VAR and Refs | General Discussion

[sullydnl]

There's no point in saying "read the rules" because what's at issue here won't be laid out in the rules.

It's about what referees are taught, through a battery of guidance and training, actually constitutes clearly impacting an opponent's ability to play the ball and what doesn't.

The problem then being that because we the fans don't have that training and guidance, there's a lack of transparency. We're left just having to take their word that Maguire did enough to fall foul of whatever combination of factors and circumstances they've decided constitutes "impacting an opponent's ability to play the ball".

 

[Sandikan]

City pen was so over the top. Think of when a defender slides into a challenge and they say the reaction of the offensive player is not justified by the contact. Can you tell me that Rodri was held so strongly his legs gave out and his arms went flying…did the contact match the reaction?

It was the way he managed to swing his body round, go over hard, and still look at the ref in one motion.
Bet they practice it in training.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Totally disagree, VAR as a concept is great, it means that objectively bad or incorrect decisions are a thing of the past, same with non-decisions.

The issue is with how badly it's been implemented, sometimes interfering, sometimes not, and the people running it making the rules overly convoluted.

The more it can be automated (like offsides in Europe which was resisted by the folks running it over here, as it might take a little power away from them) the better it'll be though, I'm sure we can agree on that.

but it doesn’t. All this talk of it making the game right is nonsense.

doesn’t check second yellows that would lead to a red.

doesn’t check clear fouls if they are not in the box

doesn’t check if a corner is given that should have been a goal kick which leads to a goal

doesn’t check or stop a goal if someone was offside but then a corner was given instead because a goal wasn’t scored or attack continues, like the poster mentioned about feyenoord game the other day.

but someone maybe 1mm offside when they haven’t even got the right technology to perfectly call that, oh they’re all over that. The whole thing is nonsense.

And the worst part of all of it. It’s ruined the emotion and celebrations of goals for fans. It’s shit

 

[Annihilate Now!]

That's the rule though, clearly.

The rule is the attacker has to impact the defender, the defender just can't choose to be impacted.

By this logic, anytime an attacker is offside, a defender should just run into them and claim offside. It would be absolutely ridiculous.

 

[MackRobinson]

You read the rules https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

Clearly fits.

That link should end all argument but it won't. He met three of the criteria.

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

 

[Thom Merrilin]

I think we call all agree that the offside law is poorly written at least. None of us can agree on what the law actually means.

 

[MegadrivePerson]

Rio Ferdinand and Joe Cole said it was correct to give it as offside on TNT sport.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Another issue with VAR is that as far as I'm aware, it's practically unlimited in scope.

The scope should be narrowly defined based on what is specifically being reviewed. For instance, if a play is being reviewed for offside, the ref shouldn't be able to discover a foul elsewhere and make a ruling on that instead.

 

[Hammondo]

The rule is the attacker has to impact the defender, the defender just can't choose to be impacted.

By this logic, anytime an attacker is offside, a defender should just run into them and claim offside. It would be absolutely ridiculous.

Well firstly he's physically touching him, secondly yea all he has to do is give a reason to the defender to follow him. That's the rule.

 

[Hammondo]

Rio Ferdinand and Joe Cole said it was correct to give it as offside on TNT sport.

Yea, there was no argument, quick straight to the point.

 

[MackRobinson]

It's obviously not clear as day since they're calling it a "subjective offside". I'm happy to argue and flesh out my point but ok, run away.

Read the rules.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

 

[Thom Merrilin]

"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

Says nothing about getting there, just impacting his ability to do so.

That implies that the defender was going to "play the ball" but was then impeded.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Read the rules.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

I've read them. I just disagree with you.

 

[Stan Jefferson]

Totally disagree, VAR as a concept is great, it means that objectively bad or incorrect decisions are a thing of the past, same with non-decisions.

The issue is with how badly it's been implemented, sometimes interfering, sometimes not, and the people running it making the rules overly convoluted.

The more it can be automated (like offsides in Europe which was resisted by the folks running it over here, as it might take a little power away from them) the better it'll be though, I'm sure we can agree on that.

