g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });

VAR and Refs | General Discussion | May 15: Premier League clubs to vote on proposal to scrap VAR from next season

Garnacho's Shoelaces

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2022
Messages
787
Location
In Garnacho's boots but untied
You can literally see Joelinton hanging over Gabriel. Look where the ball comes in as well. Is Gabriels ability to clear the ball badly affected due to Joelintons arms and the weight? Yes. Is it legal? No. It’s clearly not a push, but the use of his arms prevents Gabriel from challenging.
Gabriel cheating with the obvious simulation makes it impossible to judge as we don't actually know if he was impacted or not as he threw himself to the turf.
 

Powderfinger

Full Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
2,244
Supports
Arsenal
I don’t think the referees involved, and some people in here, understand the concept. It’s not Joelinton standing right behind Gabriel and sticking out his arms. Joelinton is 1.86 and built as a tank, he has mistimed his header and on his way down he has both hands stretched out on the upper part of Gabriels back. It’s basic physics really, where does the weight go? there is no way whatsoever Gabriel stands a chance of getting anything on it as Joelintons weight will always push him downwards. It’s a fairly obvious freekick, no idea why people are speculating if Gabriel goes down too easy or not when the focus should be on what Joelinton is doing and what the consequence always will be.
It’s a foul clear as day.

The crazy thing about the released clip is that they didn’t even look at a close up shot or multiple angles. They were trying to rush through because they had four issues to check and so lazily just concluded that it wasn’t a foul based on some long shot and with the excuse that Gabriel might have been flopping. Any real examination using multiple angles would show that it’s an incredibly forceful two handed push in the back by a very strong big man.
 

Zen

Full Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
14,557
The communication whenever I see any of these VAR and Ref discussions are at absolute clusterfeck, nothing seems clear or straightforward in their actually discussions between each other.... probably doesn't help the ref's got about 8 players down his ear every time too.

The communication aspect needs to be simplified first and foremost, just seems like they are mass panicking.
 

Laurencio

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2017
Messages
3,225
I can’t view the video in the Sky tweet, so if you’re like me, try this one…

Should have ended after the Garnacho check. Spent more than half the time on Maguire...

If they are going to use VAR they need to be less concerned about getting every single element of the decision right, and just be concerned with what actually matters for the play.

Honestly, linesmen getting it wrong weren't as big of a problem as VAR is.
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,352
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
I hate how the officials all refer to each other by nicknames while comunicating, it comes accross a bit childish and unprofessional especially when the officials are well aware their conversation could be broadcast on TV around the world.

The way the VAR refers to Antony Taylor as Tayls on this Wolves one is proper cringe:-

VAR asking themselves the wrong questions. It should’ve been ‘is there sufficient contact?’ and ‘has he dived?’ I’m not sure Webb’s explanation sheds any light on the matter.
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
12,400
I hate how the officials all refer to each other by nicknames while comunicating, it comes accross a bit childish and unprofessional especially when the officials are well aware their conversation could be broadcast on TV around the world.

The way the VAR refers to Antony Taylor as Tayls on this Wolves one is proper cringe:-

Really they should be asking if there is sufficient contact and who initiated it. They looked at an angle from behind about 10 times when the angle from the front shows minimal contact and Wolves player pulling his foot away as he see the Newcastle player coming in. Newcastle player is throwing himself down before any contact is made, he hould have been booked for a dive.

Or say the ref doesn't give it, do they think he missed it and it should be a penalty?

Also, no idea what the offside check was about, I always thought that you can't be offside from a corner.
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
12,400
What a load of bollocks.

Is the scorer offside? No

Is the assister offside? No

Is any attacker blocking the keepers view offside? No

Goal.

VAR took almost 5 minutes to find a way to disallow a goal that 99% of the time would never be disallowed pre VAR and probably post VAR aswell.
Maguire is offside and challenged the defender for the ball impacting his attempts to play the ball.

It is offside.
 

Garnacho's Shoelaces

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2022
Messages
787
Location
In Garnacho's boots but untied
Really they should be asking if there is sufficient contact and who initiated it. They looked at an angle from behind about 10 times when the angle from the front shows minimal contact and Wolves player pulling his foot away as he see the Newcastle player coming in. Newcastle player is throwing himself down before any contact is made, he hould have been booked for a dive.

Or say the ref doesn't give it, do they think he missed it and it should be a penalty?

Also, no idea what the offside check was about, I always thought that you can't be offside from a corner.
Webb said he is bringing in a change to challenge on-fields refs as to what they thought they saw and recommend reviews if replays differ.

This is one of those where the ref gives it, emboldened by the idea VAR can overturn if incorrect but VAR is paralysed by it not being "cLeAr AnD oBvIoUs".
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
20,812
Maguire is offside and challenged the defender for the ball impacting his attempts to play the ball.

