kouroux
45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
For the Shaw, I'd give the free kick because of the follow through but not even a yellow for me as the challenge was alright for me.
You cannot be offside from a corner kick. If you could be then there would be nothing to prevent a defence from holding a high lineNot sure where to put this, but were our short corners not offside. All the passes went forwards and they didnt seem to have anyone on the posts?
The pass or cross normally goes back ie behind the ball so that wouldn't work.You cannot be offside from a corner kick. If you could be then there would be nothing to prevent a defence from holding a high line
That's just false equivocation.But Friend saw Shaw’s tackle and didn’t think it was a foul. They made him watch multiple replays until he changed his mind. Why not do that with the Maguire header?
I think it's because it wasn't a clear and obvious error. The ref gave the foul for Maguire having his hand on the back of their player and given it did happen (albeit soft), VAR wasn't going to overrule it. It was one of those incidents that if the ref gave the goal, VAR wouldn't overrule it either. I don't think that makes VAR right, but the issue was more with the ref I believe.The Shaw decision was the right call on the replays - even though I thought it was a great tackle at the time.
That Maguire decision however was awful. Not sure how VAR sees that and decided it was the right call.
I think most here would say that it was a clear an obvious error. You get contact like that 90% of the time people go up for headers. Maguire had a good run at it and was (literally) head and shoulders above the defender who was never getting to the ball.I think it's because it wasn't a clear and obvious error. The ref gave the foul for Maguire having his hand on the back of their player and given it did happen (albeit soft), VAR wasn't going to overrule it. It was one of those incidents that if the ref gave the goal, VAR wouldn't overrule it either. I don't think that makes VAR right, but the issue was more with the ref I believe.
Red cards in relation to denying a goalscoring opportunity are treated differently to other reds (such as for serious foul play or violent conduct). The former depends on it being a legit goalscoring opportunity, so can be cancelled out in a situation where a foul occurred beforehand that should see the attack disregarded. Because if it wasn't a legit opportunity, the defender shouldn't be punished for stopping it. That doesn't apply to the latter types of red cards though, as they're offences independent of whether the attack was legit or not.If I understand the rules correctly (does anyone?) then this doesnt make sense to me:
Situation A
A player is seen as being offside during an attacking phase but play is allowed to continue. If that phase then results in a goal VAR will decide on the offisde. However, if a situation occurs during that phase after the offside call then a player could still commit an offence which would result in a red card, and that decision will stand even if the offside decision is upheld and play is bought back. Its foul play and a free kick awarded
Situation B
Shaw tackles an opponent but play continues, and is followed by an attacking phase in which a defender commits an offence which should result in a red card. VAR reviews and judges Shaws tackle as foul play and a free kick awarded. The offender not only escapes further review but also has his yellow card rescinded
I'm not sure I understand how those two incidents are different. If a player can commit and be held accountable for a red card offence in situation A, why not in situation B?
According to the explanation tweeted higher up, Brady could have been sent off for reckless/violent play even though the game would restart with a freekick for Burnley with play basically stopping at the point of the Shaw foul. But he can’t get sent off for DOSOG.If I understand the rules correctly (does anyone?) then this doesnt make sense to me:
Situation A
A player is seen as being offside during an attacking phase but play is allowed to continue. If that phase then results in a goal VAR will decide on the offisde. However, if a situation occurs during that phase after the offside call then a player could still commit an offence which would result in a red card, and that decision will stand even if the offside decision is upheld and play is bought back. Its foul play and a free kick awarded
Situation B
Shaw tackles an opponent but play continues, and is followed by an attacking phase in which a defender commits an offence which should result in a red card. VAR reviews and judges Shaws tackle as foul play and a free kick awarded. The offender not only escapes further review but also has his yellow card rescinded
I'm not sure I understand how those two incidents are different. If a player can commit and be held accountable for a red card offence in situation A, why not in situation B?
Don't think so. As far as I'm aware the rules were the same at the time of VVD injury, the VAR just outright fecked up. They should have looked at the penalty shout (and ruled it out for offside) and then separately looked at it for a possible red card (which would have stood regardless of the offside). But instead they only did the penalty review and skipped the red card part.According to the explanation tweeted higher up, Brady could have been sent off for reckless/violent play even though the game would restart with a freekick for Burnley because the Shaw foul happened first. But he can’t get sent off for DOSOG.
I suspect this is something that’s changed after the Van Dijk injury. Yet another example of VAR causing goalposts to be moved with the season underway.
That went through my mind too.Did the ref break the VAR rules for Shaw's yellow? I thought that you can use VAR only to give red cards, not yellows. So, if Shaw wasn't a red card, then it should have been ignored and give the red card to S'oton player for stopping Cavani as the last man.
