VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

[imamuppet]

As others have posted,

all the fuss is because its Utd.

Not because Aston Villa "missed out" on Champions league qualification in a game that still had xx minutes left to play, with all those butt hurt pundits who suffererd years of "abuse" from Manchester United getting their konoodles in a twist from something that is more than likely going to be called in a goalkeepers favour every time.

Not been able to find a reply to watch it, but the stills ive seen seem to show the Aston Villa player lunging in, irrespective of what the keeper did, its dangerous play.

And as we have seen the only thing one needs to deem it dangerous play is to see how Casemiro is treated with any sort of lunging tackle he makes anywhere on the field, which has been shown to be a foul every time even when he takes the ball (actually you could extrapolate this to ANY Manuchester United player).

So people complaining about this can go and do one.

 

[Pexbo]

I don't think it's much of a mistake, the gk has the ball. If Villa want to be annoyed about something it should with Martinez.

This is what I’m seeing too, the media have gone forensic with the “did he have two hands on it at that specific moment” lark but it’s irrelevant really, referee’s have blown fouls for players poking the ball out of the goalkeepers hands since the beginning of time.

 

[LDUred]

It is a 50/50 but not the robbery some are claiming online. Would have understand if the goal stood but agree with you that the keeper needs to be protected in this kind of situations.

Feel bad for the ref because he had a good game otherwise. Releasing that statement afterwards is just wrong. Talk to them and raise your concern but publicy is low.

Yeah, absolutely. It´s 100% about the ref´s interpretation of what constitutes dangerous play. I think people are getting carried away with the emotion of the situation and the need that Villa had to qualify, but a ref is within his rights to blow up there.

There are a thousand soft decisions like high boots etc that get given but this was one that cost a momentous goal. That doesn´t make it wrong.

Like fans are saying, the controversy is that we had a judgement call go in our favour. Every time that happens, there is a huge outcry and it makes you understand why referees tend to give 50 50s against us. This ref is being destoyed and he has done nothing wrong.

 

[Jippy]

As others have posted,

all the fuss is because its Utd.

Not because Aston Villa "missed out" on Champions league qualification in a game that still had xx minutes left to play, with all those butt hurt pundits who suffererd years of "abuse" from Manchester United getting their konoodles in a twist from something that is more than likely going to be called in a goalkeepers favour every time.

Not been able to find a reply to watch it, but the stills ive seen seem to show the Aston Villa player lunging in, irrespective of what the keeper did, its dangerous play.

And as we have seen the only thing one needs to deem it dangerous play is to see how Casemiro is treated with any sort of lunging tackle he makes anywhere on the field, which has been shown to be a foul every time even when he takes the ball (actually you could extrapolate this to ANY Manuchester United player).

So people complaining about this can go and do one.

He doesn't 'lunge in' at all, he just taps the ball away from Bayandir. Terrible decision and feel a bit sorry for Villa but couldn't give a shite what pundits think.

 

[RobinLFC]

Awful call by the referee to blow his whistle early as the goal should've stood but hard to feel sorry for Villa who apparently put in an abysmal display either way. Also no way of knowing they'd have held on to the lead if the goal had stood. I thought Emery's reaction post-game was quite measured though.

Poor decision, but for once it's not VAR that's at fault here.

 

[awop]

As others have posted,

all the fuss is because its Utd.

Not because Aston Villa "missed out" on Champions league qualification in a game that still had xx minutes left to play, with all those butt hurt pundits who suffererd years of "abuse" from Manchester United getting their konoodles in a twist from something that is more than likely going to be called in a goalkeepers favour every time.

Not been able to find a reply to watch it, but the stills ive seen seem to show the Aston Villa player lunging in, irrespective of what the keeper did, its dangerous play.

And as we have seen the only thing one needs to deem it dangerous play is to see how Casemiro is treated with any sort of lunging tackle he makes anywhere on the field, which has been shown to be a foul every time even when he takes the ball (actually you could extrapolate this to ANY Manuchester United player).

So people complaining about this can go and do one.

