VAR | 2021/22 Performances

[cyberman]

Don't think he was getting to Konsa tbh who had a good run on him. It was clever play from him to go down as goal would've been given otherwise.

Problem here though is West Ham get given a goal yesterday even though Bowen is offside and challenges the keeper so in 24 hours you get two similar incidents and yet one goal is given and the other isn't.

But he’s ahead of Konsa when he’s fouled and the ball is lofted, if you watch the video he has to wait for the ball to come down to even make the header.
Cavani may be old but he’s not that old where he can’t break a stride!

 

[sullydnl]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Just to make clear, it was even more clear cut than it just being disallowed for impeding.

 

[Jeppers7]

Don't think he was getting to Konsa tbh who had a good run on him. It was clever play from him to go down as goal would've been given otherwise.

Problem here though is West Ham get given a goal yesterday even though Bowen is offside and challenges the keeper so in 24 hours you get two similar incidents and yet one goal is given and the other isn't.

It was blatant cheating tactics. Your player is stood there to stop Cavani getting there. Obviously worked on in training. Deservedly disallowed. Don’t try to cheat and you might have scored.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Shearer genuinely embarrassed himself with that analysis. Is he blind or is he intentionally just ignoring the video in front of him . He says that Cavani makes no attempt even though Cavani clears runs in one line while Ramsay is the one who understands what he is doing . It was a great setup by Villa but VAR got it spot on


Also repeatedly saying that shouldn’t use VAR because not in all games is so silly. For this game & these two teams why does it matter what happened in the Hull game without VAR. So because there were mistakes in that game so we shouldn’t use it here

 

[The White Pele]

That goal could have been disallowed four times over. The foul, two offsides, and handball by Ings.

Exactly. It was ridiculous how long it took to disallow it.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

Cavani obstructed by an offside player, then a flick on to another offside player, who bundled it in via a handball. If it wasn't disallowed, then you might as well get the keeper in a headlock and punch the ball in.

 

[TheReligion]

Clearly the right decision but shouldn't have taken so long to sort out

 

[Thunderhead]

Shearer genuinely embarrassed himself with that analysis. Is he blind or is he intentionally just ignoring the video in front of him . He says that Cavani makes no attempt even though Cavani clears runs in one line while Ramsay is the one who understands what he is doing . It was a great setup by Villa but VAR got it spot on


Also repeatedly saying that shouldn’t use VAR because not in all games is so silly. For this game & these two teams why does it matter what happened in the Hull game without VAR. So because there were mistakes in that game so we shouldn’t use it here

I agree with shearer, you shouldn't have rules and technology in place in 1 set of games and not the others, it's daft

 

[tomaldinho1]

Shearer genuinely embarrassed himself with that analysis. Is he blind or is he intentionally just ignoring the video in front of him . He says that Cavani makes no attempt even though Cavani clears runs in one line while Ramsay is the one who understands what he is doing . It was a great setup by Villa but VAR got it spot on


Also repeatedly saying that shouldn’t use VAR because not in all games is so silly. For this game & these two teams why does it matter what happened in the Hull game without VAR. So because there were mistakes in that game so we shouldn’t use it here

He's just a dinosaur. No doubt he uses the phrase 'proper centre forward'
I don't really see how any Villa fans are disagreeing given the player who interferes with play is also offside.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

I agree with shearer, you shouldn't have rules and technology in place in 1 set of games and not the others, it's daft

No it’s not daft at all . As long as it’s the same rules for both Villa & United it doesn’t matter what happened in another game . It’s silly to think that things are same in every FA cup game. The football pitch for starters is different everywhere

 

[Thunderhead]

No it’s not daft at all . As long as it’s the same rules for both Villa & United it doesn’t matter what happened in another game . It’s silly to think that things are same in every FA cup game. The football pitch for starters is different everywhere

The football pitches are all within the boundaries stipulated within the laws of the game, the competition should be the same technology for all games

 

[VivaRonaldo85]

The officials still don’t know how to operate with VAR. 3 minutes 36 seconds to make that decision is embarrassing for all involved and annoyingly the only people who know what is going on is the on field referee and lead commentator who hear the VAR. Why on earth can’t we hear it on TV and in the ground?

