They didn’t really have a choice, Liverpool were complaining about the foul by Haaland so it had to be looked at and as soon as that’s done there is only one outcome to it all. If they’d given the goal there would have been a lot of complaints as well so I think VAR and the ref got it right.
VAR and Refereeing 2025/26 | General Discussion
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
I agree they didn’t have a choice as soon as it went to var, because then everything gets examined in minute slow mo detail.
I think before VAR that goal stands as the ref just sees it as two players pulling and tussling with each other but the ball still goes in the goal.
VAR reviews everything
I thought the same thing as well, if he'd hit it half decently there wouldn't be anything to talk about
I'm really struggling to understand a lot of the arguments for the goal standing. It feels like it just comes down to the idea that it would have been more fun if a weird goal stood.
It would probably also be more fun if loads of offside goals stood. But there's an offside rule.
We moan about refs taking liberties based on their own interpretation every week and how bad they are at just getting the rules right. Then they get a decision spot on and this weird reaction.
It would probably also be more fun if loads of offside goals stood. But there's an offside rule.
We moan about refs taking liberties based on their own interpretation every week and how bad they are at just getting the rules right. Then they get a decision spot on and this weird reaction.
The weight he put on the ball was actually immaculate, if his main intention was creating as much chaos as possible. Any harder or softer and there would have been nowhere near as much drama.
I watched the goal following the start of the discussion here. I did think it would be a much better and more important goal. But it was one of the worst goals I've seen from this distance, and whatever was happening between Haaland and Szoboszlai made it worse. It all feels like faux outrage considering the goal also didn't affect the result and the decision was ultimately correct.
I didn’t say it didn’t. But also it doesn’t review everything does it. It’s a mess of somethings it can and somethings it can’t.
You said it you didn't say it doesn't then in the next sentence you say it doesn't.
Yes VAR review every single incident in the match. There are only certain things that they can recommend an on field review for, fouling in the build up for a goal is one of them.
Reviews but can’t get involved? It doesn’t over turn incorrect yellows does it? Or fouls that should be a yellow? Or fouls outside the box that should be given? All of which can affect the outcome of a game.
This is correct. It's been shocking with all the over reaction by the media. I can't really see what the issue is.
This is pretty much how I feel about it too.
The ball was hit terribly so was never going to make it to the net without Haaland or Szobo catching it, which they fully intended to.
So those looking to allow the goal are essentially basing it off the assumption that Haaland scores. I mean that's the most likely outcome, but who's to say he doesn't slip, duff his shot, the Liverpool player slides and gets a toe on it, or chops him down again.
I think if Halaand got to it and after the first foul and scores there's a different discussion to be had, but the way it played out, the refs couldnt just ignore two players fouling each other in order to let a slow trundler stand just for the sake of it.
Whilst I've kind of thought the same about these being super cheap, I think it would cause too many controversies to change it. Simpler to keep it as you get clattered it the box it's a penalty, as annoying as some of these can be on occasion.
This is the case when "two wrongs don't make a right!"
Which is what makes it so hilarious. Absolutely braindead from Szobhisname.
Sorry, but what is this? If two players box each other in front of the ref, does the ref say, okay they canceled each other out and I will not give a red to anyone or will he send both off?
So does the ref give the goal to Haaland or Cherki? Because Haaland would’ve scored it like if he hadn’t been pulled back?
Move on mate, if you followed the thread you'd see that this isn't what I'm advocating for.
When it wants to. Our disallowed goal vs Burnley included two off the balls fouls on other players.
Seen a lot of "if it was 1-1"..
If it was 1-1 Allison wouldn't be in the Man City half and Cherki wouldn't shoot from distance. If he did Allison just gobbles it up.
Maybe he'd play a ball into Haaland and yeah if Szob fulls him back it's a red card but the ball isn't trickling into the net so
If it was 1-1 Allison wouldn't be in the Man City half and Cherki wouldn't shoot from distance. If he did Allison just gobbles it up.
Maybe he'd play a ball into Haaland and yeah if Szob fulls him back it's a red card but the ball isn't trickling into the net so
Well they obviously would have been watching and looking for any fouls. They just often aren't very good or consistent.
So var reviews every single incident in the match. It just sometimes misses a lot of things and can’t change the outcome of other things too.
Makes a mockery of the var reviews everything comment.
Makes a mockery of the var reviews everything comment.
No your post just made no sense. Nothing gets "sent to var" which is what you were grumbling about.
That underpins why your entire point makes no sense. VAR watch the entire match so what you are really saying is that you want them to just ignore a blatant foul leading to a goal.
