Refs & VAR 2021/22

Doracle

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
792
The explanations Gallagher gives for the Everton penalty and the De Gea one are both absolutely nuts.

The first one is basically “the referee thought about it really hard, so VAR shouldn’t intervene” and the second he just makes up rules - since when does distance away matter if a player is in the eyeline and what does it matter if he also had to look around Lindelof? The explanation for Cedric’s handball also sounds suspect but I haven’t actually seen that one to properly comment.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
116,939
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
The explanations Gallagher gives for the Everton penalty and the De Gea one are both absolutely nuts.

The first one is basically “the referee thought about it really hard, so VAR shouldn’t intervene” and the second he just makes up rules - since when does distance away matter if a player is in the eyeline and what does it matter if he also had to look around Lindelof? The explanation for Cedric’s handball also sounds suspect but I haven’t actually seen that one to properly comment.
That is close to the most stupid thing I have ever heard any football pundit say. How can Lindelof be in his eyeline when he can’t actually see Lindelof BECAUSE NKETIAH IS STANDING IN THE FECKING WAY!!
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
6,224
Dermot is Dermot

INCIDENT: Up against Jadon Sancho, Cedric Soares lost his balance and stumbled to the ground before appearing to stop the ball with his hand. Sancho appealed for what could have been a free-kick or a penalty, with the incident right on the edge of the penalty area.

However, referee Craig Pawson waved away the appeals, and there was no VAR intervention either.

DERMOT'S VERDICT: Correct decision.

DERMOT SAYS: "It's covered in law because his arm is on the ground, so it's deemed supporting his body and it struck him rather than him striking the ball. I don't think it was a scoop.

I thought this interpretation from Dermot was rather interesting. First of all, Cedric isn’t falling when he handles the ball. He fell but uses his arm to continue alongside Sancho, so it really has nothing whatsoever to do with being a natural part of his movement when falling. What Dermot is referring to however, is IFAB’s wording related to the 19/20 season, not the updated ones.

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.

It is, however, considered natural for a player to put their arm between their body and the ground for support when falling, so long as the arm is not extended to make the body bigger.


Cedric isn’t putting his arm between his body and ground for support when falling, he’s using it to attempt keeping up with Sancho and that is what causes the handball, which is when he decides to collapse to the ground as well..I can’t find anything in the updated rules that actually supports Dermot’s verdict.

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/fouls-and-misconduct/#direct-free-kick

They have changed their wording for 21/22.

  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
As far as i can tell, it lookes like Dermot doesn’t know the rules.

Overall I find this whole «on-field decision» a bit bizarre, as the problem continues to be that two very similar situations can have opposite outcomes depending on the referees view. If the referee blows for a penalty for Elanga, VAR isn’t going to recommend him to review the situation. We’ve had the same experience quite a few times against us, where the referee awarded a goal even though our goalkeeper was obsctructed, but in the opposite end he instantly blew for a freekick for what was feck all before the ball ended up in the back of the net, and because the twat blew for a freekick before the ball hit the back of the net, VAR couldn’t intervene. Maguire scored a beauty of a header, ref disallowed it and VAR doesn’t intervene because it’s an «on-field decision», Maguire was only guilty of timing the header perfectly, while the opposition is allowed to put his hands in Lindelofs face to cover his eyes….

There isn’t any reason whatsoever as to why any of this should be complicated. VAR should be a tool to limit unfair treatment where almost identical situations have different outcomes. Clear and obvious should be thrown out the window, as it does more damage than good. It shouldn’t really be complicated for the ref to allow play to go on to see if a goal is scored or not, then let the VAR know that he is unsure of a situation but he allowed it to go on to properly review it afterwards if a goal was scored. Then just have a look at the monitor to get a better understanding of the situation. Should be piss easy.

Elanga is ahead of the Arsenal player and running with the ball, any intereaction from behind from the Arsenal player that results in Elanga losing balance should either result in a freekick or penalty if it’s inside the box. The fecker is running, so anything from behind is obviously going to have an effect on his balance.

His take on the De Gea offside situation is bizarre, both blaming lindelof and the notion that distance matters. The speed of the ball means that it’s obviously going to have a huge effect if he can’t see the direction and flight of the ball until it goes past the Arsenal player in his eyesight. Doesn’t matter if it’s 15, 18 or 25m, end result is that a player in offside blocks his view until it’s too late
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
19,038
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
Spot on. As always.

What did you make of the other two controversial incidents?

