Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

Ekkie Thump

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
3,883
Supports
Leeds United

Key point here is that the refs and VAR don't have to decide whether it did interfere with his ability to play the ball. Just whether it could have.
If he had the ability to play the ball were Phillips not there I'd agree, but in my view he wasn't in such a position. If he had zero ability to play the ball with or without Phillips then Phillips had no material impact on his ability to play the ball. I mean, Phillips 'could have' interfered with his ability to play the ball were Alisson in a position to do so, but he wasn't, so Phillips couldn't.
 

Bubz27

No I won’t change your tag line
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
21,543
I remember an Everton goal being disallowed against us a while back and there was uproar and Calvert Lewin even got an interview to say how it was a disaster. Have WBA been allowed to bring it up? Did Souness and/or Redknapp condemn it?



 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,283
I remember an Everton goal being disallowed against us a while back and there was uproar and Calvert Lewin even got an interview to say how it was a disaster. Have WBA been allowed to bring it up? Did Souness and/or Redknapp condemn it?



They also spent several minutes looking at it. Today got a cursory glance.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,587
I remember an Everton goal being disallowed against us a while back and there was uproar and Calvert Lewin even got an interview to say how it was a disaster. Have WBA been allowed to bring it up? Did Souness and/or Redknapp condemn it?



At that time few refs confirmed why it was given as offside, 'Line of sight' or 'line of vision' was the term used and player was in line of sight of the keeper. Likewise today's decision was spot on too.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
If he had the ability to play the ball were Phillips not there I'd agree, but in my view he wasn't in such a position. If he had zero ability to play the ball with or without Phillips then Phillips had no material impact on his ability to play the ball. I mean, Phillips 'could have' interfered with his ability to play the ball were Alisson in a position to do so, but he wasn't, so Phillips couldn't.
The refs/VAR don't make a call on whether Alisson could or couldn't have actually done anything without Phillips being there though, it isn't a factor in their decision. Because if it was then they'd be dragged into the tricky area of deciding what is/isn't saveable for a goalkeeper.

The other way to phrase it would be "did Phillips impact on Allison's ability to try to play the ball?". Even if we think it would have been a materially hopeless attempt, the offside would still be given for impacting on it.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
52,991
We all hate Liverpool, but surely you can't say that a guy standing a few cm directly in front of the keeper isn't interfering with play.
 

Jezpeza

Full Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
2,018
The refs/VAR don't make a call on whether Alisson could or couldn't have actually done anything without Phillips being there though, it isn't a factor in their decision. Because if it was then they'd be dragged into the tricky area of deciding what is/isn't saveable for a goalkeeper.

The other way to phrase it would be "did Phillips impact on Allison's ability to try to play the ball?". Even if we think it would have been a materially hopeless attempt, the offside would still be given for impacting on it.
In my opinion if Phillips isn't there Allison doesn't save it. Too much pace on the ball. However phillips is right in front of him. As the laws go he is obstructing the view of the keeper and its rightly ruled out.
 

Ekkie Thump

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
3,883
Supports
Leeds United
I remember an Everton goal being disallowed against us a while back and there was uproar and Calvert Lewin even got an interview to say how it was a disaster. Have WBA been allowed to bring it up? Did Souness and/or Redknapp condemn it?



I reckon that one is definitely offside. From the moment the ball is kicked to the moment of the ricochet the keeper's line of sight is impinged. I just don't think that's true of today's one.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,283
If I saw one other example of a goal being disallowed for somebody being in the line of sight of the keeper for the pass before the shot I could maybe see the points being raised. Has it ever happened before?
 

kiristao

Full Member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
4,653
Location
Goa, India
I reckon that one is definitely offside. From the moment the ball is kicked to the moment of the ricochet the keeper's line of sight is impinged. I just don't think that's true of today's one.
If the Everton one, where the player is on the floor, is interference then the West Brom one today also has to be given offside.
In my opinion both were not actually hindering the keeper in anyway.
 

Speedy30

Liverpool Fan
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
1,493
Location
On the Kop
Supports
Liverpool
In my opinion as a referee (and a Liverpool fan but I like to think i can be objective), Alisson's line of sight was blocked by the player 2 yards in front him so the goal was correctly ruled out.
The free kick that led to Liverpools first should have been a drop ball as everyone here probably knows. It was a big mistake by Dean who will be kicking himself but in the phase of play that followed, there were plenty of chances for WBA to get rid of the ball and they fecked it up.
I think Dean has made the mistake because of how quickly Thiago has picked the ball up, placed it down and then played it. It was about 2 secs and the referee has lost his train of thought. It happens in games and has happened to me on a few occasions and honestly, as a referee, you kick yourself massively for it.
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
6,356
I don’t understand the hands rule anymore and when it should be red. Red card for Reims vs PSG seemed very tough imo and the ref gave the victory to PSG.
 