So you haven't seen it in video, saw 2 screenshots but can categorically say that it's because it's United and everyone has PTSD from 20 years ago. Sounds like great judgement.

 

[utdalltheway]

Farcical decision against Villa. The rules need changing to allow VAR to review no matter what the ref does/doesn't do. If they'd reviewed this one the goal would have been given, imo

 

[RedRocket9908]

At first view I thought Villa's goal should've stood but ive watched it again and Morgan clear stands on Bayindir's hand which is a foul so VAR would probably have stuck with the onfield decision to disallow the goal if they could've gotten involved

 

[Abizzz]

Farcical decision against Villa. The rules need changing to allow VAR to review no matter what the ref does/doesn't do. If they'd reviewed this one the goal would have been given, imo

The thing is it is really 2 farcical decisions.

First to say the keeper had it, and then to whistle prematurely. It's 2 howlers within 2 seconds.

Humans make mistakes. When players do they go to the championship, in my opinion a referee should be done for 3-4 years at the top level for something like that.

 

[Halftrack]

He doesn't 'lunge in' at all, he just taps the ball away from Bayandir. Terrible decision and feel a bit sorry for Villa but couldn't give a shite what pundits think.

How is it terrible? It's not like it's at odds with the laws of the game. We're talking split seconds and millimeters. We can't actually tell for sure from slow-mo replays whether Bayindir was touching the ball at the moment Rogers kicked it. From where Bramall was standing, Bayindir had the ball between his hands and seemingly under control. There probably wasn't a doubt in his mind, which is why he called a foul.

On top of that, the rules for what constitutes a keeper being in control were changed in part to avoid players trying to challenge keepers who are in the process of collecting loose balls.

Keepers stick their heads in dangerous areas as part of their job, you don't want to encourage players running in and attempting kicks in those situations.

 

[Halftrack]

The thing is it is really 2 farcical decisions.

First to say the keeper had it, and then to whistle prematurely. It's 2 howlers within 2 seconds.

Humans make mistakes. When players do they go to the championship, in my opinion a referee should be done for 3-4 years at the top level for something like that.

There's nothing farcical about it. What a fecking embarassing post, the call was entirely in keeping with the laws of the game. And you think he needs to be removed from top flight officiating for it? Maybe it would help if you learned the rules.

Fecking United supporters falling over themselves to condemn an entirely fair call in our favour. Are we that fecking cowed?

 

[noodlehair]

I mean it was obviously the wrong decision and awful officiating to blow the whistle so early either way. It's a mistake though. The sort of thing that can and will happen from time to time. VAR could do nothing about it.

I wouldn't put it in the same category as the many instances where a VAR official has simply chosen to ignore an obvious mistake, or worse, invented something that didn't even happen to overturn a correct decision.

Also, the level of crying is hilariously excessive given Villa's keeper suicided himself into a red card with over half the game left and they got thoroughly outplayed by a nearly relegated team. All of the teams actually in the top 5 would have just turned up and got the result they needed without making it into a melodrama.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

 

[Abizzz]

There's nothing farcical about it. What a fecking embarassing post, the call was entirely in keeping with the laws of the game. And you think he needs to be removed from top flight officiating for it? Maybe it would help if you learned the rules.

Fecking United supporters falling over themselves to condemn an entirely fair call in our favour. Are we that fecking cowed?

The rule is if the keeper has it you cant kick it from his hands. It's not if he's about to have it with his hands, or if he would have had it if he was a normal keeper... It is clearly still moving while his hands are stationary, it was clear in the broadcast and is even clearer in the video above, freeze frames aside.

This call does nothing for us. If anything it will make the powers that be think it's not all as bad as it really really is.


I don't want to see the majority of this team again because they are not worthy of the pitch they walk on. Same is true of that ref (by what he has shown so far, he hasn't had 38 games opportunity yet),

 

[Dave Smith]

That is still not a foul imo. The ref blow because he thought that the keeper had possession and Rodgers kicked the ball out of his hands. OK, he trod on his fingertips after winning the ball, but football is a contact sport and he had every right to try and win the ball - which he did. If that minimal step happened on a outfield players toe(s) it equally wouldn't be a foul if he disposses him prior.

