VAR and Refereeing 2025/26 | General Discussion

Wolfbot said:
Tbe

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.
Click to expand...

Yours is a plausible theory, no more or less provable than my theory apart from scrutinizing every single referee decision for every PL club and although I'm sure someone has the time to do that, I certainly don't.

However, the "it all evens out and everyone feels this way" theory is no more plausible than my theory, which is that United suffer a disproportionate share of calls and noncalls against it. And I'm not sure it's even reasonable to compare referee decisions involving United to relegation threatened clubs like Ipswich and Wolves, who are normally down to opponents due to being outmanned on the natural; as opposed to United, who are in most games even if we suffer more defeats and draws than a club with our talent would suggest -- leading to the point that most of these close calls, for and against us, are highly consequential because we' rarely blow out our opponents and we're rarely blown out by our opponents. A reasonable comparison for analysis would be to the other, let's say, top 8 clubs and work out the share of proper/improper referee calls against Brentford as well as Arsenal.

I'm not having the lazy "we see what we want to see" crap argument. Most of us here on the caf are of course biased in that we support United, but when I follow matchday threads the vast majority of posts put their hand up when we are actually in the wrong and the referee is actually in the right, however much we regret the madness that deserved the punishment, but we do complain at the referee when he gets it wrong as a matter of fact.

In the case we're talking about here, the red card decision against Sz, the referee's decision was the right call by the book, but I join Liverpool supporters -- and I will forever thank God I wasn't born a Liverpool supporter -- in lamenting that the referee didn't show common sense and let the goal stand without anyone being sent off. There is no United lazy "I see what I want to see" bias in my judgment. My opinion is based on the recognition that by the book the referee was right but that sometimes common sense should prevail over fastidious adherence to the book. Sz did prevent a clear goal scoring opportunity, but the goal was actually scored. It wasn't as though Sz went in with violence or some kind of shocking behavior that requires a harsh punishment to be meted out -- both clubs clubs needlessly suffered because of the lapse of common sense shown by the referee team.
 
Mb194dc said:
It is the correct decision by the letter of the laws, it also didn't really matter because City were winning anyway.

I think if the goal does actually matter, allowing Liverpool cheating to stop it would be wrong in principle even if its technically right in law. Similar to the Suarez handball in the world cup years back. Football shouldn't allow cheats to prosper, there's already enough rolling around, players chatting shit to the ref all game, the Arsenal corner cheat and lots of other things.

Should look at changing the laws of the game for situations where teams blatantly cheat where it's 100% going to be a goal and that goal would have big consequences.
Click to expand...

Like a penalty try in rugby?
 
Camilo said:
Well then don't commit a last ditch dickhead foul then, because maybe he'll miss.
Click to expand...
This is more to related to the assumption that Haaland would have scored if he hadn't been pulled back, I'm pretty sure he would have but it ain't guaranteed as starman Ronnie showed
 
whitbyviking said:
Like a penalty try in rugby?
Click to expand...

I think it's better for these scenarios, yes exactly like a penalty try. Cheating should never gain you an advantage.

It's actually amazing how bad football officiating is compared to rugby.
 
Red in STL said:
This is more to related to the assumption that Haaland would have scored if he hadn't been pulled back, I'm pretty sure he would have but it ain't guaranteed as starman Ronnie showed
Click to expand...

On ref watch they looked at the Guehi one on Salah and Dermot said because it wasnt guarenteed Salah was going to score it becomes a case of could've scored rather the would've scored so the ref could only give a yellow, why wasnt the same logic applied to tbe Haaland situation?
 
RedRocket9908 said:
On ref watch they looked at the Guehi one on Salah and Dermot said because it wasnt guarenteed Salah was going to score it becomes a case of could've scored rather the would've scored so the ref could only give a yellow, why wasnt the same logic applied to tbe Haaland situation?
Click to expand...
Because Haaland was way ahead of Szoboszlai and the goalkeeper was down the other end of the pitch? :lol: feck's sake
 
lex talionis said:
Yours is a plausible theory, no more or less provable than my theory apart from scrutinizing every single referee decision for every PL club and although I'm sure someone has the time to do that, I certainly don't.

