VAR and Refereeing 2025/26 | General Discussion

[Reds Under The Bed]

Has a player ever been sent off for having his shirt outside his shorts? There's a chance to make history tonight surely?

 

[Cpt Negative]

Their goal looked suspiciously like handball. Just the way the ball moved after the failed control.

 

[Anustart89]

On the topic of refereeing, I was more surprised at the reaction in the matchday thread that kicking a player in the head in search of a spectacular goal is "just an accident".

You'd think if the refereeing body were to focus on player welfare they'd outlaw actions that run a high risk of kicking an opponent in the head and cause them brain damage rather than dislodging a man bun.

Sure, try a spectacular goal, but if you're close to an opponent you're endangering the safety of that opponent and therefore it's a red card, much more so than studding their shins from a quality of life perspective.

 

[Swedish_Plumber]

On the topic of refereeing, I was more surprised at the reaction in the matchday thread that kicking a player in the head in search of a spectacular goal is "just an accident".

You'd think if the refereeing body were to focus on player welfare they'd outlaw actions that run a high risk of kicking an opponent in the head and cause them brain damage rather than dislodging a man bun.

Sure, try a spectacular goal, but if you're close to an opponent you're endangering the safety of that opponent and therefore it's a red card, much more so than studding their shins from a quality of life perspective.

Did Bruno not get sent of in Europe for something like that?

 

[Anustart89]

Did Bruno not get sent of in Europe for something like that?

I don't know about that. I just checked and Antony got sent off for Betis for kicking a player in the head while doing an overhead clearance.

The referees seem to be in agreement that flying in with a straight leg, studs showing towards an opponent's shin, is a red card even if the player doesn't connect with the tackle. I personally can't understand how deliberately turning your body upside down to kick the ball with the maximum amount of force possible while opponents are nearby don't fit the criteria for 'endangering the safety of an opponent', which is stated as being a red card offense in the laws of the game.

 

[Swedish_Plumber]

I don't know about that. I just checked and Antony got sent off for Betis for kicking a player in the head while doing an overhead clearance.

The referees seem to be in agreement that flying in with a straight leg, studs showing towards an opponent's shin, is a red card even if the player doesn't connect with the tackle. I personally can't understand how deliberately turning your body upside down to kick the ball with the maximum amount of force possible while opponents are nearby don't fit the criteria for 'endangering the safety of an opponent', which is stated as being a red card offense in the laws of the game.

It was a second yellow against Porto for a high foot that didn’t connect and the player play acted!

I agree. I think particularly late head clashes for me. So many times you see guys flying in late for a header and clattering into others without any real talk of consequences. It’s arguably more dangerous than any other reckless tackle too if you consider the long term affects of concussions and he’s trauma in general.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Have we gone past the point of 3 minutes added on at the end in football games. Barely any stoppages in that half and we somehow got 5

 

[Red in STL]

Have we gone past the point of 3 minutes added on at the end in football games. Barely any stoppages in that half and we somehow got 5

There were quite a few subs

 

[Fitchett]

On the topic of refereeing, I was more surprised at the reaction in the matchday thread that kicking a player in the head in search of a spectacular goal is "just an accident".

You'd think if the refereeing body were to focus on player welfare they'd outlaw actions that run a high risk of kicking an opponent in the head and cause them brain damage rather than dislodging a man bun.

Sure, try a spectacular goal, but if you're close to an opponent you're endangering the safety of that opponent and therefore it's a red card, much more so than studding their shins from a quality of life perspective.

I think an Altrincham player was sent off recently in a National League match after scoring a goal with an overhead kick.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Can anyone give any good reason why VAR didn't make the referee award a penalty when Amad missed the open goal?



Kelleher comes sliding out and gets absolutely nothing on the ball. Only reason he doesn't take out Mainoo is because of Kobbie's quick reactions to jump over him and he ends up off balance because of the evasive action. We keep getting told that contact isn't necessary for a reckless challenge to be a foul, so why isn't that a penalty?

 

[Doracle]

Can anyone give any good reason why VAR didn't make the referee award a penalty when Amad missed the open goal?



Kelleher comes sliding out and gets absolutely nothing on the ball. Only reason he doesn't take out Mainoo is because of Kobbie's quick reactions to jump over him and he ends up off balance because of the evasive action. We keep getting told that contact isn't necessary for a reckless challenge to be a foul, so why isn't that a penalty?

