VAR Discussion thread

Agent Coulson

tanko wrote: »

No, i don't have it in for VAR, i think it it is a great idea if used properly and applied consistently. I don't see how asking a question is bitching and moaning.
As for the "slight infringement", does it make a difference how far inside the penalty area a player encroaches whether or not the kick is taken again??
I notice your graphic doesn't show the players the far side of the area, at least two of them were inside the penalty area when the kick was taken iirc.

One Sheff Utd player encroached in that picture before the ball was struck so by the laws of the game it should have been retaken as it was missed. VAR got it wrong simple as that.

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_14_the_penalty_kick_en_47369.pdf

j8wk2feszrnpao

tanko wrote: »

No, i don't have it in for VAR, i think it it is a great idea if used properly and applied consistently. I don't see how asking a question is bitching and moaning.
As for the "slight infringement", does it make a difference how far inside the penalty area a player encroaches whether or not the kick is taken again??
I notice your graphic doesn't show the players the far side of the area, at least two of them were inside the penalty area when the kick was taken iirc.

Wasn’t suggesting you have it in for VAR, was using the collective “you”.

There are some who ignore that VAR got the decision right after the officials didn’t, but still bitch about VAR. They have it in for VAR before it came in, even when it’s brilliantly used as per the Chelsea v Bournemouth game. Imagine the controversy if Bournemouth had only drawn for their survival prospects.

The laws state no encroachment. But unless people want VAR to police it like the offside lines; then there must be some acceptance that they won’t get involved in everything. The only view that the highlight showed was the near side, and No7, who hooked the rebound away, didn’t encroach. If people want precision like enforcement, then you need VAR and time to check it.

VAR has a lot to improve on. No doubt about that. But ~4 months in, its got a lot of decisions right. And I said it before, with VAR in place we are seeing less pulling/dragging at free kicks and corners, and less blatant no contact dives in the box. Hidden benefits of VAR.

Ashbourne hoop

DeGea was crap for the Everton goal yesterday, but it was a clear foul on him. If VAR doesn't over turn that what's the point of it ?

j8wk2feszrnpao

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

DeGea was crap for the Everton goal yesterday, but it was a clear foul on him.

Not everyone agrees that it was a foul. The ref didn't. Plenty of others didn't.

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

If VAR doesn't over turn that what's the point of it ?

Did you see the Chelsea v Bournemouth game?

j8wk2feszrnpao

Corholio wrote: »

Hadn't even seen that pic of the penalty kick and the players encroaching. Sheff Utd completely deserved to win but they have to get these things right. There's no such thing as a 'slight infringement', it either is or it isn't. Giving it once or twice and not giving it other times, especially when they have a chance to view it multiple times, is not getting it right.

Quick Google search.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297433

The VAR can intervene in one of the following instances:

- A clear and obvious error by the on-field match officials relating to goalkeeper movement
- A double touch by the penalty-taker
- Feigning at the point of the kick by the taker
- Encroachment by players that has a direct impact on the outcome of the kick

So, No7 didn't encroach and cleared the ball after it hit the crossbar. No retake. So not a VAR issue at all. It was actually an on field ref issue.

But my guess is that you'll still have some irrational people who'll just throw their toys out of the pram anyway cause they their mind was set before VAR come into existence.

osarusan

munstermagic11 wrote: »

But my guess is that you'll still have some irrational people who'll just throw their toys out of the pram anyway cause they their mind was set before VAR come into existence.

I think some of it comes from people either not knowing what the laws of the game are, and/or not knowing what VAR can and cannot do.

Definitely, some of my WTF moments about VAR have come from me not knowing those things in the first place.

CSF

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

DeGea was crap for the Everton goal yesterday, but it was a clear foul on him. If VAR doesn't over turn that what's the point of it ?

I’d have given a free out in real time, but I dunno if I’d go as far as to call it a clear and obvious error either.

The referee on the field was merely inconsistent in the standard approach of giving soft frees out for anything on the keeper.