If this is a foul, then it essentially means any touch on the GK constitutes a foul if they're attempting to collect the ball regardless of whether they're in possession or not.

The problem with this situation is entirely to do with the ref blowing before Rodgers puts the ball in the net. He should've allowed that sequnve to play out and then blown and had VAR look at it. That has been the way most games have reffed this season and it is seen all the time with offside. If the ref had blown to try and prevent contact that would be more of a justification than allowing minimal contact and then blowing immediately.

In addition, I am not really seeing this as a anti-Utd thing, or this only happening because it is Utd (I personally avoid socials so maybe it is different on there but that is pretty much always the case - social media missing the point and then people piling in for banter and/or point scoring.) This entirely is people getting upset with yet another inconsistent ref. The foul being given to Utd is just a coincidence in this matter.

 

[IRN-BRUno]

Keith Hackett, formerly head of referee's - "Our top referee Michael Oliver was operating VAR on a game. What a poor management decision." He added he was "surprised and disappointed" that Oliver was appointed VAR for Tottenham's defeat by Brighton and it was "difficult to understand" why he was not picked to referee "a big game" in Sunday's final round.

With all the 'big games' involving Champions League qualification, surely it's fairly obvious that a Newcastle fan rightly wasn't refereeing any of those.

 

[Halftrack]

That is still not a foul imo.

I don't know, I tend to think stepping on a keeper's hand should always be a foul.

That aside, the ref seems to have called it on the basis that he believed Bayindir had control of the ball. That view has merit based on the wording in the Laws of the Game.

The argument can be made that he could/should have let the situation play out and let it go to VAR, but Webb is on record saying he wants his refs to trust their instincts and decisions on the pitch instead of defaulting to VAR.

Regardless, the decision clearly wasn't a howler, farcical, terrible or whatever else people have been calling it.

The narrative has been set, the media had decided that Bramall robbed Villa of a goal, and PGMOL will probably throw him under the bus. What's funny is that a lot of pundits and articles have called the decision wrong because Bayindir wasn't holding the ball with both hands, despite that rule being changed ages ago. Now that's farcical, coming from supposed experts.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

I don't know, I tend to think stepping on a keeper's hand should always be a foul.

That aside, the ref seems to have called it on the basis that he believed Bayindir had control of the ball. That view has merit based on the wording in the Laws of the Game.

The argument can be made that he could/should have let the situation play out and let it go to VAR, but Webb is on record saying he wants his refs to trust their instincts and decisions on the pitch instead of defaulting to VAR.

Regardless, the decision clearly wasn't a howler, farcical, terrible or whatever else people have been calling it.

The narrative has been set, the media had decided that Bramall robbed Villa of a goal, and PGMOL will probably throw him under the bus. What's funny is that a lot of pundits and articles have called the decision wrong because Bayindir wasn't holding the ball with both hands, despite that rule being changed ages ago. Now that's farcical, coming from supposed experts.

Yip.

And for anyone who thinks media/social media would have been the same regardless of the club benefitting… not sure where they’ve been. Three papers, BBC and SKY all painting a picture within hours of the match… no reflection, no balance.

And Villa’s post is pathetic (and verging on disrepute). Their place is decided on 38 games, same as ours.

 

[Zed is not dead]

People complaining but yeah, virtually any contact with a keeper is a foul, has always been the case.
I would’ve thought it was the right call if it had gone against us. The players boots was between the keepers hands, every ref would have given it as a foul in any other game.
Keepers have always been protected against this type of contact.

Really feels like the Onana vs Wolves incident, something not that unusual but everyone goes mental about it

 

[Powderfinger]

I think that view just shows that (a) the ball was still moving when it was kicked, suggesting that it was not under control and (b) the keeper's hands were close to the ball but not clearly both touching it at the same time.