It is offside.
So VAR subjectively informed us but it's not at all in the spirit of the offside rule which was never introduced to rule out goals because a players head (who never touched the ball) was marginally offside when the ball was lofted over him from a freekick.

As I said at the time, let's see how many times that particular rule is wheeled out in games the rest of this season, I'd wager not many times and most likely not at all.
 

Bobade

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
1,020
What a load of bollocks.

Is the scorer offside? No

Is the assister offside? No

Is any attacker blocking the keepers view offside? No

Goal.

VAR took almost 5 minutes to find a way to disallow a goal that 99% of the time would never be disallowed pre VAR and probably post VAR aswell.
I still think that is a bullshit offside, but having heard the audio and explanation I would agree that it is in line with the laws of the game.
 

NotChatGPT

Brownfinger
Joined
Jul 3, 2023
Messages
642
To me there's a clear jump forward from Gabriel after any potential pushing or leaning by Joelinton has concluded. Gabriel isn't interested in challenging, he's trying to win a free out imo.
Again, Joelinton is 1,86 and built like a tank. We literally have Joelinton, with both hands stretched out just below Gabriels shoulder height, before the ball comes in. Joelinton ends up being hit by the ball in his chest. If there was no weight on Gabriel then as a minimum Joelintons arms would instantly go down with his elbows bending, but they aren't. He physically prevents Gabriel from ever getting anything on it. Stuart Attwell calls it "normal contact", which is bizarre. It's a piss easy way to win headers/duels. Never mind Joelinton even a lightweight random guy from the pub would be likely to win duals like that with the same advantage.

It should be rather easy. Does Joelinton gain an illegal advantage by jumping up early and using his arms on the back of Gabriel to have a negative effect on his ability to play the ball. Anything else is as secondary as it gets.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
20,812
I still think that is a bullshit offside, but having heard the audio and explanation I would agree that it is in line with the laws of the game.
Might well be within the laws but it's not in the spirit of the offside rule. And they had to search for 3-5 minutes for a reason to disallow it. That's not what the offside rule was introduced for.

Let's see if the rules are applied in such a strict manner again this season. I'm 41, been watching Football for 33 years, thousands of games and I'd never heard of a subjective offside or could remember a similar incident where a goal was disallowed for someone's head being offside who never touched the ball or blocked the keepers view or interfered with him.
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
12,400
Defender was not impacted as couldn't get there anyway. Incorrect decision but can see where the confusion came from.
We don't know that, he's defending and challenging for a ball with an offside player. If he has a free run at it he might get there.

So VAR subjectively informed us but it's not at all in the spirit of the offside rule which was never introduced to rule out goals because a players head (who never touched the ball) was marginally offside when the ball was lofted over him from a freekick.

As I said at the time, let's see how many times that particular rule is wheeled out in games the rest of this season, I'd wager not many times and most likely not at all.
You can't be offside and attempt to play the ball whilst challenging an opponent so someone else can play it. If that were allowed you'd have players just standing in offside positions blocking defenders from going for balls.

I agree that the rule is badly implemented, this whole active and non active stuff is open to subjective interpretation for each incident.

I played a game not long after they updated this part of the rule, ball came over the top, I went out to play it, player who was miles offside went for it too. He blocked me off as we both got there, then another player who wasn't offside came in and took the ball. All 3 of us were within a foot or 2 of the ball, referee allowed the goal, because the player who wasn't off played the ball, even though the other guy impacted my ability to play it. It was a load of bollocks and I got booked for letting him know what I thought of the decision.

Personally I think in situations like that free kick if any player is offside inside a crowded box, the flag should go up. Puts a stop to all this nonsense.
 
Last edited:

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
12,400
Might well be within the laws but it's not in the spirit of the offside rule. And they had to search for 3-5 minutes for a reason to disallow it. That's not what the offside rule was introduced for.

Let's see if the rules are applied in such a strict manner again this season. I'm 41, been watching Football for 33 years, thousands of games and I'd never heard of a subjective offside or could remember a similar incident where a goal was disallowed for someone's head being offside who never touched the ball or blocked the keepers view or interfered with him.
To be fair there's always been terrible offside calls.

I vaguely remember Giggs playing the ball past a defender and running onto it himself and being pulled back for offside.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
30,778
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
Again, Joelinton is 1,86 and built like a tank. We literally have Joelinton, with both hands stretched out just below Gabriels shoulder height, before the ball comes in. Joelinton ends up being hit by the ball in his chest. If there was no weight on Gabriel then as a minimum Joelintons arms would instantly go down with his elbows bending, but they aren't. He physically prevents Gabriel from ever getting anything on it. Stuart Attwell calls it "normal contact", which is bizarre. It's a piss easy way to win headers/duels. Never mind Joelinton even a lightweight random guy from the pub would be likely to win duals like that with the same advantage.

