VAR Discussion thread

citytillidie

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

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

Red card for stopping a goal scoring chance and not making an attempt to play the ball

citytillidie

smelly sock wrote: »

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

Why did the defenders shin guard move if there was no contact?

windy shepard henderson

citytillidie wrote: »

Red card for stopping a goal scoring chance and not making an attempt to play the ball

this is why you hear the word common sense used in decision making , if refs give a red card tackles like this then no one will watch it

the art of tackling is dead in the game at the moment because of stupid decisions like giving red and yellow cards for these type of tackles , roy keane must be delighted he is not playing now

CSF

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

this is why you hear the word common sense used in decision making , if refs give a red card tackles like this then no one will watch it

the art of tackling is dead in the game at the moment because of stupid decisions like giving red and yellow cards for these type of tackles , roy keane must be delighted he is not playing now

Unless I’m missing something, you really don’t seem to be grasping it.

For denying clear goalscoring opportunities it doesn’t matter if it’s a little trip or a karate chop. They’re red cards every time if applied correctly.

windy shepard henderson

CSF wrote: »

Unless I’m missing something, you really don’t seem to be grasping it.

For denying clear goalscoring opportunities it doesn’t matter if it’s a little trip or a karate chop. They’re red cards every time if applied correctly.

this is not a karate chop , this is bare contact , its supposed to be a contact sport , it took most people several looks before any contact could be seen , so what is there to grasp only common sense , you cant give a red card for it its ridiculous if you do

if a red card was given for this there would have been an outcry and rightly so ,

monkey9

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

this is not a karate chop , this is bare contact , its supposed to be a contact sport , it took most people several looks before any contact could be seen , so what is there to grasp only common sense , you cant give a red card for it its ridiculous if you do

if a red card was given for this there would have been an outcry and rightly so ,

You really don't seem to be grasping this. Mane has hit that ball miles wide because Rafinha has flung himself towards Mane, got nowhere near the ball and made contact with Mane's shooting foot. That should be a free kick. And once that free kick is awarded, that is therefore by the very definition of the law, a red card as Rafinha has illegally denied Mane a clear goalscoring opportunity.

I'm really not understanding why you're taking a 'the game is gone stance' or bringing Roy Keane into it.

windy shepard henderson

monkey9 wrote: »

You really don't seem to be grasping this. Mane has hit that ball miles wide because Rafinha has flung himself towards Mane, got nowhere near the ball and made contact with Mane's shooting foot. That should be a free kick. And once that free kick is awarded, that is therefore by the very definition of the law, a red card as Rafinha has illegally denied Mane a clear goalscoring opportunity.

I'm really not understanding why you're taking a 'the game is gone stance' or bringing Roy Keane into it.

what dont you grasp , if your teams centre half was sent off and missed 3 games for a challenge like this you would be happy with the decision ....of course not ,,

the fact is this is not red card worthy and anyone that cant grasp this is clueless...

monkey9

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

what dont you grasp , if your teams centre half was sent off and missed 3 games for a challenge like this you would be happy with the decision ....of course not ,,

the fact is this is not red card worthy and anyone that cant grasp this is clueless...

He wouldn't miss three games, it's not violent conduct. He'd have been red carded for the clear denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

windy shepard henderson

monkey9 wrote: »

He wouldn't miss three games, it's not violent conduct. He'd have been red carded for the clear denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

you would still be happy with one so i take it :rolleyes:

monkey9

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

you would still be happy with one so i take it :rolleyes:

Well that's the punishment for a red card. It's not me making up these laws.

windy shepard henderson

monkey9 wrote: »

Well that's the punishment for a red card. It's not me making up these laws.

thats why referees are encouraged to use the term common sense , if you go by the letter of the law in every foul then there would be no game , teams would end up 8 a side and there would be about 200 free kicks given in each game

as a liverpool fan i would have been disgusted with a red card for this , VAR did its job and proved it wasn't a penalty move on is my take on this and thats what the ref did
the fact that two days later people are crying for a red card is almost laughable at this stage

monkey9

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

thats why referees are encouraged to use the term common sense , if you go by the letter of the law in every foul then there would be no game , teams would end up 8 a side and there would be about 200 free kicks given in each game

as a liverpool fan i would have been disgusted with a red card for this , VAR did its job and proved it wasn't a penalty move on is my take on this and thats what the ref did
the fact that two days later people are crying for a red card is almost laughable at this stage

Ok look, i'm going to explain this one more time because you genuinely don't seem to understand what's happened in this scenario and i'm also aware how condescending this sounds, but what can i do?

The referee blew for a penalty. The VAR lads advised him to check for himself whether it was inside or outside the box.