GaryLifo

Liverpool's Secret Weapon.
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
10,778
Location
From here to there
We all hate Liverpool, but surely you can't say that a guy standing a few cm directly in front of the keeper isn't interfering with play.
He was about 5 feet away from the keeper. If it was at the other end they would have given Liverpool the goal, 100%

The first header becomes a pass to a player in an onside position with nobody impeding the keepers view of the player who scored. The goal should stand.
 

Speedy30

Liverpool Fan
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
1,493
Location
On the Kop
Supports
Liverpool
He was about 5 feet away from the keeper. If it was at the other end they would have given Liverpool the goal, 100%

The first header becomes a pass to a player in an onside position with nobody impeding the keepers view of the player who scored. The goal should stand.
No chance it would have stood for Liverpool either.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
Again, you're working backwards to explain a mistake based on the ref's discretion. The ref made a mistake here, not VAR.
This is not an offside call which can be empirically determined by lines. It's a judgment call. Same one that happened a few times this season already and which had different conclusions. One of them being a game involving Liverpool vs West Ham.
Neither of them made a mistake. You cannot assume the very thing that's under dispute, which is whether a mistake has been made in the first place.
How on earth is it a mistake?

This is the moment the ball is played:



The only way the offside player could be more in the goalkeeper's line of sight is if he had his hands over his eyes.
That's as conclusive as evidence for a passive offside is gonna get. There is no way to stand there without interfering with play. At the very least you are a body to be taken into account when the keeper decides how to position himself and react, and at worst you are completely obscuring the ball. There's no way to excavate Alisson's thought process nor could there ever be, even if you were to use eye sight technology to see exactly what he is seeing. It impacted him or didn't, feck knows, but it's really not hard to see how it could have, and that's all a referee needs to take into account.

You can do a cone of vision analysis in some post match studio/lab, but in this case it's so clear cut it would be redundant.
 

Harry190

Bobby ten Hag
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
7,614
Location
Canada
Neither of them made a mistake. You cannot assume the very thing that's under dispute, which is whether a mistake has been made in the first place.

That's as conclusive as evidence for a passive offside is gonna get. There is no way to stand there without interfering with play. At the very least you are a body to be taken into account when the keeper decides how to position himself and react, and at worst you are completely obscuring the ball. There's no way to excavate Alisson's thought process nor could there ever be, even if you were to use eye sight technology to see exactly what he is seeing. It impacted him or didn't, feck knows, but it's really not hard to see how it could have, and that's all a referee needs to take into account.

You can do a cone of vision analysis in some post match studio/lab, but in this case it's so clear cut it would be redundant.
A mistake in judgment. The rule stipulates, black on white, that is has to clearly impact the line of vision. It is an element that is left to the referees to decide.

To be frank, it does not really matter anymore. What is done is done.
 

Bubz27

No I won’t change your tag line
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
21,543
Does this mean anytime a player stands next to a keeper at a corner it's obstruction too?
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,558
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
No, I've neen telling you what VAR uses today. Frame rate just isnt an issue no matter how much you want it to be! Goalline technology should tell you this alone.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Goalline technology is focused on one solitary position with one variable - far more straightforward. This is why Hawkeye is a thing in tennis - the lines are fixed and the ball is the only variable. The technology simply isn't to that point yet for offsides - you are arguing that the sky is green and not blue right now.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
Does this mean anytime a player stands next to a keeper at a corner it's obstruction too?
He was penalised because he was offside and you can't be offside from a corner.

But if, say, someone took a quick short corner and then played the ball from the exact same area (so a player standing in front of the goalkeeper could be offside) then yes, it would be diallowed if it played out in the same way. But it's obviously less likely to be offside coming off the back of a corner as there will often be defenders on the line or whatever.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,558
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
But how much movement can a payer really make between firstly contacting the ball and making ths thing move? Plus its clearly offside in real time anyway, a still wasnt needed.
This is literally what I've been telling you repeatedly - given the current limitations of the technology, there is effectively a 16 cm margin of error frame to frame if players are moving at 30 kmph relative to each other (aka more or less jogging towards each other).
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,458
Location
Manchester
Oh hah! Completely misunderstood you there mate, you're spot on. The women got done by a diabolical decision for Barca's second right as they were getting to grips with the game. Ah well!
You've been done 3 times in that case!

