VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
As funny as it is to see those cheating bastards screwed over, this is not the way to bring justice. Their cheating needs to be properly dealt with. Not gifting the underdog a massive reprieve in a cup final, which simply highlights everything wrong with the attitude of refs in this country. The rules are clear and it was as clear a red card as you'll see.

Luckily, I guess, that penalty decision was one of the worst I've seen, so some semblance of balance was attempted.

Yet another example of VAR not being worth the hassle.
 
Doracle said:
The penalty being cleared just as the viewers finally saw a slow motion replay that made clear that the defender got the ball AND that Silva’s legs were mysteriously already crumpling before any contact was also peak incompetence.

Take away “clear and obvious” over the summer and this will work so much better. All the VAR should be asking themselves is “do I think this is a penalty”. If they disagree with the ref’s decision, instant jog over to the screen and they can discuss it (with the ref not being a complete wet blanket if they genuinely still think their decision is right).
Click to expand...

What I believe made the ref assured in his decision is the fact that Mitchell did not protest the decision at all, rather he had that "I'm guilty" look. If he went berserk like Onana did v Chelsea, it might hinted the red that he might be wrong, and it would've made VAR guys look more closely, and eventually see the contact with the ball.

So happy that we beat them fair and square last year without any controversial ref decisions.
 
SER19 said:
forgot that one, another shocker
Click to expand...
It's unbelievable how that was let go in the VAR era (well, not really unbelievable, is it?). Bruno was just standing there waiting for the red to be shown and then the ref just goes "nope" :lol:. But you just know that if Bruno had walked up to Felipe, grabbed him by the throat in exactly the same manner to make a point they both would suddenly have been sent off.
 
That should be career altering for that idiot referee. No doubt it won't be and he'll be a mainstay in the PL next season.
 
It's an utter farce how bad PL refereeing is. Just when you think it can't get worse, it proves you wrong.
 
Pink Moon said:
That should be career altering for that idiot referee. No doubt it won't be and he'll be a mainstay in the PL next season.
Click to expand...
It benefitted United. He will never referee a premier league match ever again.
 
Pink Moon said:
That should be career altering for that idiot referee. No doubt it won't be and he'll be a mainstay in the PL next season.
Click to expand...
It’s only a shocking decision because of VAR. Without it then I don’t think anyone can complain that he gave a foul with how it looked in real time
 
SuperiorXI said:
What is worse is that VAR can't do anything. It's very silly. They should be allowed to imtervene for that. Anything that affects the game massively like a red card or goal. Who cares if the ref whistled?
Click to expand...
You can’t intervene when the refs blown the whistle because the players could argue they stopped playing.
 
I've gone and checked the rules and the ref got it spot on, idk what everyone is complaining about. Bayindir had control of the ball and you're not allowed to kick the ball when the keeper has control. Heres the law with the relevant parts in bold:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
 
Thom Merrilin said:
I've gone and checked the rules and the ref got it spot on, idk what everyone is complaining about. Bayindir had control of the ball and you're not allowed to kick the ball when the keeper has control. Heres the law with the relevant parts in bold:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
Thom Merrilin said:
I've gone and checked the rules and the ref got it spot on, idk what everyone is complaining about. Bayindir had control of the ball and you're not allowed to kick the ball when the keeper has control. Heres the law with the relevant parts in bold:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
Click to expand...
Yeah I kinda thought the same but this is going to be lost or ignored in all this. The commentators have already decided the narrative.
 
Im not particularly shocked by the decision
Refs almost always blow the whistle when there’s any sort of contact between a player and a keeper when the ball is handled by the keeper, not necessarily only when the keepers has a hold of the ball
People will blow this out of proportion though
 
Thom Merrilin said:
I've gone and checked the rules and the ref got it spot on, idk what everyone is complaining about. Bayindir had control of the ball and you're not allowed to kick the ball when the keeper has control. Heres the law with the relevant parts in bold:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
Click to expand...
Just on this I guarantee that on ref watch they will spend the entire time discussing the procedure of the referee blowing too early and won’t even address whether he was right.
 
Thom Merrilin said:
I've gone and checked the rules and the ref got it spot on, idk what everyone is complaining about. Bayindir had control of the ball and you're not allowed to kick the ball when the keeper has control. Heres the law with the relevant parts in bold:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
Click to expand...
He's dropped the ball, he quite clearly hasn't got control of it. It doesn't meet the definition of what you've pointed out. It's in the air, he hasn't got it between his hands or between one hand and a surface.
 
Thom Merrilin said:
I've gone and checked the rules and the ref got it spot on, idk what everyone is complaining about. Bayindir had control of the ball and you're not allowed to kick the ball when the keeper has control. Heres the law with the relevant parts in bold:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
Click to expand...
Not really, this means as long as the ball is between a GK's hands he doesn't even have to pick it up? Ofcourse not, that'd be absurd.

