VAR and Refs | General Discussion

[Oscar Bonavena]

I assumed he did, but just checked and apparently not. So yeah should of been a yellow ref is looking straight at it aswell, poor call from the ref that. VAR can't call for a yellow card and it's not enough for a red in fairness.

Yeah, see my previous post at the end of the previous page about the anomaly in this process. Spend 5 minutes checking if it's a red, and at the end of it nothing, not even a free kick or a yellow is awarded! Utterly dysfunctional system!

 

[WeePat]

Bit of joint pulling then Cucu is wrong side and puts his hand around his waist to stop him getting to the ball, that's a foul 8 days a week. He wasn't getting to the ball anyway either, which is probably why it was a yellow. Stupid.

He’s only on the wrong side because Haaland yanked him back to gain territorial advantage. Clear foul for Chelsea that. Laughable penalty.

 

[DoneDaDa]

Ofcourse it’s a foul by Cucurella, but isn’t the entire point here that Haaland equally fouls Cucurella in order to get in front of him in the very same sequence of play.

From the what I saw in the reply they both had a hold of eachother were it may have canceled out, but then Haaland let go and made the run Cucurella kept holding him and bought him down hence why they may have given Haaland the advantage.


Second reply shows a good angle as I said it seems Cucurella kept holding him that led to the PK, but again something could be missing in this video.

 

[NotChatGPT]

From the what I saw in the reply they both had a hold of eachother were it may have canceled out, but then Haaland let go and made the run Cucurella kept holding him and bought him down hence why they may have given Haaland the advantage.


Second reply shows a good angle as I said it seems Cucurella kept holding him that led to the PK, but again something could be missing in this video.

Not sure i understand your take on this. Haaland quite clearly takes hold of Cucurella and drags him back so that he gets infront of him, when he’s gained his advantage there’s no need to keep holding. There’s no way you can isolate these two situations, the only reason Haaland gets infront of Cucurella is because he fouls him by pulling him back and out of balance.

I can completely understand that Anthony Taylor doesn’t see this, because he’s looking out wide until the cross is hit and only then does he look into the box, where Cucurella can be seen fouling Haaland.

VAR however, should definetely sort out situations like this.

 

[MrMarcello]

Not sure i understand your take on this. Haaland quite clearly takes hold of Cucurella and drags him back so that he gets infront of him, when he’s gained his advantage there’s no need to keep holding. There’s no way you can isolate these two situations, the only reason Haaland gets infront of Cucurella is because he fouls him by pulling him back and out of balance.

I can completely understand that Anthony Taylor doesn’t see this, because he’s looking out wide until the cross is hit and only then does he look into the box, where Cucurella can be seen fouling Haaland.

VAR however, should definetely sort out situations like this.

But the lead referee should observe the entire play and see the first advantage gained by a blatant foul committed by the attacker which should negate anything thereafter, including the embellished fall by Haaland. Amazing how he's so strong to whip his opponent back a yard but falls down at the least bit of holding.

Why wouldn't an official view the entire sequence?

 

[Name Changed]

How they gave a penalty for that astounds me. It seems like they are making awful decisions every week. It should be easy to make the right decisions when you have so many camera angles to see exactly what happened.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

But the lead referee should observe the entire play and see the first advantage gained by a blatant foul committed by the attacker which should negate anything thereafter, including the embellished fall by Haaland. Amazing how he's so strong to whip his opponent back a yard but falls down at the least bit of holding.

Why wouldn't an official view the entire sequence?

Because there’s another coming together on the other side of the box at the exact same time as Haaland yanks Cuc’s shirt and humans, unlike chameleons, can’t look in two directions at once.

 

[Lost bear]

Liverpool avoid a blatant red card and a goal from a cross that was almost certainly out. If that was UTD that would surely be a red and the goal disallowed. I know I’m a little biased in our favour, but Jesus.

 

[Withnail]

From the what I saw in the reply they both had a hold of eachother were it may have canceled out, but then Haaland let go and made the run Cucurella kept holding him and bought him down hence why they may have given Haaland the advantage.


Second reply shows a good angle as I said it seems Cucurella kept holding him that led to the PK, but again something could be missing in this video.

It's not a pen as it's soft as feck. They both have hold of each other and then cucurella stupidly and ineffectually maintains contact with Haaland giving him an easy option to go down. A weak as piss hand across the belly isn't causing him to hit the deck though. How have they given that?