Don't get me wrong, this is just a technacility. Shaw deserved the yellow card.
That's not really true. Var can't review standard yellow cards. Once play is stopped for something else though, whatever it may be, and the referee had a better view of it, he is then within his right to issue additional yellow cards, and I don't see why he shouldn't.Did the ref break the VAR rules for Shaw's yellow? I thought that you can use VAR only to give red cards, not yellows. So, if Shaw wasn't a red card, then it should have been ignored and give the red card to S'oton player for stopping Cavani as the last man.
Don't get me wrong, this is just a technacility. Shaw deserved the yellow card.
Ah. Ok. I would get annoyed by that if it was any other team than Liverpool affected. As it was them who got fecked over I’m going to find it hilarious. I’m warming to VAR already!Don't think so. As far as I'm aware the rules were the same at the time of VVD injury, the VAR just outright fecked up. They should have looked at the penalty shout (and ruled it out for offside) and then separately looked at it for a possible red card (which would have stood regardless of the offside). But instead they only did the penalty review and skipped the red card part.
Oliver: "We got sucked too much into going step by step as opposed to thinking of the bigger process, which was considering the challenge as well and not just the fact it can’t be a penalty. We should have restarted with the offside, as we did, but with a different punishment for Jordan Pickford.”
Ah, this makes sense then.That's not really true. Var can't review standard yellow cards. Once play is stopped for something else though, whatever it may be, and the referee had a better view of it, he is then within his right to issue additional yellow cards, and I don't see why he shouldn't.
The entire length of the pitch, apparently.It's such a weird one for me. Shaw's tackle is definitely a foul in today's game, and some refs would have sent him off.
But, how far back are we going to go when reviewing other incidents? Are they going to do this for everything? Who decides? I think back to last season when Romeu decided he'd had enough of Greenwood and tried a leg breaker - barely even got a look in. What is a 'phase of play'? If it was City and they held the ball for 6 minutes, but fouled to win it initially, would VAR have to watch the whole damn thing?
I think it's until their is a break in possession, or about 20 seconds or so (on the ref's discretion)... don't quote me on that thoughIt's such a weird one for me. Shaw's tackle is definitely a foul in today's game, and some refs would have sent him off.
But, how far back are we going to go when reviewing other incidents? Are they going to do this for everything? Who decides? I think back to last season when Romeu decided he'd had enough of Greenwood and tried a leg breaker - barely even got a look in. What is a 'phase of play'? If it was City and they held the ball for 6 minutes, but fouled to win it initially, would VAR have to watch the whole damn thing?
Brady wasn't serious foul play so when play was pulled back a red can't be given. It's also why the yellow was rescindedThe Shaw yellow is correct. If he hadn't won the ball it would have been red. That was actually good refereeing in fairness and how VAR should be used.
Brady's one is a red for me, it's just an awful challenge. For balance it's more clumsy than malicious so maybe a yellow is 'ok' but I was surprised that wasn't red.
Maguire's header is a joke decision - basically any defender who knows they are mismatched or out of position just needs to back in, go down and make sure there is some kind of contact from the attacker. Awful use of VAR and also just shows a real lack of refereeing ability/understanding of the game.
Ok understood. That actually makes sense in fairness. Really then, the big error is with Maguire's header only.Brady wasn't serious foul play so when play was pulled back a red can't be given. It's also why the yellow was rescinded
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That's a horrible tackle nowhere near the ball basically stamps on him with intent, How has he got away with that?VAR/The ref didn't think this was worthy of a red yesterday... and this challenge is all magnitudes
That should have been a red... I think between this and the Shaw challenges there's a good illustration of - from similar contacts - what's a yellow and what's a red.
I think it's until their is a break in possession, or about 20 seconds or so (on the ref's discretion)... don't quote me on that though
Yesterday there were 2 passes and about 10 seconds between the Shaw tackle and the Brady foul, so definitely the same phase.
This video is errant, self canceling nonsense from start to finish and narrated by someone who appears to be Microsoft Sam's cousin. "Sadio Main"; "the technology awarded". Where have you found this?
Van Dijk handballs the ball, hoofs it to Lallana, ball drops to Mané who scores. Officials say "too far back to overturn".
It was literally the first video I found describing the incident. Disregarding the video, which I agree is shit, the point is that a hoof from the middle of the pitch that immediately leads to a goal isn’t counting as “leading to a goal” and “too far back” in some instances but in others the action where the ball is won is, which just highlights the massive inconsistency on a game-by-game basis.This video is errant, self canceling nonsense from start to finish and narrated by someone who appears to be Microsoft Sam's cousin. "Sadio Main"; "the technology awarded". Where have you found this?