Ashbourne hoop

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Not everyone agrees that it was a foul. The ref didn't. Plenty of others didn't.


Did you see the Chelsea v Bournemouth game?

It was a clear foul, not completely obvious at first but on VAR it was very obvious and I was surprised it wasn't given, as were many others. DeGea still should have done a lot better though. Haven't seen the Chelsea game yet.
.

Ashbourne hoop

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Not everyone agrees that it was a foul. The ref didn't. Plenty of others didn't.

Did you see the Chelsea v Bournemouth game?

CSF wrote: »

I’d have given a free out in real time, but I dunno if I’d go as far as to call it a clear and obvious error either.

The referee on the field was merely inconsistent in the standard approach of giving soft frees out for anything on the keeper.

I thought initially it was just a poor error by DeGea, which it was. But the VAR replays showed a clear foul on him.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

It was a clear foul, not completely obvious at first but on VAR it was very obvious and I was surprised it wasn't given, as were many others. DeGea still should have done a lot better though.

And many others have said it wasn't a foul. They've set a bar for VAR that's probably too high. But, if the ref went over to the screen to review, there's a good chance that he may not have changed his mind. I thought the keeper was extremely weak rather than a clear foul.

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Haven't seen the Chelsea game yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr8rveOhCK0
This is where VAR excels. There's no interpretation. 99% of the time it's black or white. When it's a human judgement call, there's a chance there will always be a disagreement. VAR will never change that.

dfx-

munstermagic11 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr8rveOhCK0
This is where VAR excels. There's no interpretation. 99% of the time it's black or white. When it's a human judgement call, there's a chance there will always be a disagreement. VAR will never change that.

The difficulty here is when the whistle was blown, it was definitely blown before it went in which should not give VAR the opportunity to intervene surely...

j8wk2feszrnpao

dfx- wrote: »

The difficulty here is when the whistle was blown, it was definitely blown before it went in which should not give VAR the opportunity to intervene surely...

It was blown after it went it. Ref's arms are down by his side when it went in. Then he blew for offside when alerted by the linesman.

Weepsie

Agent Coulson wrote: »

One Sheff Utd player encroached in that picture before the ball was struck so by the laws of the game it should have been retaken as it was missed. VAR got it wrong simple as that.

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_14_the_penalty_kick_en_47369.pdf

There was at least 1 villa player encroaching too. IF both teams are at it as is normally the case, and they were, I don't see how it can be given either way.

CSF

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

I thought initially it was just a poor error by DeGea, which it was. But the VAR replays showed a clear foul on him.

I wouldn’t go as far as clear foul myself. It was one of those ones that are more often given and I find myself ranting about how the goalkeeper gets too much protection.

Definitely an inconsistent refereeing decision but I wouldn’t go as far as a clear error.

ArmaniJeanss

Weepsie wrote: »

There was at least 1 villa player encroaching too. IF both teams are at it as is normally the case, and they were, I don't see how it can be given either way.

It's literally a rule of the game that if both sides encroach then the kick is retaken regardless of outcome, so its just a case of whether the VAR people wish to apply that rule or not.

Weepsie

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It's literally a rule of the game that if both sides encroach then the kick is retaken regardless of outcome, so its just a case of whether the VAR people wish to apply that rule or not.

So it is. IT's worded a bit differently in the updated laws and a little less clear. Both teams encroaching shouldn't change the outcome of the penalty to be honest.

PhlegmyMoses

CSF wrote: »

I wouldn’t go as far as clear foul myself. It was one of those ones that are more often given and I find myself ranting about how the goalkeeper gets too much protection.

Definitely an inconsistent refereeing decision but I wouldn’t go as far as a clear error.

They said on Sky at the time that the ref didnt give it because the contact was seen as falling in with normal levels of contact. That just is not correct, even if you feel that keepers get too much protection. He also came down hard on in air contact for the rest of the game. Was a bad decision. Doesnt change DDG being weak as a kitten, but should have been given.