Can't you and Leicester find a way of getting Liverpool out of the top 4 please
 

Ladron de redcafe

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
3,681
You're comparing apples to oranges. Goalline technology is focused on one solitary position with one variable - far more straightforward. This is why Hawkeye is a thing in tennis - the lines are fixed and the ball is the only variable. The technology simply isn't to that point yet for offsides - you are arguing that the sky is green and not blue right now.
Even Hawkeye isn't 100 percent accurate, though. There have been plenty of examples of players raging due to outcalls when chalk indicated that the ball must have hit the line.

If that has its flaws, this - which you pointed out is more complex - is going to face even more issues.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,558
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Just fricking concentrate on winning the CL and do us all, including yourselves, a favour. :rolleyes:
:lol:

Fair play to Alisson today; he seems a genuinely decent bloke going through a tough time. Thought his post-match comments were brilliant. Hard to begrudge him that even if I was going mental in front of the telly!
 

The Oracle

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,108
In my opinion as a referee (and a Liverpool fan but I like to think i can be objective), Alisson's line of sight was blocked by the player 2 yards in front him so the goal was correctly ruled out.
The free kick that led to Liverpools first should have been a drop ball as everyone here probably knows. It was a big mistake by Dean who will be kicking himself but in the phase of play that followed, there were plenty of chances for WBA to get rid of the ball and they fecked it up.
I think Dean has made the mistake because of how quickly Thiago has picked the ball up, placed it down and then played it. It was about 2 secs and the referee has lost his train of thought. It happens in games and has happened to me on a few occasions and honestly, as a referee, you kick yourself massively for it.
His line of sight wasn't blocked because the ball was high in the air at the time it was flicked on - meaning that Alisson could clearly see it.

With regards the brainfart by Dean for allowing a freekick instead of an uncontested dropball, and it should have been disallowed by VAR because of the error.

If we're going to allow the referee's to change the rules during the game, then why not just let them award corners when it goes out for throwings etc.

It was a clear mistake by Dean and VAR should have disallowed the goal.

Farce.
 

Bullhitter

New Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
766
Location
in the opposite direction of crowds
Supports
Chelsea
You only need to look at Alisson's protests when the second goal went in. Even in his protests he paid no attention to Phillips, he was only protesting pointing at Bartley to bring attention that he had touched it and was (potentially) offside.

The fact they only looked at it for a few seconds, like the Cup final, and the fact that they didn't pull up Liverpool's first goal for Mike Dean making up his own rules for the game leading directly to starting an attack that led to a goal makes it all rather unpalatable.
 

Bearded One

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
1,245
I’d appreciate if I can get an answer:

If Chelsea win the UCL and Liverpool finish fourth in the league, who makes champions league next year? Only Chelsea or both Chelsea and Liverpool?
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
You're comparing apples to oranges. Goalline technology is focused on one solitary position with one variable - far more straightforward. This is why Hawkeye is a thing in tennis - the lines are fixed and the ball is the only variable. The technology simply isn't to that point yet for offsides - you are arguing that the sky is green and not blue right now.
You say straight forward when all of us discussing this are as stupid as each other. We have no idea how easy or hard it is and being dumb about it doesnt put it in doubt.
World football isnt judging offsides by cms because its unreliable.
All you're literally saying here is no it isnt to everything thats explained to you. Either research it or don't. Everything is out there for you find. You can start here
 

Longshanks

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,775
The broadcasters themselves film the action at a higher frame rate than they broadcast. How can they show you clear super slow-mo shots at 50fps unless they're shooting at higher than that?

You can see these Hi-Motion cameras (which record up to 1000fps) actively advertise themselves as being the ones the Premier League (and others) use.

https://www.nacinc.com/products/hd-ultra-slow-motion-cameras/Hi-Motion_II/
Yes the super slo mo cameras are recording at 1000fps but there's is only a few and there generally pointed directly at the action close up to capture interesting slo mo replays, not very useful for offside calls, where you need an overview of the pitch, which is why they use the broadcast pictures.

Apparently if the game isn't being live broadcasted then its recorded at 24 FPS making the margin of error for VAR even bigger.
 

Alejandro Angel

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
93
I’d appreciate if I can get an answer:

If Chelsea win the UCL and Liverpool finish fourth in the league, who makes champions league next year? Only Chelsea or both Chelsea and Liverpool?
Both a maximum of five teams from the Premier league can gain entry to the champions league next year.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,558
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
You say straight forward when all of us discussing this are as stupid as each other. We have no idea how easy or hard it is and being dumb about it doesnt put it in doubt.
World football isnt judging offsides by cms because its unreliable.
All you're literally saying here is no it isnt to everything thats explained to you. Either research it or don't. Everything is out there for you find. You can start here
There is literally nothing in there about frame rate. I don't doubt that the lines are drawn correctly on a given frame, the issue is the choice of frame matters hugely and it's a massive problem that's overlooked.