Never a penalty. Kobbie has already played the pass before Kelleher even gets there and, as you say, avoids him anyway.

We get bad decisions regularly but that isn’t one of them.

 

[K Stand Knut]

Can anyone give any good reason why VAR didn't make the referee award a penalty when Amad missed the open goal?



Kelleher comes sliding out and gets absolutely nothing on the ball. Only reason he doesn't take out Mainoo is because of Kobbie's quick reactions to jump over him and he ends up off balance because of the evasive action. We keep getting told that contact isn't necessary for a reckless challenge to be a foul, so why isn't that a penalty?

Because he played advantage. Rightly

You can’t play advantage and then call it back for a penalty that probably isn’t a penalty anyway

 

[Gio]

Can anyone give any good reason why VAR didn't make the referee award a penalty when Amad missed the open goal?



Kelleher comes sliding out and gets absolutely nothing on the ball. Only reason he doesn't take out Mainoo is because of Kobbie's quick reactions to jump over him and he ends up off balance because of the evasive action. We keep getting told that contact isn't necessary for a reckless challenge to be a foul, so why isn't that a penalty?

I don't think there is a clear rule to explain that - it's more about the convention of how the game has always been refereed. The fact Mainoo doesn't claim for anything further reinforces that he didn't expect a penalty as it's 'not the done thing'.

Three reasons to explain this:

1. If players get the shot away / final pass away, then there's some leniency for "coming together"s, especially in a crowded box. That leniency does not apply when it's dangerous, such as Pickford's at the weekend, or the VDV tackle on Isak earlier in the season.
2. There is no impact of Kelleher's challenge. Mainoo is passing the ball either way, and he makes no contact that injures Mainoo.
3. When players evade a tackle and there is no contact, it is technically a foul. But often it's not given because referees like to have contact before making a decision. It is even less likely to be given as a foul when that evasion takes place after the ball has been released (shot or passed), compared to a player dribbling the ball and then being prevented from taking their next action due to the tackle that has been made.

 

[iammemphis]

I think if Kobbie goes down writhing in pain we get the penalty, but he didn't and without that it doesn't look a penalty at all.

More annoyed we have written to the PGMOL asking why DCL wasn't sent off for the hair pull on Cucurella and if from hereon in they can quietly feck right off about getting involved in any more pathetic decisions against us, unless its to overturn them.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Because he played advantage. Rightly

You can’t play advantage and then call it back for a penalty that probably isn’t a penalty anyway

In the VAR era that happens all the time. Basically every offside call for starters.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I don't think there is a clear rule to explain that - it's more about the convention of how the game has always been refereed. The fact Mainoo doesn't claim for anything further reinforces that he didn't expect a penalty as it's 'not the done thing'.

Three reasons to explain this:

1. If players get the shot away / final pass away, then there's some leniency for "coming together"s, especially in a crowded box. That leniency does not apply when it's dangerous, such as Pickford's at the weekend, or the VDV tackle on Isak earlier in the season.
2. There is no impact of Kelleher's challenge. Mainoo is passing the ball either way, and he makes no contact that injures Mainoo.
3. When players evade a tackle and there is no contact, it is technically a foul. But often it's not given because referees like to have contact before making a decision. It is even less likely to be given as a foul when that evasion takes place after the ball has been released (shot or passed), compared to a player dribbling the ball and then being prevented from taking their next action due to the tackle that has been made.

Aye you’ve explained it very well. And I don’t think anyone would care if we weren’t constantly dealing with big decisions made on the basis of repeated frame by frame replays with no feel for the game in real time. In this context, I think clubs can reasonably feel aggrieved about a decision like this

 

[Frosty]

I don't think there is a clear rule to explain that - it's more about the convention of how the game has always been refereed. The fact Mainoo doesn't claim for anything further reinforces that he didn't expect a penalty as it's 'not the done thing'.

Three reasons to explain this:

1. If players get the shot away / final pass away, then there's some leniency for "coming together"s, especially in a crowded box. That leniency does not apply when it's dangerous, such as Pickford's at the weekend, or the VDV tackle on Isak earlier in the season.
2. There is no impact of Kelleher's challenge. Mainoo is passing the ball either way, and he makes no contact that injures Mainoo.
3. When players evade a tackle and there is no contact, it is technically a foul. But often it's not given because referees like to have contact before making a decision. It is even less likely to be given as a foul when that evasion takes place after the ball has been released (shot or passed), compared to a player dribbling the ball and then being prevented from taking their next action due to the tackle that has been made.