At the end of the day, if the perspective that this was the right call requires dissecting the footage like the Zapruder film, it means that the referee was wrong to blow the whistle in the moment as he couldn't possibly be confident enough that the keeper had the ball to stop the play. Its the same principle as the awful offside in the Real-Bayern CL tie last year, when in doubt don't blow.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

I think that view just shows that (a) the ball was still moving when it was kicked, suggesting that it was not under control and (b) the keeper's hands were close to the ball but not clearly both touching it at the same time.

At the end of the day, if the perspective that this was the right call requires dissecting the footage like the Zapruder film, it means that the referee was wrong to blow the whistle in the moment as he couldn't possibly be confident enough that the keeper had the ball to stop the play. Its the same principle as the awful offside in the Real-Bayern CL tie last year, when in doubt don't blow.

Neither (a) or (b) mean “not under control” under the rules.

 

[Heinzesight]

Goalkeepers are protected more than any other player. Look at all those tiny nudges we see on keepers as the attacker heads it in, a foul is given that would never be given against an outfield player and the goal is disallowed. It’s similar.

 

[Powderfinger]

Neither (a) or (b) mean “not under control” under the rules.

"Between the hands" in the laws of the game obviously has to be interpreted as both hands at least touching the ball if not holding it still. Otherwise you could just hold your hands apart in the space around the ball and create a "no touch zone" because the ball is "between the hands," which would be ridiculous.

 

[deef]

I think the only error he made was blowing the whistle to early… the outcome would have been the same IMO as VAR shouldn‘t overturn this

It is extremly dangerous to encourage strikers to try their luck in this situations

 

[RedRocket9908]

Yep, its a foul as he stood on the goalkeepers hand

 

[Halftrack]

"Between the hands" in the laws of the game obviously has to be interpreted as both hands at least touching the ball if not holding it still. Otherwise you could just hold your hands apart in the space around the ball and create a "no touch zone" because the ball is "between the hands," which would be ridiculous.

There's also the part about "touching it with any part of the hands or arms".

At the end of the day, I think the decision is a correct one. Rogers challenged a keeper going down to collect the ball, who may or may not have been technically in control of the ball at the moment of the challenge, and stepped on his hand in the process. Part of the reason for the rules as they're currently written is to discourage challenges to the keeper as they try to collect the ball, because their job requires them to stick their heads and hands where others are kicking and treading.

 

[HackeyC]

Bingo, not sure why it is a debate.

 

[Gio]

Nah, that's not under control for me. The ball is clearly still moving, live, not in both hands, etc.

 

[Halftrack]

Nah, that's not under control for me. The ball is clearly still moving, live, not in both hands, etc.

Doesn't have to be "in both hands", only needs to be in contact with an arm or a hand (rebounds and saves not included). Besides, I think what they're trying to show with that clip is that Rogers steps on Bayindir's hand, which is a clear foul.

 

[Gio]

Doesn't have to be "in both hands", only needs to be in contact with an arm or a hand (rebounds and saves not included). Besides, I think what they're trying to show with that clip is that Rogers steps on Bayindir's hand, which is a clear foul.

The distinction about being in contact with an arm or a hand is for when the ball is under control (i.e. when it is being throwed or kicked out) not when it's rattling about in a live situation. This is effectively a rebound as he hasn't gathered it cleanly and it's gone loose.

As for the foul, the super slow motion replay isn't helpful as it distorts what happens in the reality of real-time. It's the same for many tackles or handballs, which are accepted to be fine in real time, but in super slow motion introduce all sorts of intent and micro-fouls. If I watch it at normal speed, it's really hard to find a clear foul in that passage.

 

[NotChatGPT]

The distinction about being in contact with an arm or a hand is for when the ball is under control (i.e. when it is being throwed or kicked out) not when it's rattling about in a live situation. This is effectively a rebound as he hasn't gathered it cleanly and it's gone loose.

As for the foul, the super slow motion replay isn't helpful as it distorts what happens in the reality of real-time. It's the same for many tackles or handballs, which are accepted to be fine in real time, but in super slow motion introduce all sorts of intent and micro-fouls. If I watch it at normal speed, it's really hard to find a clear foul in that passage.