 

[Withnail]

Liverpool avoid a blatant red card and a goal from a cross that was almost certainly out. If that was UTD that would surely be a red and the goal disallowed. I know I’m a little biased in our favour, but Jesus.

Clearly as that's never a red card.

 

[Lost bear]

Clearly as that's never a red card.

Well, it wasn’t. It should have been. And sometimes it would have been- it’s the blatant inconsistency that I and many others take issue with.

 

[Withnail]

Well, it wasn’t. It should have been. And sometimes it would have been- it’s the blatant inconsistency that I and many others take issue with.

It's just not a red card challenge. It wasn't dangerous and there wasn't a lot of force behind it. It wasn't a potential leg breaker like what Havertz got away with last week. There've been some bad decisions lately but this wasn't one of them.

 

[Bucephalus74]

It's just not a red card challenge. It wasn't dangerous and there wasn't a lot of force behind it. It wasn't a potential leg breaker like what Havertz got away with last week. There've been some bad decisions lately but this wasn't one of them.

Re.: Havertz leg breaker.

First of all, it was nothing of the kind. Lead foot looked awful in real time but in reality, Havertz only clipped a grounded foot with his trail (also along the ground) foot.

But secondly, if you want to tell me it was a reckless to intentional bad foul that only wasn't worse because Havertz's bad tackling is about as accurate as his shooting, and no one should get away with a very raised, straight leg, studs up, just because it missed, I'm on board with that.

Seriously, real time, I thought Havertz was off. Turns out, he's no better at kicking players than balls. Sometimes you ride the luck of your own incompetence.

 

[Tragically Hip]

Forcing the viewing audience to wait through a VAR check on Haaland's second goal today epitomizes what is wrong with VAR. Even had the ball grazed his elbow, there was nothing clear and obvious in the ref not blowing the whistle. It was an absolute waste of time and another example of VAR looking for every opportunity to rule out a goal. VAR is like the annoying bastard who points out grammatical errors in text messages/social media posts.

 

[Oranges038]

Liverpool avoid a blatant red card and a goal from a cross that was almost certainly out. If that was UTD that would surely be a red and the goal disallowed. I know I’m a little biased in our favour, but Jesus.

Yeah neither of those things happened, ball was still in the red card was at most a yellow.

 

[erikcred]

Liverpool avoid a blatant red card and a goal from a cross that was almost certainly out. If that was UTD that would surely be a red and the goal disallowed. I know I’m a little biased in our favour, but Jesus.

Say that to yourself again, slowly.

 

[erikcred]

You’re looking at a still. Isn’t that what we’ve been complaining about? You can take a still of almost any passage of play and there would be a foul in there somehow. Maybe you didn’t watch the match because if you did you would have realized that it’s not a red. Looks like you’re a proponent of VAR .

I've seen the replay and it looked a yellow to me. It certainly wasn't a leg-breaker and breaking the skin doesn't constitute a red card.

Yeah neither of those things happened, ball was still in the red card was at most a yellow.

Disagree. Could've easily gotten a red for it. Endo didn't even go for the ball.

It's not like he was aiming for the ball, but the other player kicked the ball, moved it out of his foot's way and Endo ended up getting contact on the player. That would've been understandable.

It was clear that the Brentford's player action, if successful would've cleared the ball. On the other hand, I have no idea what Endo's intention was if not to go straight for the opposition player. He's sliding straight ahead and next to the ball. He's not clearing the ball like that.

I don't agree with the Utd victim complex around these days, but if Rodri does exactly that against Liverpool in their next match we'd never hear the end of it. My mate still goes on about some Kompany foul on Salah from decades ago.

 

[NotChatGPT]

Re.: Havertz leg breaker.

First of all, it was nothing of the kind. Lead foot looked awful in real time but in reality, Havertz only clipped a grounded foot with his trail (also along the ground) foot.

But secondly, if you want to tell me it was a reckless to intentional bad foul that only wasn't worse because Havertz's bad tackling is about as accurate as his shooting, and no one should get away with a very raised, straight leg, studs up, just because it missed, I'm on board with that.

Seriously, real time, I thought Havertz was off. Turns out, he's no better at kicking players than balls. Sometimes you ride the luck of your own incompetence.

Weird take, imo.

Havertz's tackle on Longstaff, like Nketiah on Vicario, not resulting in a nasty injury is coincidence. Havertz runs at high speed and lunges in with a straight leg, the height he jumps with and the distance he slides after missing Longstaff should tell you everything about the forces involved and the potential for injury. Mental attempt. Longstaff gets lucky, Havertz is less than a flaccid penis' length from planting his studs on his ankle, and when he does miss it's pure coincidence that Havertz trailing foot doesn't hit Longstaff standing foot higher up or that he gets caught between the trailing leg and the foot Havertz jumps in with.

Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

 

[Oranges038]

Disagree. Could've easily gotten a red for it. Endo didn't even go for the ball.

It's not like he was aiming for the ball, but the other player kicked the ball, moved it out of his foot's way and Endo ended up getting contact on the player. That would've been understandable.

It was clear that the Brentford's player action, if successful would've cleared the ball. On the other hand, I have no idea what Endo's intention was if not to go straight for the opposition player. He's sliding straight ahead and next to the ball. He's not clearing the ball like that.

I don't agree with the Utd victim complex around these days, but if Rodri does exactly that against Liverpool in their next match we'd never hear the end of it. My mate still goes on about some Kompany foul on Salah from decades ago.

Both slid in for the ball.

It's a 50/50, not every bit pf physical contact has to be a foul or a card.

Also the ref is 3 yards away, he knows right away there's nothing in it.

 

[Sandikan]

Forcing the viewing audience to wait through a VAR check on Haaland's second goal today epitomizes what is wrong with VAR. Even had the ball grazed his elbow, there was nothing clear and obvious in the ref not blowing the whistle. It was an absolute waste of time and another example of VAR looking for every opportunity to rule out a goal. VAR is like the annoying bastard who points out grammatical errors in text messages/social media posts.

People keep quoting this clear and obvious thing. But that was the original remit of var, it's long been dropped.

 

[justboy68]

I still cant get over the fact that they didn't even show a single replay for the Maguire VAR check the other day. Commentators were expecting it to be given as a pen too. Dodgy as a 9 pound note.

 

[NotChatGPT]

Forcing the viewing audience to wait through a VAR check on Haaland's second goal today epitomizes what is wrong with VAR. Even had the ball grazed his elbow, there was nothing clear and obvious in the ref not blowing the whistle. It was an absolute waste of time and another example of VAR looking for every opportunity to rule out a goal. VAR is like the annoying bastard who points out grammatical errors in text messages/social media posts.

IFAB strongly disagrees with you there.

Handling the ball
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• 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
• scores in the opponents’ goal:
  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

Any touch whatsoever between the ball and Haalands arm, no matter how accidental or minimal, will continue to be an offence and result in the goal being disallowed.

 

[Jev]

IFAB strongly disagrees with you there.

Handling the ball
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• 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
• scores in the opponents’ goal:
  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

Any touch whatsoever between the ball and Haalands arm, no matter how accidental or minimal, will continue to be an offence and result in the goal being disallowed.

There are a lot of stupid rules in football but this might be the dumbest. If the ball had grazed Haaland's arm, the goal is ruled out. If he had instead squared it for a tap-in, it's a goal again. How that can make sense in any person's mind is beyond me.

 

[NotChatGPT]

There are a lot of stupid rules in football but this might be the dumbest. If the ball had grazed Haaland's arm, the goal is ruled out. If he had instead squared it for a tap-in, it's a goal again. How that can make sense in any person's mind is beyond me.

I agree.

What makes it even more absurd is that they have two completely different interpretations depending if it's handball by a defending or attacking team. If it's a defender in his own box it's a subjective call based on position of hand and so on, while if it's an attacking player in the opposition box it doesn't matter that your hand is completely tucked in, they will only make a subjective decision on handball if you pass it to a teammate that instantly scores. There's no reason to have two different sets of rules for this

 

[Jev]

It always puzzles me why, after a bad call against us, people are calling for more similarly bad decisions in other games. "This is at least as bad as Rashford's tackle/Maguire's handball." Well, if we all agree that those calls were wrong, surely we don't want more of them?

 

[Oranges038]

I agree.

What makes it even more absurd is that they have two completely different interpretations depending if it's handball by a defending or attacking team. If it's a defender in his own box it's a subjective call based on position of hand and so on, while if it's an attacking player in the opposition box it doesn't matter that your hand is completely tucked in, they will only make a subjective decision on handball if you pass it to a teammate that instantly scores. There's no reason to have two different sets of rules for this

I could be wrong here, but didn't they really only decide to bring in that rule after some team conceded in the CL from a ball that hit a player on the hand and went in?

 

[NotChatGPT]

I could be wrong here, but didn't they really only decide to bring in that rule after some team conceded in the CL from a ball that hit a player on the hand and went in?