The automated stuff I have no issue with but the manual elements of var are always going to be bollocks because it still the same incompetent morons making the decisions, now it just takes significantly longer to come to decisions that still nobody agrees upon and takes away a lot of the excitement and emotion of watching live games. If it worked to actually more or less eliminate contentious decisions then maybe but the sport and in particular the laws of the sport are not setup to allow that in the first place so its never going to happen, its essentially a bolted on solution that will never work in my opinion and my enthusiasm for the sport might just start to recover if they got rid of it altogether because as it stands I'm struggling to even bother watching united games live and I cant even remember the last non-united game I watched because I just don't see the point when you can get the same level of excitement by watching the highlights later (i.e not very much).

 

[Nas-JR]

Is anyond keeping tabs on the number of VAR decisions that have gone against us?
Including goals disallowed (at least 3 that k can remember), pens not given (spurs), pens given against (eriksen, rodri), plus all the deicisons in normal play that were very soft but weren't overturned (Sheffield pen, Copenhagen pen). This feels like it's been going on for two years now!

Ill add decisions as I go along. I forgot the Evans goal too.

 

[Hammondo]

That link should end all argument but it won't. He met three of the criteria.

I agree.

That implies that the defender was going to "play the ball" but was then impeded.

No it doesn't.

 

[MackRobinson]

I've read them. I just disagree with you.

No. You disagree with the rules.

Yes or no question: Did he challenge the defender for the ball?

 

[IRELANDUNITED]

Even though we are playing shite I want to see Ten Hag going absolutely ape shite about that offside decision. I’ve been saying this for weeks but we need to continue to totally drive the narrative that the refs and VAR are against United if it is ever going to change.

Liverpool had 1 bad decision this season, Klopp made a huge deal about it and they have been benefiting from soft decisions since.

We need our manager, players, fans, journalists and pundits to absolutely power through the narrative that everything is against us. We need to make an absolute storm about it.

It won’t happen though, our manager is too quiet, our players don’t really care, our fans are too busy focusing on every negative within the club, our journalists are too busy creating dressing room leaks and if Gary Neville does come up for air and manages to get his nose out of Klopps arse for 2 minutes it will only be to praise the “brilliant” decision the referee made with that offside goal in the first half against Fulham today.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Well firstly he's physically touching him, secondly yea all he has to do is give a reason to the defender to follow him. That's the rule.

He's physically touching him because he's ahead of him and the defender is actively fouling him.

And by this logic even if they were in the centre of the box it would be offside - which obviously isn't the case.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

I agree.


No it doesn't.

Let's agree to disagree then. Not sure what else I can say other than I don't think Maguire did what is required to be called offside.

 

[ManUnitedCanuck]

Really hope Someone does a video of all the VAR decisions United were involved in this year, with comparisons of other matches with same decisions going other way. Ie. Romero handball, which Dermot Gallagher even avoided when brought to his attention

 

[Thom Merrilin]

No. You disagree with the rules.

Yes or no question: Did he challenge the defender for the ball?

No, since the defender never had possession of the ball.

See it's so easy to contort the law because of how it's written.

 

[acnumber9]

Oh well. I guess different onions are what make the world go around eh ?

I'm just lucky my opinion seems the be the general consensus.

Have good second half buddy.

Amongst a group of people who also don’t understand the rules. Enjoy that.

 

[Berbasbullet]

No. You disagree with the rules.

Yes or no question: Did he challenge the defender for the ball?

The defender challenges him.

 

[MackRobinson]

No, since the defender never had possession of the ball.

See it's so easy to contort the law because of how it's written.

How can a defender have possession of the ball?

 

[MackRobinson]

The defender challenges him.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

How can a defender have possession of the ball?

By possessing the football.

Edit: that was a bit snarky, my bad.

 

[Hughes35]

Amongst a group of people who also don’t understand the rules. Enjoy that.

Rio and Joe Cole agreed with me so its all good.

Have a good weekend mate x

 

[MackRobinson]

By possessing the football.