Now, he seems to have become confused and awarded a goal kick.

But the point i am making to you is that if he had awarded a free kick instead of a penalty, (and the penalty should clearly have been awarded) he'd have no choice but to send the Flamengo defender off.

It's not a case of 'Old School' or 'In My Day' etc etc.

The denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity is a red card and that's what the referee would have shown had he decided it was a free kick for Liverpool.

windy shepard henderson

monkey9 wrote: »

Ok look, i'm going to explain this one more time because you genuinely don't seem to understand what's happened in this scenario and i'm also aware how condescending this sounds, but what can i do?

The referee blew for a penalty. The VAR lads advised him to check for himself whether it was inside or outside the box.

Now, he seems to have become confused and awarded a goal kick.

But the point i am making to you is that if he had awarded a free kick instead of a penalty, (and the penalty should clearly have been awarded) he'd have no choice but to send the Flamengo defender off.

It's not a case of 'Old School' or 'In My Day' etc etc.

The denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity is a red card and that's what the referee would have shown had he decided it was a free kick for Liverpool.

so what you are saying is you want every letter of the law foul penalized regardless how soft dealt with , in a normal 90 min game that means about 200 fouls and several red cards

yes of course lets ignore common sense like the ref on saturday night and live in the world of magical make believe :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

the reason you are having so much trouble understanding my posts is you dont understand the way the game is run , its not down to the letter of the law on every foul the referees are encouraged to allow commonsense in each play, this is exactly what was done on this situation

what are you having difficulty with , its incredible the lack of knowledge of the game on here its embarrassing at this stage :eek:

windy shepard henderson

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

so what you are saying is you want every letter of the law foul penalized regardless how soft dealt with , in a normal 90 min game that means about 200 fouls and several red cards

yes of course lets ignore common sense like the ref on saturday night and live in the world of magical make believe :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

the reason you are having so much trouble understanding my posts is you dont understand the way the game is run , its not down to the letter of the law on every foul the referees are encouraged to allow commonsense in each play, this is exactly what was done on this situation

what are you having difficulty with , its incredible the lack of knowledge of the game on here its embarrassing at this stage :eek:

Have you only started watching soccer in the last few weeks ?

Some posters at pains to be very kind to try and educate you but you’re being quite rude.

Everything you’ve been told in the last few posts is 100% correct.

Whatever is going on in your head is not correct.

Try and take the time to read, and properly understand, the information those nice posters are spoon feeding you.

It’s one thing to be rude but it’s another thing to be ignorant.

j8wk2feszrnpao

monkey9 wrote: »

Well that's the punishment for a red card. It's not me making up these laws.

At least you know the laws. So many make arguments without a clue of what the laws of the game are.

osarusan

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

what are you having difficulty with , its incredible the lack of knowledge of the game on here its embarrassing at this stage :eek:

Jaysus, the state of your posts!

Hopefully you were just langered.

machiavellianme

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

you would still be happy with one so i take it :rolleyes:

The exact same offence saw Alisson Becker sent off a couple of weeks ago. He handled the ball outside the box (not a red card) but denied a clear goal scoring opportunity by doing so (a red card). It's not rocket science.

ctrl-alt-delete

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

this is not a karate chop , this is bare contact , its supposed to be a contact sport , it took most people several looks before any contact could be seen , so what is there to grasp only common sense , you cant give a red card for it its ridiculous if you do

if a red card was given for this there would have been an outcry and rightly so ,

It shouldn't have taken most people several looks. If people are looking at decent footage the contact is clear and obvious.

It was also a clear and obvious denial of a goalscoring opportunity.

The footage the ref was watching to judge whether it was inside or out should not have been used to judge it being a foul - and you'd have hoped the VAR team would have told him that.

As for the red card, I don't know if they still roll out the not a red if it is a penalty - as it is seen as a double punishment.

citytillidie

I will just leave this here for some.

Sending-off offences
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the
following seven offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match
A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the
vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

https://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/FootballDevelopment/Refereeing/02/36/01/11/LawsofthegamewebEN_Neutral.pdf

windy shepard henderson

so the term common sense means nothing then ?? don't worry lads i know the rules of the game , if a bare touch like that got a liverpool defender sent off i would be fuming over it , as would many more !

all i will say is from post 1 is i agree with the referee's decision to not send off the player , VAR was right to over turn the penalty call

windy shepard henderson

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you only started watching soccer in the last few weeks ?

Some posters at pains to be very kind to try and educate you but you’re being quite rude.

Everything you’ve been told in the last few posts is 100% correct.

Whatever is going on in your head is not correct.

Try and take the time to read, and properly understand, the information those nice posters are spoon feeding you.