Sanchez, for Arsenal, against Hull is one of the culprits. I think they had one fairly similar a few years later as well, where an opposition defender tried to clear the ball high up and it went straight into an Arsenals players stretched out hand and into goal. Might have been goals in the CL as well that made them move away from accidental handballs to advantage.

Don't think they've done a very good job, it's quite tempting to call them morons. The inital rule change which was accidental handball during the build up to any goal was even more mental, i don't remember which team it involved but essentially the attacking player got completely twatted and as he was falling to the ground the ball rolled passed him and barely graced his fingers, no change whatsoever in ball direction and/or speed, a teammate collected the ball and scored, goal disallowed for handball during build up. No idea what they were thinking to implement something with such obvious flaws.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

It always puzzles me why, after a bad call against us, people are calling for more similarly bad decisions in other games. "This is at least as bad as Rashford's tackle/Maguire's handball." Well, if we all agree that those calls were wrong, surely we don't want more of them?

Yeah - not sure why people think that's a red card for Endo - it's not even close to being a red (it's barely a yellow).

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It always puzzles me why, after a bad call against us, people are calling for more similarly bad decisions in other games. "This is at least as bad as Rashford's tackle/Maguire's handball." Well, if we all agree that those calls were wrong, surely we don't want more of them?

Because VAR is shit but if it was shit to the detriment of our rivals to the same degree it’s been shit to our detriment then it would remain shit but in a much less annoying way.

 

[Alex99]

Yeah - not sure why people think that's a red card for Endo - it's not even close to being a red (it's barely a yellow).

I've not seen the replay, but from the still, and when compared to the incident that saw Rashford sent off (and the incident a day later that saw Endo booked against Toulouse), does it not highlight the obvious flaws in the current interpretation of "endangering an opponent"?

You are clearly more likely to be endangering an opponent if you challenge for the ball, lunging in with studs raised (which, from what I've seen, you could easily argue Endo did for both challenges) than you are from stepping across to shield the ball in a perfectly normal manner, but the key differentiating factor is now down to the opponent's movements and their influence on the outcome of contact.

The issue many had with the Rashford card was that it punished the freak outcome (which was actually not that bad) than the action, which is surely not what the law is designed for?

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I've not seen the replay, but from the still, and when compared to the incident that saw Rashford sent off (and the incident a day later that saw Endo booked against Toulouse), does it not highlight the obvious flaws in the current interpretation of "endangering an opponent"?

You are clearly more likely to be endangering an opponent if you challenge for the ball, lunging in with studs raised (which, from what I've seen, you could easily argue Endo did for both challenges) than you are from stepping across to shield the ball in a perfectly normal manner, but the key differentiating factor is now down to the opponent's movements and their influence on the outcome of contact.

The issue many had with the Rashford card was that it punished the freak outcome (which was actually not that bad) than the action, which is surely not what the law is designed for?

Rashford should never have been sent off, as Endo shouldn't - but yes, Endo's initial action is far more likely to endager then Rashfords.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

I could be wrong here, but didn't they really only decide to bring in that rule after some team conceded in the CL from a ball that hit a player on the hand and went in?

It was Neymar's goal in the 2015 CL final against Juventus. The consensus was that the officials made the correct call (despite it being neither deliberate nor affecting the direction of the ball) because, in the game called football, you simply can't score a goal with your hands. Here's the incident:

Spoiler: Neymar's disallowed goal

 

[Oranges038]

It was Neymar's goal in the 2015 CL final against Juventus. The consensus was that the officials made the correct call (despite it being neither deliberate nor affecting the direction of the ball) because, in the game called football, you simply can't score a goal with your hands. Here's the incident:

Spoiler: Neymar's disallowed goal

Could have been.

But I looked it up. I thought it was this one, when Spurs beat City, Llorente is jumping and the ball just hits him.and goes in. In no world should that be called out for handball. There was such a ridiculous outpouring of grief over it. The rule change had already been decided. But the away goals rule was done away with after this game...

There's no way something lke this should be ruled out for handball.

 

[Jev]

None of these examples explain the rule that they made, though.

If the idea was that you shouldn't be allowed to score with your hand, then make that the rule: If your hand or arm is the last thing the ball touches before crossing the line, the goal is ruled out.

Instead you can now outdribble nine players from one end of the pitch to the other before chipping the keeper, and if the ball was kicked straight at your arm, which was glued to your body, from two feet's distance before you controlled it, it's not a goal. It's such an unbelievably nonsensical rule that I genuinely can't get my head around how it was invented by adults.