Then he isn't defending anymore. Are you winding me up?

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Then he isn't defending anymore. Are you winding me up?

I edited that post, didn't mean to be so snarky. Imagine a ball gets cut out to an offside player as he challenges for the ball at the same time. That's when a defender can have possession and an offside player call challenge that defender for the ball.

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

My opinion is that the call was very harsh but whatever. You can make arguments for it being correct and you can make arguments for it being wrong.

What irks me so much is that, time and again this season, it seems as though a disproportionate amount of time is being given to VAR reviews for decisions that rule against us and not enough when one would go in our favour. The City penalty and now this are two very recent examples.

@RuudTom83 is correct to point out that, if you slow a replay down enough, zoom in hard enough, and look at it for long enough, you're probably going to find something that could justify a penalty being given, a goal being ruled out, a red card being shown etc. This is the issue I have with VAR. It seems that there are some incidents where they'll want to perform these very very thorough checks, and some which they're happy to be done with after 30 seconds. Unfortunately, my perception (and to be clear, it is purely perception at the moment) is that we are too often on the wrong end of those incidents where they decide to be thorough.

One solution I've seen proposed, which I somewhat see merit in, is a time limit within which VAR must make a decision. This would include refs being sent to the monitor, so that couldn't just be used as a loophole. If VAR cannot determine that an error has been made by the on-field ref after, say, 90 seconds (the precise amount of time is arbitrary), then the referee's original decision should stand. There will still be disagreements and inconsistencies but at least then you won't have some incidents receiving much more VAR scrutiny than others for seemingly no reason at all.

 

[sullydnl]

Is anyond keeping tabs on the number of VAR decisions that have gone against us?
Including goals disallowed (at least 3 that k can remember), pens not given (spurs), pens given against (eriksen, rodri), plus all the deicisons in normal play that were very soft but weren't overturned (Sheffield pen, Copenhagen pen). This feels like it's been going on for two years now!

Yep, ESPN track it every year.

Going into this gameweek we were the most negatively impacted, on a net -3.

Worth noting they're judging overturns. So if a bad decision is made on pitch and upheld by VAR, that won't feature as VAR hasn't actually impacted the decison. ESPN are just counting the times VAR actually changed the on-pitch call.

 

[acnumber9]

Rio and Joe Cole agreed with me so its all good.

Have a good weekend mate x

Oh yeah, those famed intellects.

 

[sirAlexsglasses]

My issue is that we appear to be getting ALL the decisions against us when there has been exactly the same instances in other games where VAR hasnt even looked at. ETH and United need to speak up just like Klopp and Pep do.

 

[acnumber9]

Well firstly he's physically touching him, secondly yea all he has to do is give a reason to the defender to follow him. That's the rule.

No it’s not.

 

[Hammondo]

No it’s not.

Yes it is.

 

[Withnail]

• interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Basically any or all of these can be applied.

Nice to hear your well thought out logic

Good luck

 

[The Hilton]

but it doesn’t. All this talk of it making the game right is nonsense.

doesn’t check second yellows that would lead to a red.

doesn’t check clear fouls if they are not in the box

doesn’t check if a corner is given that should have been a goal kick which leads to a goal

doesn’t check or stop a goal if someone was offside but then a corner was given instead because a goal wasn’t scored or attack continues, like the poster mentioned about feyenoord game the other day.

but someone maybe 1mm offside when they haven’t even got the right technology to perfectly call that, oh they’re all over that. The whole thing is nonsense.

And the worst part of all of it. It’s ruined the emotion and celebrations of goals for fans. It’s shit

Every single one of your complaints is about implementation, rather than the principle. Right now it's set up to avoid undermining officials, rather than correcting mistakes, and so everything takes longer than necessary so the focus is only goals rather than everything else.

 

[acnumber9]

Yes it is.

But it isn’t. Nothing in the rules about following or touching an offside player. It was disallowed on the basis that he has impacted the Fulham defender’s ability to play the ball. That’s why it was subjective. Anything else is just fluff.

 

[BaguetteBoy]

Another week another game another VAR decision