How so? The rule itself is about creating a definition of when the goalkeeper has the ball under control. Calling it a distinction for contact when the ball is under control is a bit of an odd statement. The purpose is to define when it’s fair game to challenge for the ball and when it’s not. Take Schmeichel in Leicesters match against Villa, where the only difference is that he just manages to put his hand on top of the ball, rather on the side. People were surprised, as the general view is that it’s extremely soft and fair to challenge, but the rules themselves are quite clear.

In Bayindir’s case it’s not effectively a rebound. The ball is in play, he gets his hand on it just before Rogers pokes it, but as long as his hand is on it he’s by definition in control of the ball

 

[Abizzz]

How so? The rule itself is about creating a definition of when the goalkeeper has the ball under control. Calling it a distinction for contact when the ball is under control is a bit of an odd statement. The purpose is to define when it’s fair game to challenge for the ball and when it’s not. Take Schmeichel in Leicesters match against Villa, where the only difference is that he just manages to put his hand on top of the ball, rather on the side. People were surprised, as the general view is that it’s extremely soft and fair to challenge, but the rules themselves are quite clear.

In Bayindir’s case it’s not effectively a rebound. The ball is in play, he gets his hand on it just before Rogers pokes it, but as long as his hand is on it he’s by definition in control of the ball

But pinning the ball to the ground with one hand has always been "under control". At least for the 30 years I've watched.


When did that change to "somehow touch it"?

 

[caid]

But pinning the ball to the ground with one hand has always been "under control". At least for the 30 years I've watched.


When did that change to "somehow touch it"?

I've been watching as long. Thought you had to have 2 hands on the ball 30 years ago. I think they've been picking at that rule for a while. I think the Cech head injury against Reading was a bit of a turning point. Honestly i wouldn't be surprised if Nani scoring a couple of goals like this one was another point where they messed around with the rules.
Theres probably dozens of examples of our players giving away free kicks trying to do the same.

 

[LDUred]

Claiming that treading on a keeper's hand is not a foul is laughable really. Getting the ball does not mean you can't foul someone in the follow through.

The different angles that have been released thoroughly vindicate Bramall's call.

Nothing like a poor old Villa/biased ref sob-story though, which covers up Emery's bottle job.

 

[NotChatGPT]

But pinning the ball to the ground with one hand has always been "under control". At least for the 30 years I've watched.


When did that change to "somehow touch it"?

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).

Now, obviously you’re more in control if your holding the ball between your hand(s) and body, or forcing it down to the ground. But level of control isn’t really a part of the rules, they just define what should be interpreted as control and thus illegal to challenge the goalkeeper for the ball.

I can only imagine that their reasoning is that in general they want to protect the goalkeepers from being challenged due to increased risk of injury.

Imo: Referee shouldn't have blown the whistle, he should've let play continue for a few more seconds so that the ball crosses the line and then he should've signalled for a freekick to United, then simply explain to VAR that he interpreted it as an illegal challenge on the goalkeeper. The clips clearly show that Bayindir gets his hand on the side of the ball before Rogers gets a touch, he also steps on Bayindirs left hand after the touch. Considering the rules and stepping on Bayindirs hand, i don't think there's much room for VAR to recommend reviewing it as i can't imagine it's anywhere near the threshold for clear and obvious.

That's my interpretation according to how the rules are written, overprotective or not.

I also think it's fairly silly of Aston Villa to have a go like that in public. They could've left it at complaining about his decision to blow the whistle early rather than letting play go on, but it's not like with the offside flag where they are instructed to do so in marginal situations. Going after the referee in public and complaining about his experience at this level can't be tolerated, just keep it behind closed doors.

 

[Abizzz]

Now, obviously you’re more in control if your holding the ball between your hand(s) and body, or forcing it down to the ground. But level of control isn’t really a part of the rules, they just define what should be interpreted as control and thus illegal to challenge the goalkeeper for the ball.