 

[One Night Only]

Shearer is just salty because Newcastle got blebbed by Cambridge the other day.

 

[Spaghetti]

The football pitches are all within the boundaries stipulated within the laws of the game, the competition should be the same technology for all games

Why? I think it’s good to use var if the players and officials are used to it. It also corrected the referees poor decision to allow that goal to stand in the first place. It’s not as if VAR was wrong, just slow - 99% of people would have disallowed the goal before it went in anyway.

 

[Pexbo]

I agree with shearer, you shouldn't have rules and technology in place in 1 set of games and not the others, it's daft

Who is at an unfair advantage?

 

[Longshanks]

I'm not sure why it took so long, the first replay showed the offside and the foul should of been ruled out there and then, they didn't need to go into a micro analysis of the goal itself trying to work out weather there was a handball or was ings offside if Watkins got a touch as it was all academic by that point. Because Ramsey was blatantly offside and blatantly impeded cavani.

The only question was weather cavani would off been involved if he wasn't impeded and being as though he is level with konsa when impeded and within 1m horizontally than there is no doubt that he would of been. Without the foul he would of either, won the initial header, challenged konsa for the ball making it impossible for him cushion it back or possibly been in a posistion to block the cushion header. Either way he would of been there or there abouts.

Think anyone complaining about one of the most obvious VAR calls you will ever see is showing there anti United bias.

 

[Sandikan]

Cavani obstructed by an offside player, then a flick on to another offside player, who bundled it in via a handball. If it wasn't disallowed, then you might as well get the keeper in a headlock and punch the ball in.

Ings is only offside if Watkins touches the ball. Which even on countless close ups can't be certain. When it's played across otherwise, Ings is onside.
And it comes off Ings' thigh, not his hand.

Luckily the original offside / block was there to rule it out.

 

[Sandikan]

No it’s not daft at all . As long as it’s the same rules for both Villa & United it doesn’t matter what happened in another game . It’s silly to think that things are same in every FA cup game. The football pitch for starters is different everywhere

It is daft.
Rules should be the same for every game in a competition.

If other rules were different, like say offside doesn't count in certain games it'd be farcical.

 

[Bubz27]

The only problem with last night was it took 3 and a half minutes when the first replay clearly showed Ramsey was offside and clearly showed him obstructing Cavani. The 2 minutes they tried to figure out if Watkins toe dust brushed the ball was stupid, irrelevant.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

It is daft.
Rules should be the same for every game in a competition.

If other rules were different, like say offside doesn't count in certain games it'd be farcical.

What rule is different here ? It’s literally a tool they have to help with decisions and makes no difference to anything else .Bizarre to not use technology when you can . I would be livid if United went out on a bad decision because we didn’t use the technology even though it was available. The idea should be to expand it to more games rather than take it away

 

[phelans shorts]

The only problem with last night was it took 3 and a half minutes when the first replay clearly showed Ramsey was offside and clearly showed him obstructing Cavani. The 2 minutes they tried to figure out if Watkins toe dust brushed the ball was stupid, irrelevant.

No it wasn’t. If Michael Oliver didn’t see issue with Ramsey on Cavani they’d then have had to use that time anyway, because that was his subjective call. The reason for looking at the rest is to have all the factual information at hand once the subjective call is made, to speed up the decision making process (ie, if you don’t think Ramsey is impeding then It’s a goal is what VAR said)

 

[Carl]

Needs to be made way more transparent with audio about what they're looking at and how they come to their decision.

 

[deef]

That goal could have been disallowed four times over. The foul, two offsides, and handball by Ings.

This! I really don't know what took them so long. Lineker saying VAR was determined to disallow the goal is just laughable.

 

[Sandikan]

This! I really don't know what took them so long. Lineker saying VAR was determined to disallow the goal is just laughable.

Var does seem to want to find faults with goals though.
They clearly looked at the possible second offside and handball as otherwise if they'd looked at the Cavani block/offside situation it wouldn't have taken 3 1/2mins.

 

[sullydnl]

The only problem with last night was it took 3 and a half minutes when the first replay clearly showed Ramsey was offside and clearly showed him obstructing Cavani. The 2 minutes they tried to figure out if Watkins toe dust brushed the ball was stupid, irrelevant.