The Rules of the Game are also quite general: https://www.footballrules.com/offences-sanctions/advantage/

"The advantage is played by the referee when an offence (foul, handball, offside, technical, etc.) is committed and, because the non-offending team has useful possession of the ball, the referee allows play to continue, as it is of greater benefit to them than awarding a free kick.
The referee signals an advantage by extending one or both arms in front of their body at shoulder height."

It doesn't specify what happens when, for example, someone misses an open goal. I suspect that Amad's opportunity counted as a 'greater benefit', and if the player messes up that doesn't mean the referee calls play back.

 

[Withnail]

Can anyone give any good reason why VAR didn't make the referee award a penalty when Amad missed the open goal?



Kelleher comes sliding out and gets absolutely nothing on the ball. Only reason he doesn't take out Mainoo is because of Kobbie's quick reactions to jump over him and he ends up off balance because of the evasive action. We keep getting told that contact isn't necessary for a reckless challenge to be a foul, so why isn't that a penalty?

He didn't prevent the player from doing anything though. He got the pass away and was still on his feet. Are you really claiming you want penalties for incidents like this?

 

[Shane88]

A great match being influenced by a shit ref. What can a player do if the ball ricochets off another part of their body?

 

[Pughnichi]

A great match being influenced by a shit ref. What can a player do if the ball ricochets off another part of their body?

Have sympathy it’s one off his body

But he doesn’t help himself. Hands behind back…until the cross comes in.

 

[K Stand Knut]

Have sympathy it’s one off his body

But he doesn’t help himself. Hands behind back…until the cross comes in.

It’s not handball though if it ricochets off another body part or the floor, is it?

 

[Withnail]

It’s not handball though if it ricochets off another body part or the floor, is it?

No if it deflects off his body it's not supposed to be a pen. The Bayern players were roaring that at the ref.

I didn't think the first was much of a pen either but by the letter of the law the second one shouldn't have been given. The VAR should have been pointing the ref to the angle which clearly showed it came up off his thigh.

 

[Pughnichi]

It’s not handball though if it ricochets off another body part or the floor, is it?

It shouldn’t be. Not at all

But doing what he did with his arms was a bit daft. It just draws attention to it and gives them a reason to review (and apply the rules wrong)

Why didn’t he just keep his arms behind his back.

 

[Withnail]

It shouldn’t be. Not at all

But doing what he did with his arms was a bit daft. It just draws attention to it and gives them a reason to review (and apply the rules wrong)

Why didn’t he just keep his arms behind his back.

I don't think they should bother with the arms behind the back at all. If his arms are by his sides and in a natural position then, arguably, he doesn't end up appearing to move them towards the ball as he's balancing himself.

 

[kikks]

I am more amused by the Brentford defender that Casemiro baited twice for cheap free kicks in overtime was screaming something about “fecking joke” in the refs face there. He got a yellow, but does he get a ban from the FA for swearing at the ref as well or is that just Maguire?

 

[FerociousCorgis]

I am more amused by the Brentford defender that Casemiro baited twice for cheap free kicks in overtime was screaming something about “fecking joke” in the refs face there. He got a yellow, but does he get a ban from the FA for swearing at the ref as well or is that just Maguire?

people swear all the time at the refs, feel like you see it damn near every game on camera where it catches an obvious F bomb

 

[K Stand Knut]

It shouldn’t be. Not at all

But doing what he did with his arms was a bit daft. It just draws attention to it and gives them a reason to review (and apply the rules wrong)

Why didn’t he just keep his arms behind his back.

Yeah. Was my immediate thought and I said the same thing.

The replays clearly show that no law was broken.

Another shite decision

 

[Anustart89]

people swear all the time at the refs, feel like you see it damn near every game on camera where it catches an obvious F bomb

You don't say.

 

[Withnail]

It’s not handball though if it ricochets off another body part or the floor, is it?

Apparently the deflection part isn't the same in the Champions League as it is in the PL according to the lads on Premier Sports. So if the arm goes towards the ball it takes precedence over the deflection.

I still think it's harsh due to the proximity and the deflection.

They also need to align the rules more closely. It doesn't make sense to me that each country can have slightly different rules and the CL can be different again.