 

[Cutch]

If the officials have decided to intervene where the ref had a perfect view that Rashford was endangering an opponent by accidentally planting his foot where someone else's was at the time I can't see how Endo isn't who is deliberately sliding in with his studs showing and connects with his opponent on the knee.

Excessive force doesn't come in to it by my interpretation as it only has to be 'endangering an opponent or challenging with excessive force or brutality', so he ticks that box surely.

For what its worth I think neither should be reds but like everyone it's the lack of consistency that's annoying everyone.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

None of these examples explain the rule that they made, though.

If the idea was that you shouldn't be allowed to score with your hand, then make that the rule: If your hand or arm is the last thing the ball touches before crossing the line, the goal is ruled out.

Instead you can now outdribble nine players from one end of the pitch to the other before chipping the keeper, and if the ball was kicked straight at your arm, which was glued to your body, from two feet's distance before you controlled it, it's not a goal. It's such an unbelievably nonsensical rule that I genuinely can't get my head around how it was invented by adults.

That's exactly what they implemented at first, and the "old guard" of pundits and ex-player analysts went berserk at the first opportunity. You can't score a goal if the last touch is with your hand, even when it's completely accidental. So, yes, you could out dribble an entire team and if the defender's last ditch tackle kicks the ball right at your face with you instinctively extending your arms, and the ball ricochets off them and goes in, it's disallowed. Unfair, maybe, but clear-cut as it can get. That's the rule, deal with it.

I remember the debate around Neymar's goal, that's why i mentioned it. A few years ago, there were already moans and groans about the rule, so it has to be older. It was an attempt to clarify the handball rule by setting specific parameters for what constitutes handball and what doesn't. That's probably why VAR took its time with Haarland's goal. By the letter of the law, such a goal stands only if the ball hits the body first or if the hand is there to support the goalscorer.

But they inserted the ifs and the buts later on because you can't please anyone in football. First, it's the subjectivity of the calls that allows the bent refs to feck us over and when the law gets clarified, we decide it doesn't go with our idea of how the game should be played.

 

[Jev]

That's exactly what they implemented at first, and the "old guard" of pundits and ex-player analysts went berserk at the first opportunity. You can't score a goal if the last touch is with your hand, even when it's completely accidental. So, yes, you could out dribble an entire team and if the defender's last ditch tackle kicks the ball right at your face with you instinctively extending your arms, and the ball ricochets off them and goes in, it's disallowed. Unfair, maybe, but clear-cut as it can get. That's the rule, deal with it.

I know, that's what I said, and it's a very clear-cut and also extremely moronic rule.

 

[eire-red]

I agree.

What makes it even more absurd is that they have two completely different interpretations depending if it's handball by a defending or attacking team. If it's a defender in his own box it's a subjective call based on position of hand and so on, while if it's an attacking player in the opposition box it doesn't matter that your hand is completely tucked in, they will only make a subjective decision on handball if you pass it to a teammate that instantly scores. There's no reason to have two different sets of rules for this

The rules are a bit of a joke alright. The Haaland one was very weird too, like the only potential outcome from that ball hitting Haaland on the arm was the lessened likelihood of the ball rolling into the net.

 

[Gio]

I agree.

What makes it even more absurd is that they have two completely different interpretations depending if it's handball by a defending or attacking team. If it's a defender in his own box it's a subjective call based on position of hand and so on, while if it's an attacking player in the opposition box it doesn't matter that your hand is completely tucked in, they will only make a subjective decision on handball if you pass it to a teammate that instantly scores. There's no reason to have two different sets of rules for this

The old rule was more based and interpreted on advantage gained from the handball. An inconsequential brush didn't rule goals out, but if there was a clear advantage gained - such as the Neymar header - then refs disallowed them. In the attempt to codify the new handball rules to suit VAR and improve consistency, they've diverged from what the purpose of the law is in the first place.

 

[Jeppers7]

It always puzzles me why, after a bad call against us, people are calling for more similarly bad decisions in other games. "This is at least as bad as Rashford's tackle/Maguire's handball." Well, if we all agree that those calls were wrong, surely we don't want more of them?

Because watching united getting decisions against us or not given for us, that there and then you can say ‘that will happen next week and not be given’ and then watch that happen the next day/week on repeat is killing my love for football. It’s a liberty.

If it was consistent it would not be killing the game for me. It would just be shit.