Nketiah obstructing DDG’s view from offside position

Tavares wrestling Elanga to the ground (again!) in the second half.
Straightforward decision, not even up for debate. It's a simple call as per the laws of the game - "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

Agree with you on the Nketiah offside. In fairness it's more open to interpretation compared to a standard black-and-white offside call as it hinges on the definition of interference. The rule tries to strike a balance between not disallowing great goals due to overly anal officiating, while punishing any obvious advantage from being offside. So I'd chalk that one off on the basis that De Gea had to move the wrong way to get a view past a clearly offside player, and stood a good chance of stopping it with a clear view (strike wasn't really in the corner).
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
116,939
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Straightforward decision, not even up for debate. It's a simple call as per the laws of the game - "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

Agree with you on the Nketiah offside. In fairness it's more open to interpretation compared to a standard black-and-white offside call as it hinges on the definition of interference. The rule tries to strike a balance between not disallowing great goals due to overly anal officiating, while punishing any obvious advantage from being offside. So I'd chalk that one off on the basis that De Gea had to move the wrong way to get a view past a clearly offside player, and stood a good chance of stopping it with a clear view (strike wasn't really in the corner).
@Anustart89

See above. No we weren’t going mad. The gooners trying to tell us that where the infringement starts is where the foul takes place are the mad ones.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
116,939
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Trying to bundle the Nketiah offside in with other decisions is stupid because it ignores the specific footage they reviewed here. Which clearly shows De Gea peering around Nketiah’s shoulder to see the ball, taking a step to his right, then being blindsided by a shot to his left that was a yard inside his post and easily saved by a top keeper with a clear view of the ball. Completely different to, say, an offside player briefly passing between a keeper and an unsaveable shot into the top corner.

It’s so bloody obvious. With no obstruction between De Gea and Xhaka he saves that shot every single time.
 

Fitchett

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Messages
1,318
Location
Manchester
Trying to bundle the Nketiah offside in with other decisions is stupid because it ignores the specific footage they reviewed here. Which clearly shows De Gea peering around Nketiah’s shoulder to see the ball, taking a step to his right, then being blindsided by a shot to his left that was a yard inside his post and easily saved by a top keeper with a clear view of the ball. Completely different to, say, an offside player briefly passing between a keeper and an unsaveable shot into the top corner.

It’s so bloody obvious. With no obstruction between De Gea and Xhaka he saves that shot every single time.
Exactly, as good a strike as it was, I was amazed at De Gea, the best shot stopper I have ever seen, being beaten from that distance. Until I saw the replays of him peering around the offside player. But of course, the corrupt officiating in the PL once again chose to make a shocking decision against United.
 

Powderfinger

Full Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
1,380
Supports
Arsenal
Trying to bundle the Nketiah offside in with other decisions is stupid because it ignores the specific footage they reviewed here. Which clearly shows De Gea peering around Nketiah’s shoulder to see the ball, taking a step to his right, then being blindsided by a shot to his left that was a yard inside his post and easily saved by a top keeper with a clear view of the ball. Completely different to, say, an offside player briefly passing between a keeper and an unsaveable shot into the top corner.

It’s so bloody obvious. With no obstruction between De Gea and Xhaka he saves that shot every single time.
Honest question. Can you remember another time when this kind of decision was given (goal ruled out for offside player obstructing the keeper's line of vision) with the offside player beyond the penalty spot? I'm struggling to think of another example.

De facto, the unwritten practice seems to be that if you're far enough away you can't really obstruct the line of vision that badly, or the keeper can be reasonably expected to adjust his position slightly to see around you. Or, as was the case here, you're not the only one in the way (Lindelof also seemed to be obstructing the view).
 

Jeppers7

Pogfamily Mafia
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
5,006
Honest question. Can you remember another time when this kind of decision was given (goal ruled out for offside player obstructing the keeper's line of vision) with the offside player beyond the penalty spot? I'm struggling to think of another example.

De facto, the unwritten practice seems to be that if you're far enough away you can't really obstruct the line of vision that badly, or the keeper can be reasonably expected to adjust his position slightly to see around you. Or, as was the case here, you're not the only one in the way (Lindelof also seemed to be obstructing the view).
I’m not interested in if another goal has been disallowed or a defender who isn’t offside and Whois crouching down is also there….if a goalkeeper has to crane his neck to get sight of a ball because offside player is in the line of vision then the attacking team has gained an unfair advantage. End of. It’s pure common sense. To not apply common sense is ridiculous. Nothing is black and white.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
116,939
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Honest question. Can you remember another time when this kind of decision was given (goal ruled out for offside player obstructing the keeper's line of vision) with the offside player beyond the penalty spot? I'm struggling to think of another example.