Nah.

You might say it was clear that Ramsey was obstructing Cavani, but it's still a subjective call of the sort we've seen referees botch before many times. So what happens if they do what some people want and just check the Cavani/Ramsey incident and the ref rejects it? They then either have to start again to look at the other offside and handball or ignore them completely.

It makes more sense to do what they did and start with the calls that could objectively rule out the goal before moving on to the more subjective calls. That way if/when the ref goes to the monitor he's either allowing or disallowing it, rather than making a pointless call on a goal that will/should be ruled out for an entirely different reason anyway.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Have they changed the handball rules? (yet again) It hit Ings arm on the way in. Does that not matter?

 

[Bubz27]

No it wasn’t. If Michael Oliver didn’t see issue with Ramsey on Cavani they’d then have had to use that time anyway, because that was his subjective call. The reason for looking at the rest is to have all the factual information at hand once the subjective call is made, to speed up the decision making process (ie, if you don’t think Ramsey is impeding then It’s a goal is what VAR said)

You said it yourself, if he didn't see an issue. But he clearly did, because that's the decision they made.

The only extra bit to look at was "Would Cavani have interfered with Konsa heading it across the box?" In which case, there would be no need to spend 2 minutes looking at whether Watkins touched it or not.

As soon as it's clear Ramsey was offside, did impede Cavani and Cavani could've intervened in the play, it should be disallowed. Looking at Ings being offside or whether he handballed is irrelevant.

 

[Bubz27]

Nah.

You might say it was clear that Ramsey was obstructing Cavani, but it's still a subjective call of the sort we've seen referees botch before many times. So what happens if they do what some people want and just check the Cavani/Ramsey incident and the ref rejects it? They then either have to start again to look at the other offside and handball or ignore them completely.

It makes more sense to do what they did and start with the calls that could objectively rule out the goal before moving on to the more subjective calls. That way if/when the ref goes to the monitor he's either allowing or disallowing it, rather than making a pointless call on a goal that will/should be ruled out for an entirely different reason anyway.

Some subjective calls are much clearer. Last night was pretty clear.

In any case, you are right that it should be the objective one first. But they took far too long trying to see if Watkins brushed the ball or not.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

The officials still don’t know how to operate with VAR. 3 minutes 36 seconds to make that decision is embarrassing for all involved and annoyingly the only people who know what is going on is the on field referee and lead commentator who hear the VAR. Why on earth can’t we hear it on TV and in the ground?

We knew what was going on on the TV? We saw the images and the commentators we're saying what they were checking for.

It did take a while, but ultimately shouldn't we be glad that they spent time to come to the right decision on such a big game-changing event and didn't rush it?

Also - and granted i'm in the minority here - but it made sense to me how they did things. First they check for the two black and white decisions - if handball by Ings it has to be disallowed, no questions asked, and similarly, if Watkins touches it (I don't think he did) then it's also definitely offside, no questions asked. Once they determine that neither of those things happened, then they look at the subjective calls, and whether the offside player impacts Cavani - which (whilst obvious) is technically still a subjective call, which is why he sent Olvier to the screen.

It's rare you'd get a goal with so many incidents within it, and in circumstances like that, I think taking time to reach the right decision -while lamentable - makes sense.

Edit - should have read further down the thread, basically what @sullydnl said!

 

[FootballHQ]

Needs to be made way more transparent with audio about what they're looking at and how they come to their decision.

I agree with that. They've had the microphone for years in Rugby and what the offence is gets communicated to the crowd and TV viewers. I assume they don't want to bring it in due to fears of Fans rioting but again I think that's just not trusting football fans very much.

 

[Baxter]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Odd that some pretty high profile football commentators are making it out to be something more than it was. Have a moan about the time it takes but it was clearly the correct decision. Winter putting that up to fuel the anger is laughable.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[deef]

Var does seem to want to find faults with goals though.
They clearly looked at the possible second offside and handball as otherwise if they'd looked at the Cavani block/offside situation it wouldn't have taken 3 1/2mins.

I don't think VAR does that. It just takes to long at times. Like the offside check yesterday, if I can't see any contact with the ball after 3/4 replays then they shouldn't check further or give it straight to the ref.