The fact that they make mistakes often isn't any reason to encourage them to make more mistakes.
Let's start with the indisputable fact that VAR is highly selective in what it reviews and the standards by which it conducts its reviews. Not across games...but in the same game!
As for the Benny Hill episode yesterday, the correct call by the book was what was called -- the foul by and sending off of Szoboszlai and disallowing the goal. But even though my conclusion makes no logical sense, I would have preferred to see the goal allowed and Sz not sent off. The play resulted in a goal for City, who by that moment had the game won and Liverpool would have been no worse off losing 1-3 as opposed to 1-2. Since a draw -- the optimal outcome for United -- was at that point off the table, losing 1-3 is marginally for us better than losing 1-2, but I see us pulling away from Liverpool no matter what.
The call itself is in no way "controversial" as it was clearly the right but I nevertheless feel, perhaps irrationally, that the goal should have stood. I just wish FFS that the fastidiousness to the letter of the laws of the game were applied to United as they are to Liverpool. The systemic referee bias against United is beyond surreal now.
As for the Benny Hill episode yesterday, the correct call by the book was what was called -- the foul by and sending off of Szoboszlai and disallowing the goal. But even though my conclusion makes no logical sense, I would have preferred to see the goal allowed and Sz not sent off. The play resulted in a goal for City, who by that moment had the game won and Liverpool would have been no worse off losing 1-3 as opposed to 1-2. Since a draw -- the optimal outcome for United -- was at that point off the table, losing 1-3 is marginally for us better than losing 1-2, but I see us pulling away from Liverpool no matter what.
The call itself is in no way "controversial" as it was clearly the right but I nevertheless feel, perhaps irrationally, that the goal should have stood. I just wish FFS that the fastidiousness to the letter of the laws of the game were applied to United as they are to Liverpool. The systemic referee bias against United is beyond surreal now.
Didn’t say that.
Keep your knickers on
Great chatWell you’re making things up. How can I annswer that.
I never said it got sent to var.
I said it went to var, ie, it was something var chose to bring to attention, unlike a million and one things it doesn’t decide to bring to attention during a game. My original point was, as soon as var got involved it would always be disallowed. Before var was a thing I felt the ref would have just let it play out and give the goal.
You are the one coming in for a great chat making things up and on about me grumbling.
Exactly
"Went" and "Sent" is literally interchangable if you follow this point.
It wasn't something that "went to var" it's already with them. That's their job and the reason they don't suggest a review for other things is either because it doesn't fall under the protocol or it's a mistake.
A foul in the build up to a goal is within the protocol of what can be sent for a review. And I'm assuming anyone with any common sense isn't advocating for even more officiating mistakes.
The ref playing advantage doesn't give the attacking player the freedom to then go and commit a foul themselves.
Clearly he's meaning he allows the goal and decides the two fouls cancel themselves out.
It was a sensible shot. Plenty of pace, straight, knowing that Haaland would outpace their back man. Instead of overdoing the power and being off target.
Clearly he didn't think Szobby would be daft enough to set that nonsense off!
Clearly?
Well I worked it out quickly.
Tbe
Sure, stuff sometimes gets called wrongly, but that's the same for every team, and it's probably less often than we feel, more often we just don't like the rule or interpretation because it doesn't suit us.
There are plenty fans of other teams who believe we get everything our way, which clearly isn't true either.
Essentially, we see what we want to see most of the time.
There isn't systemic bias against United, it just feels as though we don't get enough favourable calls, that's our fan bias, fans of every club feel like that.
Sure, stuff sometimes gets called wrongly, but that's the same for every team, and it's probably less often than we feel, more often we just don't like the rule or interpretation because it doesn't suit us.
There are plenty fans of other teams who believe we get everything our way, which clearly isn't true either.
Essentially, we see what we want to see most of the time.
Anyone see that shambles off an offside decision in the Ajax / Alkmaar game?
It's not just England where they make shit up to suit the bigger teams from time to time.
It's not just England where they make shit up to suit the bigger teams from time to time.
There's a very obvious block on a defender at the back post by a player in an offside position. That's why I think.
I think VAR should be scrapped (mainly due to selective reviewing and it ruining the flow of games), but that's not a bad call by VAR standards:
I saw it, it's incredibly harsh, if you deliberately go looking for reasons to disallow goals you will find it in 90% of cases probably.
Only if is a United Goal.
I think the AZ one is clear cut personally. The offside player deliberately and fully checks the defender who was closest to the attacker, who in turn assists the goal. It's not incidental enough for me to ignore.