De facto, the unwritten practice seems to be that if you're far enough away you can't really obstruct the line of vision that badly, or the keeper can be reasonably expected to adjust his position slightly to see around you. Or, as was the case here, you're not the only one in the way (Lindelof also seemed to be obstructing the view).
See above. The lack of a precedent isn’t justification for not implementing the laws of the game. It was an absolutely nailed on, 100% obvious example of a goalkeeper failing to save a shot because of an offside attacker obstructing his view. It literally could not have been more obvious if you’d staged the footage for a refeee training session. The idea that it should be ignored because it’s something that doesn’t often happen is, obviously, ridiculous.
 

Alejandro Angel

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
90
See above. The lack of a precedent isn’t justification for not implementing the laws of the game. It was an absolutely nailed on, 100% obvious example of a goalkeeper failing to save a shot because of an offside attacker obstructing his view. It literally could not have been more obvious if you’d staged the footage for a refeee training session. The idea that it should be ignored because it’s something that doesn’t often happen is, obviously, ridiculous.
I think when a free kick is taken from a similar distance and a player is standing in a offside position in a relatively similar postion to the penalty and clearly obstructing the goalkeepers view, it is automatically not given. I cannot see a difference it does not matter if a defending player is infront of that player.
 

Alejandro Angel

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
90
I think when a free kick is taken from a similar distance and a player is standing in a offside position in a relatively similar postion to the penalty area and clearly obstructing the goalkeepers view, it is automatically not given. I cannot see a difference it does not matter if a defending player is infront of that player.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
12,425
@Anustart89

See above. No we weren’t going mad. The gooners trying to tell us that where the infringement starts is where the foul takes place are the mad ones.
Well, we knew that all along, didn’t we? :)

Sometimes I’m staggered at how people can hold certain beliefs without logically applying those thoughts to the real world. If it were not the case then there would be no reason for a defender to let go of a shirt as long as he’s started pulling it outside the box. Yet they all attempt to convince the ref that they let go outside the box. If they were right about the punishment, there would be no reason to remonstrate with the ref as to where they let go, only where they started pulling.
 

Powderfinger

Full Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
1,380
Supports
Arsenal
See above. The lack of a precedent isn’t justification for not implementing the laws of the game. It was an absolutely nailed on, 100% obvious example of a goalkeeper failing to save a shot because of an offside attacker obstructing his view. It literally could not have been more obvious if you’d staged the footage for a refeee training session. The idea that it should be ignored because it’s something that doesn’t often happen is, obviously, ridiculous.
I think it happens regularly and is never called. The broader situation - a ball gets half cleared, defense pushes up to the edge of the box while a forward lags a bit, and somebody has a strike from distance - happens all the time. Some small portion of those times the forward must end up partially screening the keeper.

Football is a game with formal rules and de facto rule applications in all sorts of situations (ie, fouling in the box ahead of s corner). If you didn’t get a call no other team has ever gotten by the de facto rule application, it’s hardly a travesty.
 

Jeppers7

Pogfamily Mafia
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
5,006
I think it happens regularly and is never called. The broader situation - a ball gets half cleared, defense pushes up to the edge of the box while a forward lags a bit, and somebody has a strike from distance - happens all the time. Some small portion of those times the forward must end up partially screening the keeper.

Football is a game with formal rules and de facto rule applications in all sorts of situations (ie, fouling in the box ahead of s corner). If you didn’t get a call no other team has ever gotten by the de facto rule application, it’s hardly a travesty.
Didn’t Liverpool have a situation similar to for them last year ? When the view wasn’t even blocked. You can literally see DDG have to look around the player. Unfortunately he picked the wrong side to look…..yeah that’s fair.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
12,425
I think it happens regularly and is never called. The broader situation - a ball gets half cleared, defense pushes up to the edge of the box while a forward lags a bit, and somebody has a strike from distance - happens all the time. Some small portion of those times the forward must end up partially screening the keeper.

Football is a game with formal rules and de facto rule applications in all sorts of situations (ie, fouling in the box ahead of s corner). If you didn’t get a call no other team has ever gotten by the de facto rule application, it’s hardly a travesty.
It’s hardly as if the multiple decisions that you claim to be precedents involve the below being the keeper’s body position as the shot is struck. Considering de Gea’s body position, how can you claim that his ability to react to the shot wasn’t impacted by the offside player?