However, the "it all evens out and everyone feels this way" theory is no more plausible than my theory, which is that United suffer a disproportionate share of calls and noncalls against it. And I'm not sure it's even reasonable to compare referee decisions involving United to relegation threatened clubs like Ipswich and Wolves, who are normally down to opponents due to being outmanned on the natural; as opposed to United, who are in most games even if we suffer more defeats and draws than a club with our talent would suggest -- leading to the point that most of these close calls, for and against us, are highly consequential because we' rarely blow out our opponents and we're rarely blown out by our opponents. A reasonable comparison for analysis would be to the other, let's say, top 8 clubs and work out the share of proper/improper referee calls against Brentford as well as Arsenal.

I'm not having the lazy "we see what we want to see" crap argument. Most of us here on the caf are of course biased in that we support United, but when I follow matchday threads the vast majority of posts put their hand up when we are actually in the wrong and the referee is actually in the right, however much we regret the madness that deserved the punishment, but we do complain at the referee when he gets it wrong as a matter of fact.

In the case we're talking about here, the red card decision against Sz, the referee's decision was the right call by the book, but I join Liverpool supporters -- and I will forever thank God I wasn't born a Liverpool supporter -- in lamenting that the referee didn't show common sense and let the goal stand without anyone being sent off. There is no United lazy "I see what I want to see" bias in my judgment. My opinion is based on the recognition that by the book the referee was right but that sometimes common sense should prevail over fastidious adherence to the book. Sz did prevent a clear goal scoring opportunity, but the goal was actually scored. It wasn't as though Sz went in with violence or some kind of shocking behavior that requires a harsh punishment to be meted out -- both clubs clubs needlessly suffered because of the lapse of common sense shown by the referee team.
Click to expand...
Regarding the chopped off City goal, as much as I'm sure most people, myself included, wouldn't have lost sleep if it was 3-1 and Szoboszlai stays on the pitch, referees can't make a call like that because it's completely inconsistent with the sending off of any other player for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity.

Whilst the ball ended up in the net due to a freak situation that we're unlikely to see again, I don't think it would have been professional to give that goal and allow the Liverpool man to get off with a suspension. The two guys fouling each other definitely would have got to the ball before it went in, so it wasn't like it was an incidental tussle that didn't affect anything.

Although obviously I'm not going to put in a ludicrous amount of research to try and 'prove' my theory, I'm sure most people would agree that the notion that professional referees aren't actually systemically biased against Manchester United is the more plausible one.

Yes we are absolutely on the end of the shocking decisions against us on occasion, we also have had plenty go our way. That also applies to every team in league. I've seen bad and baffling decisions made many a time, never has it been enough of a consistent pattern to suggest bias against anybody.
 
Mb194dc said:
I think it's better for these scenarios, yes exactly like a penalty try. Cheating should never gain you an advantage.

It's actually amazing how bad football officiating is compared to rugby.
Click to expand...

It’s definitely an interesting and possibly fair idea. Be even more interesting to see how they would formulate the rule and apply it.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
On ref watch they looked at the Guehi one on Salah and Dermot said because it wasnt guarenteed Salah was going to score it becomes a case of could've scored rather the would've scored so the ref could only give a yellow, why wasnt the same logic applied to tbe Haaland situation?
Click to expand...

Would you give it up?

You honestly can't see the difference? :lol:
 
Did the ref give us anything in that game? He let West Ham constantly foul us all game.
 
Withnail said:
Would you give it up?

You honestly can't see the difference? :lol:
Click to expand...

In order to give the red card for DOCGSO VAR has to have conclusive evidence that Haaland would've got there and having watched the replay multiple tines you cant conclusively say he would've got there.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
In order to give the red card for DOCGSO VAR has to have conclusive evidence that Haaland would've got there and having watched the replay multiple tines you cant conclusively say he would've got there.
Click to expand...
Yes you can because he's literally almost there even having been pulled back and slowed down to almost a stand-still.
 