There are normally not that many incidents in one check.

 

[V.O.]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Odd that some pretty high profile football commentators are making it out to be something more than it was. Have a moan about the time it takes but it was clearly the correct decision. Winter putting that up to fuel the anger is laughable.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Funny that the media people are trying to stir it up into this huge injustice while Stevie Me says it's fair enough and only has issue with how long it took (which is entirely understandable).

 

[phelans shorts]

You said it yourself, if he didn't see an issue. But he clearly did, because that's the decision they made.

The only extra bit to look at was "Would Cavani have interfered with Konsa heading it across the box?" In which case, there would be no need to spend 2 minutes looking at whether Watkins touched it or not.

As soon as it's clear Ramsey was offside, did impede Cavani and Cavani could've intervened in the play, it should be disallowed. Looking at Ings being offside or whether he handballed is irrelevant.

You are entirely missing the point. You get all of the objective answers (was the scorer onside? Was it a handball?) before asking the subjective questions (did Ramsey illegally impede Cavani). If there was an objective reason to disallow the goal it would have been called without the need to send the referee to the monitor, there was no problem with anything else so they asked the referee to take another look at Ramsey on Cavani.

Doing it the other way round would just be ludicrous

 

[SER19]

The only controversy last night was that a stonewall foul on cavani wasnt called instantly. Lineker is such a weasel

 

[Bubz27]

You are entirely missing the point. You get all of the objective answers (was the scorer onside? Was it a handball?) before asking the subjective questions (did Ramsey illegally impede Cavani). If there was an objective reason to disallow the goal it would have been called without the need to send the referee to the monitor, there was no problem with anything else so they asked the referee to take another look at Ramsey on Cavani.

Doing it the other way round would just be ludicrous

No I get that, and it makes sense. But when the subjective decision in this case is so clear, it does help the decision making process. Or it should.

They looked at that offside first. It should've been obvious it was offside and probably should've acted a bit like a safety net for them really. Once it wasn't clear whether Watkins touched it, go back to the relatively easy, but subjective, decision of Ramsey impeding Cavani.

 

[phelans shorts]

No I get that, and it makes sense. But when the subjective decision in this case is so clear, it does help the decision making process. Or it should.

They looked at that offside first. It should've been obvious it was offside and probably should've acted a bit like a safety net for them really. Once it wasn't clear whether Watkins touched it, go back to the relatively easy, but subjective, decision of Ramsey impeding Cavani.

Which is exactly what they did…

 

[Bubz27]

Which is exactly what they did…

Except it took about 2 minutes to determine whether Watkins had touched it or not. Which was my original point. That took too long, it wasn't clear from the first replay. VAR does still pretend to be clear and obvious doesn't it? That wasn't, fine, it's done with. Go back to the offside and impeding.

 

[VivaRonaldo85]

We knew what was going on on the TV? We saw the images and the commentators we're saying what they were checking for.

It did take a while, but ultimately shouldn't we be glad that they spent time to come to the right decision on such a big game-changing event and didn't rush it?

Also - and granted i'm in the minority here - but it made sense to me how they did things. First they check for the two black and white decisions - if handball by Ings it has to be disallowed, no questions asked, and similarly, if Watkins touches it (I don't think he did) then it's also definitely offside, no questions asked. Once they determine that neither of those things happened, then they look at the subjective calls, and whether the offside player impacts Cavani - which (whilst obvious) is technically still a subjective call, which is why he sent Olvier to the screen.

It's rare you'd get a goal with so many incidents within it, and in circumstances like that, I think taking time to reach the right decision -while lamentable - makes sense.

Edit - should have read further down the thread, basically what @sullydnl said!

I am pleased they reached a sensible and correct outcome. I just don’t like how they get there. I can’t see any justification in not allowing fans in the ground and on TV hearing the conversation between the referee and VAR. It could then allow people like me to understand how difficult these calls are with all the different factors that are being considered. Last night we just kept seeing different freeze frames of the different incidents and I don’t believe either commentator knew or at least reported clearly what was being reviewed and why. Rugby Union has this communication part between official and fan spot on and football needs to learn asap or fans may start turning off.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Honestly it’s all about getting the right decision. Not too worried about time.