It should be rather easy. Does Joelinton gain an illegal advantage by jumping up early and using his arms on the back of Gabriel to have a negative effect on his ability to play the ball. Anything else is as secondary as it gets.
I've honestly know idea what clip you're watching and you seem to be making assumptions which can't be proven from what we can see in the video. It's quite clearly a blatant dive to me and the impetus for the forward momentum of Gabriel doesn't come from Joelinton but we're not going to agree.
 

Ole'sgunnarwin

Full Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
1,688
I can't believe the majority of people think Joelinton's challenge was a foul. It's a physical game. He wanted the ball more, he was just stronger.
 

Longshanks

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,795
It’s a foul clear as day.

The crazy thing about the released clip is that they didn’t even look at a close up shot or multiple angles. They were trying to rush through because they had four issues to check and so lazily just concluded that it wasn’t a foul based on some long shot and with the excuse that Gabriel might have been flopping. Any real examination using multiple angles would show that it’s an incredibly forceful two handed push in the back by a very strong big man.
So forceful that Gabriel afterwards still manages to throw himself forward and up off his feat like a leaping salmon.

G Nev called it on commentary at the time Gabriel's attempts a stooping header in panic and mis times it.

If the 'push' had any force in it Gabriel would end up flat on his face, he wouldn't leave the ground or manage to move forward at all. He was already leaning forward considerably when Joelinton put his hands on his back any force from a very big strong man puts gabriel flat on his face or at the very least gabriel would be compleatly stuck in his position. But the fact he flies forward like a leaping salmon shows that the force from joelinton was absolutely minimal.

Football is still a contact sport and some contact it's absolutely allowed particularly in duels. Gabriel puts himself in a terrible position and makes a mess of it. If he stands up and his stronger in his defending he has a better chance on clearing the ball, as soon as he chooses to lean forward and attempt the stooping header he is in trouble.

Gabriel makes the mistake there not the refs.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
20,812
We don't know that, he's defending and challenging for a ball with an offside player. If he has a free run at it he might get there.



You can't be offside and attempt to play the ball whilst challenging an opponent so someone else can play it. If that were allowed you'd have players just standing in offside positions blocking defenders from going for balls.

I agree that the rule is badly implemented, this whole active and non active stuff is open to subjective interpretation for each incident.

I played a game not long after they updated this part of the rule, ball came over the top, I went out to play it, player who was miles offside went for it too. He blocked me off as we both got there, then another player who wasn't offside came in and took the ball. All 3 of us were within a foot or 2 of the ball, referee allowed the goal, because the player who wasn't off played the ball, even though the other guy impacted my ability to play it. It was a load of bollocks and I got booked for letting him know what I thought of the decision.

Personally I think in situations like that free kick if any player is offside inside a crowded box, the flag should go up. Puts a stop to all this nonsense.
I just think it's a stretch to say Maguire's head being offside had any impact on the move or the defenders ability to mark Garnacho as the move played out. Magure didn't get anywhere any faster because his head was slightly further forward, so for me there was no real advantage.

But if I'm being honest this stems from my general view that offsides should be clear and by that I mean the attacker should be significantly in front of the last defender not just marginally. I think it's nonsense to rule a goal out because someone's head or knee was a few mm offside. I sincerely hope the rules change in the near future.

To be fair there's always been terrible offside calls.

I vaguely remember Giggs playing the ball past a defender and running onto it himself and being pulled back for offside.
Was that in the Champions League?
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
12,400
I just think it's a stretch to say Maguire's head being offside had any impact on the move or the defenders ability to mark Garnacho as the move played out. Magure didn't get anywhere any faster because his head was slightly further forward, so for me there was no real advantage.

But if I'm being honest this stems from my general view that offsides should be clear and by that I mean the attacker should be significantly in front of the last defender not just marginally. I think it's nonsense to rule a goal out because someone's head or knee was a few mm offside. I sincerely hope the rules change in the near future.



Was that in the Champions League?
I'd agree in general about the marginal offsides, I don't think having a bigger head a few inches offside should be called back. But that's just what VAR has done with the rules.

Maguire was a bit more offside though and per the rule his presence affected the defenders ability to play the ball. So he's offside and the goal was chalked off. It was the right call.


I think it could have been a CL or League Cup game, maybe Rotor Volgrograd or Sturm Graz or one of those random 90s CL teams. One of those random moments that just sticks in the brain for some reason.
 

SAF is the GOAT

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Messages
3,048
Show us the audio for the united vs spurs game you bellends,

What is the nonsense reason for not giving us that pen ?