The situations you refer to might involve the keeper acting and reacting as if no player was even close (but we don’t know that because you can’t even give us any examples), yet here you can clearly see that de Gea has to put the weight on his right leg to see around N’ketiah, whereas he would need to have his weight on his left foot to push his body to the side that the shot came. To claim that he wasn’t clearly interfered with when his reaction to the shot was a) delayed due to seeing the ball late, and b) impacted with because he has to change his body position in order to be able to see the ball as a consequence of the offside players position when you see the picture below is just dishonest and shows that you don’t have an honest intention in discussing the actual situation and that you’re more interested in other situations that you can’t specify that may or may not be similar at all.

 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
10,409
It’s hardly as if the multiple decisions that you claim to be precedents involve the below being the keeper’s body position as the shot is struck. Considering de Gea’s body position, how can you claim that his ability to react to the shot wasn’t impacted by the offside player?

The situations you refer to might involve the keeper acting and reacting as if no player was even close (but we don’t know that because you can’t even give us any examples), yet here you can clearly see that de Gea has to put the weight on his right leg to see around N’ketiah, whereas he would need to have his weight on his left foot to push his body to the side that the shot came. To claim that he wasn’t clearly interfered with when his reaction to the shot was a) delayed due to seeing the ball late, and b) impacted with because he has to change his body position in order to be able to see the ball as a consequence of the offside players position when you see the picture below is just dishonest and shows that you don’t have an honest intention in discussing the actual situation and that you’re more interested in other situations that you can’t specify that may or may not be similar at all.

Madness that's not given as offside ffs. Shocking shocking decision
 

MUFC OK

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
5,030
Madness that's not given as offside ffs. Shocking shocking decision
We've had terrible decisions go against us whilst the likes of scousers get everything their way this weekend. Rather than outright corruption I think there's something in the "United are shit" - don't get calls, "Liverpool are great" - get calls.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
12,425
We've had terrible decisions go against us whilst the likes of scousers get everything their way this weekend. Rather than outright corruption I think there's something in the "United are shit" - don't get calls, "Liverpool are great" - get calls.
It’s also easier as a ref because media glosses over calls like this against us whereas the referee would catch much more heat if he were to make those calls against Liverpool from pundits and journalists and I genuinely believe that.
 

MUFC OK

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
5,030
It’s also easier as a ref because media glosses over calls like this against us whereas the referee would catch much more heat if he were to make those calls against Liverpool from pundits and journalists and I genuinely believe that.
Klopp is the first to raise a greivance, he's got that fear factor like Fergie had. To not review that Gordon penalty shout was utterly criminal - I've also noticed refs trying to hurry the game up, assume so they dont have to revisit incidents - and also quickly administering yellows for what could easily be reds.
 

Sylar

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
31,050
Has to be at its worst ever right?

And im talking about the referees. Then having the same ones in charge of Var is horrible.
 

awop

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
2,271
Location
Paris
Supports
Arsenal
Has to be at its worst ever right?

And im talking about the referees. Then having the same ones in charge of Var is horrible.
Mike Dean didn't lift a finger while a 10 man brawl was erupting a feet from him. Can't wait to see what he decides to see or not see on VAR duty :drool:
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
19,038
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
Honest question. Can you remember another time when this kind of decision was given (goal ruled out for offside player obstructing the keeper's line of vision) with the offside player beyond the penalty spot? I'm struggling to think of another example.
Another case with Angelino's volley in the Europa semi on Thursday night. The offside Leipzig striker runs across the path of the keeper and has to take evasive action to get out of the way of the ball. That said, compared to De Gea, it's not as clear cut whether it was obstructing McGregor's view.


 

Carl

has permanently erect nipples
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
43,841
Am I imagining it or did they draw the offside line from the defender when they should have drawn it from the ball for Ronaldo’s disallowed goal?

He didn’t look ahead of the ball in any replay I’ve seen.
Think it looked that way at first, because the line for the ball is also level with the defender closest to ronaldo.
 

Idxomer

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
7,336
That's not offside, I'm not sure Mata has played the ball yet in this frame.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
10,409
Such a shit decision. Ronaldo puts his foot down level with the ball. His stance is as upright as possible and they draw the line a full balls width ahead of his foot. Feck off.
I'm sick to death of saying this. It shouldnt matter where anyone's head or chest or shoulder is. It should be foot to foot.

Ronaldos head being offside has no bearing on the goal being scored or not. If he doesn't move his feet he won't score.

Furthest foot forward versus most backward foot is the easiest and best chance we could ever see for offside.
 

Fitchett

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Messages
1,318
Location
Manchester
Yet another sh*t decision against us. There is too much subjectivity as to which freeze frame is used, and in this case, how can Ronaldo be offside if he is behind the ball when Mata plays it to him?

As at Arsenal, Elanga had very few decisions going his way, and we had two decent shouts for penalties turned away, when Ronaldo was brought down., before he finally got one.