It was a ridiculous decision. It will now cost the club massive money and a CL spot which can change their future trajectory.
 
ArtetasHair said:
Not really, this means as long as the ball is between a GK's hands he doesn't even have to pick it up? Ofcourse not, that'd be absurd.

It was a ridiculous decision. It will now cost the club massive money and a CL spot which can change their future trajectory.
Click to expand...
If they couldn’t beat this United team they don’t deserve CL
 
GBBQ said:
If they couldn’t beat this United team they don’t deserve CL
Click to expand...
To be fair your performances against the big teams barring Liverpool have been fine this season? Drew against us at OT, drew against City at OT, won against Chelsea at OT?
 
Thom Merrilin said:
I've gone and checked the rules and the ref got it spot on, idk what everyone is complaining about. Bayindir had control of the ball and you're not allowed to kick the ball when the keeper has control. Heres the law with the relevant parts in bold:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

  • the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
  • holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
  • bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
Click to expand...
None of this happened though, he had one hand on the ball, the ball was in the air and the other hand wasn’t on the ball.

It wasn’t between two hands or between one hand and the ground.
 
Didn't Villa essentially stay up a few seasons ago when goal line technology failed on them? Swings and roundabouts
 
ArtetasHair said:
Not really, this means as long as the ball is between a GK's hands he doesn't even have to pick it up? Ofcourse not, that'd be absurd.

It was a ridiculous decision. It will now cost the club massive money and a CL spot which can change their future trajectory.
Click to expand...

That’s where the media focus is going to be, I think. I know some on here will use it as ‘proof’ of an ABU bias in the media, but in a season where the top and bottom were decided months ago, CL qualification has been the only real issue. Sports focused media will have to cover it.

Whether it was the right or wrong call I don’t know- not going to pretend I have a detailed enough knowledge of the rules to make a judgement. All i’d say is, regardless of the letter of the law, keepers are very well protected across the board. The talking point for me would be if it hadn’t been a foul.
 
ArtetasHair said:
To be fair your performances against the big teams barring Liverpool have been fine this season? Drew against us at OT, drew against City at OT, won against Chelsea at OT?
Click to expand...
It was a crunch game. They didn’t turn up. That’s on them and has nothing to do with the disallowed goal
 
Villa unlucky with that call for sure. I'd be fuming. It doesn't matter that it would have been hugely fortuitous to get a win like that, given how the rest of the game went.

But the ref blew, so that's that unfortunately. I think they need to revise that rule for next season. I don't think the blowing of the whistle made a difference on this occasion, so giving the goal would have been a better outcome in terms of fairness.

They were so shit the rest of the match, they really can't complain too much.
 
ArtetasHair said:
Not really, this means as long as the ball is between a GK's hands he doesn't even have to pick it up? Ofcourse not, that'd be absurd.

It was a ridiculous decision. It will now cost the club massive money and a CL spot which can change their future trajectory.
Click to expand...
No, it means that when the ball is between the GK's hands he has control of the ball and cannot be challenged. So technically he wouldn't have to actually pick it up, he could just scoop it out to a teammate. I have no sympathy for a team pushing for Champions League that can't beat this United side, they don't deserve it.
 
Gycraig said:
None of this happened though, he had one hand on the ball, the ball was in the air and the other hand wasn’t on the ball.

It wasn’t between two hands or between one hand and the ground.
Click to expand...
It was bouncing quickly between two hands, clearly in possession of the ball imo. There's nothing in the law that says he has to have both hands touching the ball, just that the ball has to be between two hands. It's frustratingly vague to be fair but I think the spirit of the law is clear. I've seen many similar scenarios be called a foul over the years.
 
Thom Merrilin said:
It was bouncing quickly between two hands, clearly in possession of the ball imo. There's nothing in the law that says he has to have both hands touching the ball, just that the ball has to be between two hands. It's frustratingly vague to be fair but I think the spirit of the law is clear. I've seen many similar scenarios be called a foul over the years.
Click to expand...

Yes there is, that's what between his hands means. Between his hands does not mean he's in possession of the ball if one hand is a few inches to the left of the ball and the other hand a few inches to the right of it.
 
Mullet_Man said:
TNT wouldn't shut up about it the rest of the match, if it was the other way around I doubt it would have got much more than a replay.
Click to expand...
I've just said the exact same thing to my brother in law, well shouted it in his direction he probably wasn't even listening.
 
Chipper said:
Yes there is, that's what between his hands means.
Click to expand...
I mean, that's one interpretation of what "between the hands" means. I'm sure you can imagine a scenario where neither hand is touching the ball and the ball is still between the hands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.