Ashbourne hoop

CSF wrote: »

I wouldn’t go as far as clear foul myself. It was one of those ones that are more often given and I find myself ranting about how the goalkeeper gets too much protection.

Definitely an inconsistent refereeing decision but I wouldn’t go as far as a clear error.

It's a cliché, but I've seen them given for less.

CSF

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

They said on Sky at the time that the ref didnt give it because the contact was seen as falling in with normal levels of contact. That just is not correct, even if you feel that keepers get too much protection. He also came down hard on in air contact for the rest of the game. Was a bad decision. Doesnt change DDG being weak as a kitten, but should have been given.

Would agree in real time. Don’t think meets any kind of moderate to high bar in terms of what gets reversed either though.

I don’t think it stayed in line with normal levels of contact but VAR reviews are generally for ones that exceed it by a bit.

My expectation is that the decision usually gets given and the internet moans instead about how goalkeepers are far too protected.

smelly sock

Shocking VAR hasnt penalised Billing for raising his hand and arm and striking opponent
Joke shop stuff.

klose

Another whopper of a decision in the club world cup final there

8-10

klose wrote: »

Another whopper of a decision in the club world cup final there

Took 4mins

Extra 3mins added on because of it

VAR maths

windy shepard henderson

klose wrote: »

Another whopper of a decision in the club world cup final there

excellent call , imagine the nonsense you would have to listen to if liverpool won the world club cup on a dodgy penalty call :rolleyes:

TitianGerm

klose wrote: »

Another whopper of a decision in the club world cup final there

VAR said foup but for the ref to decide if the contact happened just inside or just outside the box. Ref decides no pen or free

windy shepard henderson

TitianGerm wrote: »

VAR said foup but for the ref to decide if the contact happened just inside or just outside the box. Ref decides no pen or free

because there was no contact made , probably should have been a goal kick

Diggy78

TitianGerm wrote: »

VAR said foup but for the ref to decide if the contact happened just inside or just outside the box. Ref decides no pen or free

Yea, as soon as we saw the replay we're all thinking, "fair enough it's outside", but was fully expecting yellow upgraded to red.

ArmaniJeanss

I think it is still regarded as a foul, but VAR can't ever give a free-kick. So it has to be a drop-ball.

alchemist33

There was clear contact which put Mane off (and I'm a Man Utd fan), but it was outsidenthe box

Diggy78

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

because there was no contact made , probably should have been a goal kick

Shows pretty clear contact and clear foul from angle behind the goal

windy shepard henderson

Diggy78 wrote: »

Yea, as soon as we saw the replay we're all thinking, "fair enough it's outside", but was fully expecting yellow upgraded to red.

a yellow upgraded to a red . for what , there was no contact made

dfx-

going to the screen helped...

Diggy78

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

a yellow upgraded to a red . for what , there was no contact made

There was. You mustn't have seen angle from behind goal.

jacool

dfx- wrote: »

going to the screen helped...

Imagine if he had looked at more than just the one angle 🀔

smelly sock

VAR should have upgraded Salahs yellow to red.

osarusan

There was a slow-motion close-up shot from behind the goal that showed the defender's boot clipping Mane's boot just a fraction before Mane's foot made contact with the ball - caused him to shank it away to the right.

But the referee never got the replay from that angle, instead he got some really low resolution footage (the main camera footage, just zoomed in?) which was just all blurred and didn't show anything.

Seems to have been real miscommunication between the VAR and the on-field ref too, given the VAR on-screen outcome and his different outcome.

As somebody said, I expected him to say no penalty, a free on the edge of the area, and probably an upgrade from yellow to red card.

8-10

It's mental. Through on goal and you take a shot but get clipped from behind while taking it and it goes wide and the game restarts with a drop ball to the opposition.

Stop with VAR. Get rid of it. This is a nonsense way of playing football. Why is that a drop ball of all outcomes?

smelly sock

8-10 wrote: »

It's mental. Through on goal and you take a shot but get clipped from behind while taking it and it goes wide and the game restarts with a drop ball to the opposition.

Stop with VAR. Get rid of it. This is a nonsense way of playing football. Why is that a drop ball of all outcomes?

Zero contact made. Never a foul.

Osmosis Jones

Here's the contact by the way, Rafinha's left foot on the underside of Mane's right before he hits the ball:

windy shepard henderson

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Here's the contact by the way, Rafinha's left foot on the underside of Mane's right before he hits the ball:

i see it now but i really had to squint the eyes to see it , in a pressure situation i would not blame the ref , somebody said this was a red card or upgraded to one

if this was upgraded to a red i would give up on the game , marginal clip infairness

i still back VAR because if this had been awarded as a penalty there would be an outcry afterwards

i do believe they really need to tidy it up though their needs to be better communication between studio officials and on field officials

i watch a lot of nfl (watching now ironically ) which is where idea of VAR has come form , what they dont tell people in soccer is they get it wrong in the nfl maybe 5 % of the time also sometimes in huge games like last years NFC Championship game

VAR is an excellent concept but just needs to be run better , at least justice was partially done in this case

smelly sock

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Here's the contact by the way, Rafinha's left foot on the underside of Mane's right before he hits the ball:

Really inconclusive. Was there contact? Ref cant be sure and either can we.

j8wk2feszrnpao

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

if this was upgraded to a red i would give up on the game , marginal clip infairness

He stopped a clear goal scoring opportunity.

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES
denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

j8wk2feszrnpao

smelly sock wrote: »

Really inconclusive. Was there contact? Ref cant be sure and either can we.

There was contact. And I'm sure cause it's plain to see.

Osmosis Jones

smelly sock wrote: »

Really inconclusive. Was there contact? Ref cant be sure and either can we.

Ref called a foul on the pitch, the decision can only be overturned if the evidence is clear and obvious, if the replay is inconclusive then shouldn't the original call stand?

windy shepard henderson

munstermagic11 wrote: »

He stopped a clear goal scoring opportunity.

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES
denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

id say the wind of his studs caught him at most , the most minimal of contacts i have ever seen ( i am a liverpool supporter )

glad var did its job and overturned the penalty however if we start giving red cards for this then its time to give up:rolleyes:

monkey9

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

id say the wind of his studs caught him at most , the most minimal of contacts i have ever seen ( i am a liverpool supporter )

glad var did its job and overturned the penalty however if we start giving red cards for this then its time to give up:rolleyes:

Why? Nobody is saying it should be a red for the force of the challenge or anything. It's a red because a free should have been awarded and therefore denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity. It's fairly straightforward.

smelly sock

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Ref called a foul on the pitch, the decision can only be overturned if the evidence is clear and obvious, if the replay is inconclusive then shouldn't the original call stand?

No if hes not sure he cant give it.

TitianGerm

smelly sock wrote: »

No if hes not sure he cant give it.

He was sure, he gave the penalty. The penalty and the yellow are the correct decision in the moment. VAR then check and tell him he may be wrong on the penalty as contact may have happened outside the box.

Ref is asked to look at the incident again and decide if it's a pen or a free.

A free is the correct decision looking at the replays. There is contact.

8-10

smelly sock wrote: »

Zero contact made. Never a foul.

Then why isn’t it a goal kick? Shot went wide

osarusan

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Here's the contact by the way, Rafinha's left foot on the underside of Mane's right before he hits the ball:

If what we see is what the ref sees while looking at the VAR pitchside screen, then he never saw this angle, just some blurred footage from a different angle.


The point about him needing evidence that the original decision was clearly and obviously wrong is important, as the footage he did see on the VAR screen was pretty inconclusive either way in terms of contact, but was pretty conclusive about the incident happening outside the box.

I would love to hear the interaction between the ref and the VAR room.

windy shepard henderson

monkey9 wrote: »

Why? Nobody is saying it should be a red for the force of the challenge or anything. It's a red because a free should have been awarded and therefore denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity. It's fairly straightforward.

Why, because the game will end up being a non contact sport, its gone bad enough as it is