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

The penalty Diaz got was soft as heck too. He knew exactly what he was doing just stuck his leg out to make contact. (I get this was much less controversial than the Davies one)

 

[B. Munich]

The penalty Diaz got was soft as heck too. He knew exactly what he was doing just stuck his leg out to make contact. (I get this was much less controversial than the Davies one)

The former ref in Amazon Prime said stonewall penalty.

The handball was more controversial but to my understanding the ball went from Davies thigh to his arm. Thus it isn't a handball according to the new rules.
Anyway the ref didn't give the penalty in the first place. Why did the VAR intervene as it definitely wasn't an obvious wrong decision. The VAR should just have kept quiet.
I'm tired of these constant wrong decisions against us. First Madrid and now PSG.

 

[gromit]

I am more amused by the Brentford defender that Casemiro baited twice for cheap free kicks in overtime was screaming something about “fecking joke” in the refs face there. He got a yellow, but does he get a ban from the FA for swearing at the ref as well or is that just Maguire?

They’ll probably ban Bruno for the remaining PL fixtures and the first game of next season for swearing in his pre match team talk before they apply consistency of the law to another team.

 

[kikks]

people swear all the time at the refs, feel like you see it damn near every game on camera where it catches an obvious F bomb

Yes I know. That's why it was so dumb. They can't even acknowledge such a simple truth and just strike the ban on Maguire. It seems like they are living in the manosphere rule of "if you admit a mistake, everyone looses respect for you" moronic way of thinking. When instead, if when you make a mistake you acknowledge it and - this is important - actually try to do better going forward people would have MORE respect for the referees / FA / PGMO / whatever.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Yes I know. That's why it was so dumb. They can't even acknowledge such a simple truth and just strike the ban on Maguire. It seems like they are living in the manosphere rule of "if you admit a mistake, everyone looses respect for you" moronic way of thinking. When instead, if when you make a mistake you acknowledge it and - this is important - actually try to do better going forward people would have MORE respect for the referees / FA / PGMO / whatever.

Remember that the FA Panel/Hearing prefered the testimony of the official... who literally changed their testimony....

 

[Drainy]

Remember that the FA Panel/Hearing prefered the testimony of the official... who literally changed their testimony....

Its like the police. Everyone knows the police is full of corrupt, lying, lazy and generally self serving and unreliable officers.. but the system defends and supports them because otherwise it can't function.

 

[Zed is not dead]

He didn't prevent the player from doing anything though. He got the pass away and was still on his feet. Are you really claiming you want penalties for incidents like this?

We’ve seen many instances of a pen being awarded after the attacker played the ball and the keeper’s intervention not preventing the player from doing anything.

If Mainoo goes down, the ref would’ve probably thought about giving a penalty

 

[Withnail]

We’ve seen many instances of a pen being awarded after the attacker played the ball and the keeper’s intervention not preventing the player from doing anything.

If Mainoo goes down, the ref would’ve probably thought about giving a penalty

Have we? I'm not sure about that.

From memory when people penalties are given in those instances the ball is still there to be won and/or the player hasn't been able to pass or shoot. Either that or the attacker is absolutely smashed by the keeper.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Have we? I'm not sure about that.

From memory when people penalties are given in those instances the ball is still there to be won and/or the player hasn't been able to pass or shoot. Either that or the attacker is absolutely smashed by the keeper.

There’s never been any requirement for the attacker to be smashed. Just takes the faintest contact (and an attacker who cynically makes the most of it) for a penalty to be awarded. This happens all the time. If Kobbie had decided to nick the ball past Kelleher and go down like a sack of shit, instead of passing the ball and trying to stay on his feet then it’s a nailed on pen. Basically the way VAR is being implemented is rewarding the same dishonesty that we always assumed would only work without video referees to expose the cheats.

 

[Zed is not dead]

Have we? I'm not sure about that.

From memory when people penalties are given in those instances the ball is still there to be won and/or the player hasn't been able to pass or shoot. Either that or the attacker is absolutely smashed by the keeper.

Loads of times when the attackers foot final motion is blocked by the keeper even after the ball was played have resulted in a penalty.

 

[Withnail]

Loads of times when the attackers foot final motion is blocked by the keeper even after the ball was played have resulted in a penalty.

So there was contact and the player was impeded and fouled in other words?