I can only imagine that their reasoning is that in general they want to protect the goalkeepers from being challenged due to increased risk of injury.

Imo: Referee shouldn't have blown the whistle, he should've let play continue for a few more seconds so that the ball crosses the line and then he should've signalled for a freekick to United, then simply explain to VAR that he interpreted it as an illegal challenge on the goalkeeper. The clips clearly show that Bayindir gets his hand on the side of the ball before Rogers gets a touch, he also steps on Bayindirs left hand after the touch. Considering the rules and stepping on Bayindirs hand, i don't think there's much room for VAR to recommend reviewing it as i can't imagine it's anywhere near the threshold for clear and obvious.

That's my interpretation according to how the rules are written, overprotective or not.

I also think it's fairly silly of Aston Villa to have a go like that in public. They could've left it at complaining about his decision to blow the whistle early rather than letting play go on, but it's not like with the offside flag where they are instructed to do so in marginal situations. Going after the referee in public and complaining about his experience at this level can't be tolerated, just keep it behind closed doors.

Ah quotes in quotes go missing. This " except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save" is surely the case though in that clip? In my opinion he isn't holding it and if he isn't but he touches it it must surely be bouncing?

The stepping on the hand is another matter. Ruling it out for dangerous play or something along those lines would make more sense but then it would need to be applied to all keepers all the time, and that hasn't ever been the case.


I really don't care that much, other than that I don't want to see that ref again. We all know who will be on the losing side of his next feck up once he officiates another one of our games, even if it's just to show he's not on our side.


(Tbh I disliked him from the moment he booked Amad. No way he does that to Salah or Haaland when they ask for a card)

 

[SilentWitness]

It's daft that VAR can't intervene on that.

 

[ManRant]

Some here said the ball was 'not under control,' so it's ok to foul the goalkeeper is laughable.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

How so? The rule itself is about creating a definition of when the goalkeeper has the ball under control. Calling it a distinction for contact when the ball is under control is a bit of an odd statement. The purpose is to define when it’s fair game to challenge for the ball and when it’s not. Take Schmeichel in Leicesters match against Villa, where the only difference is that he just manages to put his hand on top of the ball, rather on the side. People were surprised, as the general view is that it’s extremely soft and fair to challenge, but the rules themselves are quite clear.

In Bayindir’s case it’s not effectively a rebound. The ball is in play, he gets his hand on it just before Rogers pokes it, but as long as his hand is on it he’s by definition in control of the ball

Because there’s two distinct scenarios when a keeper has control. When he’s holding the ball with two hands (between two hands) or has used one hand to trap it between that hand and his body or the ground. The second scenario is after the keeper has first controlled the ball when the law deems him to still be in control even if it’s only touching one hand/arm, and nothing else, when he’s getting ready to throw/kick the ball out.

 

[Pexbo]

Because there’s two distinct scenarios when a keeper has control. When he’s holding the ball with two hands (between two hands) or has used one hand to trap it between that hand and his body or the ground. The second scenario is after the keeper has first controlled the ball when the law deems him to still be in control even if it’s only touching one hand/arm, and nothing else, when he’s getting ready to throw/kick the ball out.

You’re getting caught up in VAR forensics now.

Since the beginning of time, it’s been called a foul if the ref felt you poked the ball out of the keepers hands. The degree of control was never a consideration, just “can’t do that mate” and everyone accepted it and moved on.


Ref clearly blew for that reason with this incident and I think it’s a bit of a new scenario because I can’t remember a single time that VAR have reviewed whether a player has challenged for a ball that was “in the keepers control”. With VAR it sounds like we’re going from more of a heuristic “come on mate, keeper had that” to more of a forensic “was both hands touching the ball or was one hand touching the ball when the ball was in contact with the floor?”.

As I said at the time, I think VAR would actually have gone for the more heuristic approach and gone with the onfield decision and decided ref was right, you can’t challenge a keeper who is mid collecting the ball.


Or they would have seen him step on his hand and call it a foul for that. Either way the storm has occurred in the vacuum.