Straight red whether accidental or not.VAR/The ref didn't think this was worthy of a red yesterday... and this challenge is all magnitudes worse then Shaw's in my opinion.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That should have been a red... I think between this and the Shaw challenges there's a good illustration of - from similar contacts - what's a yellow and what's a red.
Yes but that wasn't even given as a free kick so I suppose this wasn't either. PL refsStraight red whether accidental or not.
Very similar to the one that cnut from Southampton did on greenwood last season.
Well the farcical delivery and phrasing is an indicator that the person isn't the sharpest tool, but I'd have to question the veracity of the claims as well. When he says "VAR say" I'm not asking that he should meet some author date standard, but he can at least make something akin to a journalistic reference where you'd know when was this said and by whom. Because VAR don't normally come out and explain their every decision. This could just as well be some random bloke on twitter interpolating his own explanation like the one quoted by doctor Mahone et al. earlier. I have to ask whether that was given as explanation at all.It was literally the first video I found describing the incident. Disregarding the video, which I agree is shit, the point is that a hoof from the middle of the pitch that immediately leads to a goal isn’t counting as “leading to a goal” and “too far back” in some instances but in others the action where the ball is won is, which just highlights the massive inconsistency on a game-by-game basis.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/29/refe...n-dijk-handball-liverpool-vs-wolves-11973534/Well the farcical delivery and phrasing is an indicator that the person isn't the sharpest tool, but I'd have to question the veracity of the claims as well. When he says "VAR say" I'm not asking that he should meet some author date standard, but he can at least make something akin to a journalistic reference where you'd know when was this said and by whom. Because VAR don't normally come out and explain their every decision. This could just as well be some random bloke on twitter interpolating his own explanation like the one quoted by doctor Mahone et al. earlier. I have to ask whether that was given as explanation at all.
It makes absolutely no sense to simultaneously argue that the evidence for the handball is inconclusive (which is how I remember the incident too) and also that the passage of play was "too far back", because the former renders the latter completely irrelevant. It would take an idiot to explain how he arrived at a decision in those terms, and I doubt an actual referee made those claims.
I could see a valid complaint about consistency in so far as the referee wasn't made to go to the monitor in that instance, because I don't think the whole ritual of doing so was a thing back when that happened. The way they do it now, he would probably go to the monitor himself to see if it's a handball or not.
But according to beIN Sports, the match referee Anthony Taylor told Wolves’ technical staff that Van Dijk’s handball was ‘too far back in the move’ to be considered.
With regards to this, there was ample time for Burnley to reset, but they chose not to do so in order to remonstrate with the referee. After the tackle, the ball went backwards to our centre half who then played it out wide left before the ball went to Cavani, so how that's the "immediate phase" whereas a long ball that directly leads to a headed assist is not "the immediate phase" is confusing, to say the least.When explaining the attacking phase of play, the Premier League said at the beginning of the season: ‘The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession. ‘Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack.’
I never said that "VAR says", so again you're arguing against the guy in the video that I posted and not against the point that I was making. The referee in the game had given his explanation to the Wolves bench, that's about as official as it gets, isn't it?Alright, so it's one explanation according to Sky and another according to beIN sources, given to Wolves staff informally, and not as an official explanation (given by a man who didn't even make the decision). Not exactly what I would "VAR say".
Don't think we can conclude anything about their consistency in measuring what constitutes a passage of play from that little.
It's an informal explanation given (allegedly) by a man who didn't even make the decision (possibly to placate a bunch of angry blokes after a game). Perhaps that's really as official as it gets, but that's far from ideal, especially as the other alleged explanation is completely contradictory to it. You just can't see them trying to walk the cat back in such a brainless fashion, were they given a chance to explain themselves instead of a trial in absentia.I never said that "VAR says", so again you're arguing against the guy in the video that I posted and not against the point that I was making. The referee in the game had given his explanation to the Wolves bench, that's about as official as it gets, isn't it?
Regardless of which, the facts are this
1) Van Dijk has the ball accidentally hits the ball at the half-way line, plays the ball over the Wolves defence to Lallana who ends up assisting Mané for a goal. The handball is not checked with the closest explanation as to why being that it's "too far back to check".
2) Luke Shaw tackles the Burnley player ten yards outside of our box. Referee waves play on. The ball goes backwards to our centre half, who plays it out wide to the wing. Then the ball is played to Cavani who is then hauled down. This is judged as being the immediate attacking phase (see below for PL explanation, they limit it to the immediate phase).
Premier League says with regards to attacking phases
"‘The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession. ‘Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack." (emphasis mine)
Now, I think this is a clear inconsistency in that one incident that leads to the ball being played forward as a second assist is not an attacking phase whereas a tackle 30 yards further back on the pitch that leads to the ball going backwards and ends up in attack after two passes. If you don't think that's inconsistent, then that's fair enough and we'll just agree to disagree.