What is the reason not giving us Rasmus's goal against Brighton ? especially they gave it to the Geordies.
 

didz

Full Member
Joined
May 17, 2014
Messages
1,885
I'd agree in general about the marginal offsides, I don't think having a bigger head a few inches offside should be called back. But that's just what VAR has done with the rules.

Maguire was a bit more offside though and per the rule his presence affected the defenders ability to play the ball. So he's offside and the goal was chalked off. It was the right call.


I think it could have been a CL or League Cup game, maybe Rotor Volgrograd or Sturm Graz or one of those random 90s CL teams. One of those random moments that just sticks in the brain for some reason.
You sure it's not Roy Keane's disallowed goal against Arsenal in the 99 FA Cup semi?
 

SuperiorXI

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
14,700
Location
Manchester, England
What a load of bollocks.

Is the scorer offside? No

Is the assister offside? No

Is any attacker blocking the keepers view offside? No

Goal.

VAR took almost 5 minutes to find a way to disallow a goal that 99% of the time would never be disallowed pre VAR and probably post VAR aswell.
I agree it's nonsense. Webb says that if you take Maguire out then the defender has a "really good opportunity to play the ball" I don't agree, if you watch it full speed, it's not a really good opportunity, firstly he is moving towards Maguire (so therefore how is it that Maguire is affecting him? It's the other way around) and the eventual ball when it crosses his path is not only too far in front for him to get it, but he would have to pull off some insane athleticism to get to it. What we have here is the benefit of the doubt has gone to the defending team; this should never happen because football should always favour attacking play.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
20,812
I'd agree in general about the marginal offsides, I don't think having a bigger head a few inches offside should be called back. But that's just what VAR has done with the rules.

Maguire was a bit more offside though and per the rule his presence affected the defenders ability to play the ball. So he's offside and the goal was chalked off. It was the right call.


I think it could have been a CL or League Cup game, maybe Rotor Volgrograd or Sturm Graz or one of those random 90s CL teams. One of those random moments that just sticks in the brain for some reason.
When you mentioned it, it rang a bell. Rapid Vienna popped into my mind for some reason but I can't find anything on it.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
20,812
I agree it's nonsense. Webb says that if you take Maguire out then the defender has a "really good opportunity to play the ball" I don't agree, if you watch it full speed, it's not a really good opportunity, firstly he is moving towards Maguire (so therefore how is it that Maguire is affecting him? It's the other way around) and the eventual ball when it crosses his path is not only too far in front for him to get it, but he would have to pull off some insane athleticism to get to it. What we have here is the benefit of the doubt has gone to the defending team; this should never happen because football should always favour attacking play.
Indeed.

Maguire's head was offside and it's a big head to be fair. If he hadn't been leaning slightly forward and standing up straight with his feet in the exact same position there would have been no offside. The defender would still have been marking him. Basically no advantage was gained by Maguire's head being offside he didn't affect the defender at all. If he'd actualy been the scorer or assisted then ok but he didn't even touch the ball.

For Howard Webb to ''if you take Maguire out'' is utter nonsense. Where is he supposed to be? Does that mean ''if you take the defender out'' the goal would have stood.

Feck I hate VAR, I hate the current offside rules and I hate VAR jobsworth Twats ruling out goals for ludicrous marginal offsides. Advantage should always be with the attacking team, the sport is about entertainment and the offside rule was not even remotely introduced for incidents like that.
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
12,400
What has he even given? Has he given Giggs offside for passing to himself? :lol:
Who knows? Flag was up, down and up again.
Player in the middle was off when Giggs played the ball to himself. Then he wasn't and then he went for the ball.
 

CoopersDream

Full Member
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
528
While I understand the sentiment that VAR should not take 5 minutes to make a decision (it should have some limitation) I do not understand how anyone can listen to the audio from the Maguire offside and still think they arrived at the incorrect call.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
50,004
Location
W.Yorks
What has he even given? Has he given Giggs offside for passing to himself? :lol:
I can only imagine he saw into the future and realised that the Replay would be one of the greatest games of football ever played and would feature one of the greatest goals of all time.

Thus he had to rule it out... for Science. Man should be knighted if anything.
 

The Purley King

Full Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
4,303
I can only imagine he saw into the future and realised that the Replay would be one of the greatest games of football ever played and would feature one of the greatest goals of all time.

Thus he had to rule it out... for Science. Man should be knighted if anything.
Imagine if that had been given. Would probably have been a completely different game. No Keane red card, no Schmeichel penalty save, no Giggsy chest rug..........
 

awop

Odds winner of 'Odds or Evens 2022/2023'
Newbie
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
4,295
Location
Paris
Supports
Arsenal
VAR on Bruno's elbow, not sure of the authenticity of it but that guy isn't known to fake his stuff


"Not nice" "not used as a weapon" :confused: