.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
15,069
What you mean is that getting the ball doesn't prevent you from committing a foul, if you tackle in a way that is either careless, reckless or uses excessive force whilst making first contact with the ball. What does not logically follow from that is that getting the ball does not matter, it is always a foul if you do not do so and sometimes a foul even if you do.

In this instance the fact Lindelof pokes the ball out from between Zaha's legs before any contact is made is incredibly important. If he had not done so it is, obviously, a penalty. The fact he did makes it very difficult for me to understand how you see this tackle as careless or reckless. Your wish to ignore that touch means you're trying to referee a completely different tackle to the one that was made.
Getting the ball doesn’t matter in this instance because it hasn’t changed the situation. Zaha still has a chance to score. If he gets the ball first and it goes out for a corner before he brings Zaha down on the follow through I would agree with you. But he didn’t.
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
18,355
Getting the ball doesn’t matter in this instance because it hasn’t changed the situation. Zaha still has a chance to score. If he gets the ball first and it goes out for a corner before he brings Zaha down on the follow through I would agree with you. But he didn’t.
And we're back to the original point. I have never ever seen referees interpret the laws in that way, and I was certainly never taught that when I was trained as a referee (admittedly some years ago now!) because you'd be calling a foul virtually any time players made contact with each other.

It's one continuous, in my opinion, clean tackle. Not two separate actions constituting a clean tackle followed immediately by a foul.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
15,069
And we're back to the original point. I have never ever seen referees interpret the laws in that way, and I was certainly never taught that when I was trained as a referee (admittedly some years ago now!) because you'd be calling a foul virtually any time players made contact with each other.

It's one continuous, in my opinion, clean tackle. Not two separate actions constituting a clean tackle followed immediately by a foul.
Well one ref on BT last night says it was a foul but not a clear and obvious error so some refs are being taught that way. Whether you’ve seen it or not is nothing I can comment on. I think fouls like that are given in every game.
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
18,355
Well one ref on BT last night says it was a foul but not a clear and obvious error so some refs are being taught that way. Whether you’ve seen it or not is nothing I can comment on. I think fouls like that are given in every game.
On the in my opinion mistaken belief that Lindelof makes contact with the ball and Zaha simultaneously, which I would agree would likely be a foul.

Not what happened though.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
15,069
On the in my opinion mistaken belief that Lindelof makes contact with the ball and Zaha simultaneously, which I would agree would likely be a foul.

Not what happened though.
He literally said playing the ball first didn’t matter. I’ve argued about this for far too long. We can just be glad it wasn’t given.
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
18,355
He literally said playing the ball first didn’t matter. I’ve argued about this for far too long. We can just be glad it wasn’t given.
Well, unless he changed his mind 14 times this summarises what I heard:

"If a player takes the ball and the player at the same time, then yes, it’s a foul.

"It should’ve been given as a penalty kick.

"The VAR will not get involved because it’s not a clear and obvious error from the match referee.

"It’s a subjective call. Not everybody in the land would say that’s definitely a penalty kick."
If that's your take on what happened then fair enough, I can see why we disgaree, but it's certainly not 'playing the ball first doesn't matter' or even an accurate summary of what did happen.

More generally if Peter Walton told me the sky was blue I'd open the window to check.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
15,069
Well, unless he changed his mind 14 times this summarises what I heard:



If that's your take on what happened then fair enough, I can see why we disgaree, but it's certainly not 'playing the ball first doesn't matter' or even an accurate summary of what did happen.

More generally if Peter Walton told me the sky was blue I'd open the window to check.
I only heard what he said briefly on the first viewing at half time. No idea what he said afterwards. I would agree on Peter Walton in general.
 

Amadaeus

Pochettino's mother (MMM BBC)
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
7,092
Location
Amongst footballing managerial 'Gods'
Supports
Mauricio Pochettino
Even more reason to get behind him!
What happens when that luck runs out? The manager will eventually be found out.
So hes lucky that the refs are fecking up on the pitch to the extend VAR is needed?
A lot of those decisions are subjective in nature and could have easily gone either way with different match officials. Only a few was objective like a clear offside obvious foul.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
18,749
What happens when that luck runs out? The manager will eventually be found out.

A lot of those decisions are subjective in nature and could have easily gone either way with different match officials. Only a few was objective like a clear offside obvious foul.
I don't think thats true at all. I can think of 3..last night. Maguire v Chelsea and a Norwich pen.
You can't just quote broad numbers, you need many examples to make this claim
 

Amadaeus

Pochettino's mother (MMM BBC)
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
7,092
Location
Amongst footballing managerial 'Gods'
Supports
Mauricio Pochettino
I don't think thats true at all. I can think of 3..last night. Maguire v Chelsea and a Norwich pen.
You can't just quote broad numbers, you need many examples to make this claim
I watched all of United games and it is a trend, that I have noticed during those games. I m not surprised that the science backs it as well with the data in the link I posted.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
18,749
I watched all of United games and it is a trend, that I have noticed during those games. I m not surprised that the science backs it as well with the data in the link I posted.
So... Examples?
 

Amadaeus

Pochettino's mother (MMM BBC)
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
7,092
Location
Amongst footballing managerial 'Gods'
Supports
Mauricio Pochettino
So... Examples?
My time is to valuable to do extensive research of all of our var calls. You just have to watch the games with those decisions and even listen to the commentary about the calls. Recent example was Bruno pen vs Villa where he step on the villa defender yet we got the penalty. Then the offside yesterday, where no margin of error exist to account for an offside call if less than 1cm.
 

montpelier

Full Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
10,626
On the in my opinion mistaken belief that Lindelof makes contact with the ball and Zaha simultaneously, which I would agree would likely be a foul.

Not what happened though.
I think the referee might have made an understandable mistake. And then VAR haven't enough to go on to overturn it.

The ref needs to have a 20minute look in super slo mo at the pitch side.

Or you give VAR #1 ref status and all the time they want.

That one, gets given half the time and half not. VAR won't ever overturn either way.

The argument it's definitely a penalty in real time or even in the real World is daft imo.

I'm largely agreeing with you, it seems more sensible pov than what you're arguing with.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
4,643
Well, unless he changed his mind 14 times this summarises what I heard:



If that's your take on what happened then fair enough, I can see why we disgaree, but it's certainly not 'playing the ball first doesn't matter' or even an accurate summary of what did happen.

More generally if Peter Walton told me the sky was blue I'd open the window to check.
Are your windows painted black?
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
18,355
I only heard what he said briefly on the first viewing at half time. No idea what he said afterwards. I would agree on Peter Walton in general.
Just for what it's worth, here's Dermot Gallagher making the same argument:

At that point, Graham thinks that Lindelof plays the ball between his legs and then it becomes a tangle. When it goes to VAR, it's not a clear and obvious error, so the result is that they stick with the on-field decision.

If you look back at it, I think Lindelof just about gets the ball. When Zaha goes to step over it, Lindelof then takes the opportunity to kick it... Zaha brings his leg back down because that's his natural movement and that's when the collision occurs. But Lindelof at that point plays the ball.

The referee deems that Lindelof has played the ball and the VAR has gone with the on-field decision but it's not clear and obvious.The referee's got the best view and I don't think VAR would ever overrule that decision.
Again, not sure I'd trust Dermot Gallagher as far as I could throw him, but unlike Walton I at least think Gallagher has seen the incident properly.
 

hmchan

Full Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
679
Location
Hong Kong
The implementation of VAR is premature to say the least. When the laws of the game and guidelines regarding VAR are both vague and unclear, it's always doomed to fail. Premier League referees certainly have their problems, but from the fact that VAR has caused so many controversies in so many leagues, it is oversimplifying the problems if you just put all the blame to the referees. There are plenty of variations in football, but there is insufficient planning and consideration about many of those scenarios.

There are always marginal offside calls in football. Under the new regulation, assistant referees are encouraged to keep their flags down if they're unsure about the situation, and let the VAR rule out the goal if it's scored. This is actually very unfair to the defensive team. If the attack doesn't result in a goal, the decision will not be reviewed and the defensive team will be unjustly kept under pressure. If a goal is scored from a resulting set piece, the decision will not be reviewed either.

To minimize the impact and delay to the game, VAR is supposed to intervene and overturn a decision only when there is a clear and obvious error. However we now spend plenty of time checking those armpit offsides and ridiculous handballs, which are definitely not clear and obvious errors. I'm a guy who always embraces technology, and I totally support the introduction of technology in football, but we need to reach a consensus and formulate a clear guideline before we implement a project.
 

Buchan

has whacked the hammer to Roswell
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
15,611
Location
The Republik of Mancunia | W3102
Incredible how they didn’t spend more time reviewing that incident.

Looks more like a foul and a red card for preventing a goal-scoring opportunity rather than the outcome they decided upon.

It was always going to happen, however, after Lampard’s moaning all week. The massive dickhead.
 

filibuster

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
82
Supports
Chelsea FC
Give what? It's outside the box, VAR is for penalties and red cards.
 

Bojan11

Full Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
28,475
Zaha incident non stop moaning from BT. BBC barely have mentioned the Martial foul.
 

BlahRules

Full Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
3,293
Location
London
Zaha incident non stop moaning from BT. BBC barely have mentioned the Martial foul.
If it was against United then we will be hearing for 15 minutes but then again we have pundits who dont know anything. We have Cole keep saying ahh.
 

Random Task

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,991
Location
Chester
Last man and denying goal scoring opportunity or can VAR not give red cards for that either?
Exactly.

It's impossible to determine whether that was inside or outside the box from that video anyway.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
37,818
Location
W.Yorks
It's a foul but not a red card in my opinion. Would be harsh to send someone off for a total accident.
 

Anybody's Guess

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
14
Had that been against Mane or Sterling it would have been given as a foul. Mane in particular has won so many penalites by sticking his leg in front of the defender clearing the ball.

Meanwhile, Ole is just sitting in the stands like the submissive little puppy that he is, while his team is getting hacked time and time again.