Thought 7 minutes was generous but it's about time we got a decent chunk of injury time when we're chasing a goal
 
RedRocket9908 said:
In order to give the red card for DOCGSO VAR has to have conclusive evidence that Haaland would've got there and having watched the replay multiple tines you cant conclusively say he would've got there.
Click to expand...
If you think Haaland is that slow then I don't know what to say, the reason he was pulled back because Szob, whatever his name is knew he wasn't getting close to him and cos' the keeper was AWOL there was an open goal
 
Whats that, 6 goals chalked off for offside since Carrick came in? Consistent
 
I'm just gonna ignore the guy, it's like arguing with a three year old who doesn't understand how basic physics work.
 
Pickle85 said:
Just admit you're wrong dude. Haaland would of course have got there. Literally nobody agrees with you.
Click to expand...

Look at the replay, he is too far away from it to say he definitely would've have got there so VAR cant say its denial of a clear goal scoring oppurtunity
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Look at the replay, he is too far away from it to say he definitely would've have got there so VAR cant say its denial of a clear goal scoring oppurtunity
Click to expand...
So in your opinion in any situation in which the striker is fouled while clean through on goal more than, what, ten yards from the ball it can't be DOGSO?
 
Pickle85 said:
So in your opinion in any situation in which the striker is fouled while clean through on goal more than, what, ten yards from the ball it can't be DOGSO?
Click to expand...

Not if if it isnt a clear goal scoring oppurtunity which in this case VAR cannot be sure it was as there is no conclusive evidence that Haaland would've got there and scored
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Look at the replay, he is too far away from it to say he definitely would've have got there so VAR cant say its denial of a clear goal scoring oppurtunity
Click to expand...
Come on, he's almost level with the ball when he and Szobozlai tumble together pretty much on the touchline. You really are clutching at straws here, mate. Haaland is fast as feck, as he showed because Szoboszlai is very fast himself, and with the ball slowing down as much as it was, Haaland was always getting to it - I think Szob would as well.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Not if if it isnt a clear goal scoring oppurtunity which in this case VAR cannot be sure it was as there is no conclusive evidence that Haaland would've got there and scored
Click to expand...
Then you could always say that - there's no conclusive evidence that a striker will beat a goalie... Szobozslai with intent tried to remove Haaland from getting into a scoring position... simple as. Cannot believe you are still banging that lonely drum of yours. Sometimes just bow out.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Not if if it isnt a clear goal scoring oppurtunity which in this case VAR cannot be sure it was as there is no conclusive evidence that Haaland would've got there and scored
Click to expand...
But surely VAR can't be 100% sure until the player actually gets there, in which case no foul of this sort can ever be called, as a mole MAY have popped out the ground and tripped the striker up, preventing him getting the ball, or Zeus may have chucked a lightning bolt at him before he got there. We just don't know.

Edit: what @Rossa said basically
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Not if if it isnt a clear goal scoring oppurtunity which in this case VAR cannot be sure it was as there is no conclusive evidence that Haaland would've got there and scored
Click to expand...
DOGSO is rarely conclusive in that case as it is usually premised in anticipation of a goalscoring opportunity. That's how it works - does this look like a good goalscoring opportunity? It's never conclusive until the ball hits the net, it's a judgement call based on the position of the players and the ball and what is likely to happen next.

The only thing legally preventing Haaland from scoring there is a bolt of lightning from the sky.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
In order to give the red card for DOCGSO VAR has to have conclusive evidence that Haaland would've got there and having watched the replay multiple tines you cant conclusively say he would've got there.
Click to expand...

You fundamentally misunderstand the DOGSO rule which is the cause of this tediousness you've been engaging in for the past couple of days.

They don't have to prove he conclusively would have got to the ball, which to be honest in this scenario I think it's fairly obvious he would have. However, that's not what's needed. It's called the denial of goal scoring opportunity. There are a number of factors, one of which is the "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball".

You're having a laugh if you don't think that, on the balance of probabilities, it's more likely that the faster player who was closer to the ball was likely to gain control of the ball if he hadn't been pulled back by the defender who was behind him.

I honestly can't believe you're still arguing about this. Nobody at all agrees with you.
 
5cm tolerance line was used to allow a Liverpool goal recently yet not tonight. Lack of consistency with VAR decisions the most frustrating part.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.