It’s one thing to be rude but it’s another thing to be ignorant.

rude and ignorant ? i asked several questions in my posts only to be ignored and called clueless , to be fair i was only agreeing with a decision made by a referee

i still have got no answers back to several questions asked to posters but thats perfectly fine apparently

if i was mod on this thread you would be sailing very close to the wind as far as infractions are concerned here

CSF

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

rude and ignorant ? i asked several questions in my posts only to be ignored and called clueless , to be fair i was only agreeing with a decision made by a referee

i still have got no answers back to several questions asked to posters but thats perfectly fine apparently

if i was mod on this thread you would be sailing very close to the wind as far as infractions are concerned here

Are you a mod on this thread though?

windy shepard henderson

CSF wrote: »

Are you a mod on this thread though?

did i say i was , obviously not but its a reportable post for sure which i wont do, it would be no harm for one or two on here to go back and look at the forum charter to be fair

ctrl-alt-delete

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

if i was mod on this thread you would be sailing very close to the wind as far as infractions are concerned here

VAR is checking posts....

Decision - no cards.

windy shepard henderson

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

VAR is checking posts....

Decision - no cards.

i wouldn't hold my breath ....:rolleyes:

windy shepard henderson

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

rude and ignorant ? i asked several questions in my posts only to be ignored and called clueless , to be fair i was only agreeing with a decision made by a referee

i still have got no answers back to several questions asked to posters but thats perfectly fine apparently

if i was mod on this thread you would be sailing very close to the wind as far as infractions are concerned here

Some attitude on you to be fair.

Where are you a mod so I can avoid like a dose ?

windy shepard henderson

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

rude and ignorant ? i asked several questions in my posts only to be ignored and called clueless , to be fair i was only agreeing with a decision made by a referee

i still have got no answers back to several questions asked to posters but thats perfectly fine apparently

if i was mod on this thread you would be sailing very close to the wind as far as infractions are concerned here

Some attitude on you to be fair.

Where are you a mod so I can avoid like a dose ?

windy shepard henderson

Deleted User wrote: »

Some attitude on you to be fair.

Where are you a mod so I can avoid like a dose ?

it actually says it beside my user name , avoid away

monkey9

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

so the term common sense means nothing then ?? don't worry lads i know the rules of the game , if a bare touch like that got a liverpool defender sent off i would be fuming over it , as would many more !

all i will say is from post 1 is i agree with the referee's decision to not send off the player , VAR was right to over turn the penalty call

If the ref awarded a free kick, which it was and should have been awarded, he'd be showing a red card. It's not about common sense in this scenario.

If that tackle happens in the middle of the pitch, a foul is awarded and at most Rafinha receives a yellow. But as Mane is through one on one with the goalkeeper, he's pretty much going to score so therefore it'd be a red card because he's denied a clear goalscoring opportunity.

Honestly, this is like the South Park episode where Kanye West just can't grasp the punchline to the 'Fish Sticks' joke no matter how many times or ways people try to explain it to him.

windy shepard henderson

monkey9 wrote: »

If the ref awarded a free kick, which it was and should have been awarded, he'd be showing a red card. It's not about common sense in this scenario.

If that tackle happens in the middle of the pitch, a foul is awarded and at most Rafinha receives a yellow. But as Mane is through one on one with the goalkeeper, he's pretty much going to score so therefore it'd be a red card because he's denied a clear goalscoring opportunity.

Honestly, this is like the South Park episode where Kanye West just can't grasp the punchline to the 'Fish Sticks' joke no matter how many times or ways people try to explain it to him.

i think if you bothered to read my posts fully you would clearly see i get the laws of the game , as i said before i agreed with the decision , to say we are still arguing about how many years later speaks volumes :rolleyes:

i dont know how many more times i have to say it, i agreed with the call and the call on the penalty , i feel like the ref at the time, it would have been harsh to give anything else

next......!!

monkey9

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

i think if you bothered to read my posts fully you would clearly see i get the laws of the game , as i said before i agreed with the decision , to say we are still arguing about how many years later speaks volumes :rolleyes:

i dont know how many more times i have to say it, i agreed with the call and the call on the penalty , i feel like the ref at the time, it would have been harsh to give anything else

next......!!

Fair enough so. Personally, I think it was a free kick because it's clear Mane's foot was taken from him as he's about to shoot and the ref hasn't seen that footage.

My overall point towards yourself was that you seem to be taking the stance that you can't be giving red cards out for that incident HAD the ref awarded a free kick. If the ref decided it wasn't a penalty but it was a free kick, he absolutely would have sent Rafinha off. That's all i'm saying.

osarusan

Right from the start of the review, which was a freeze-frame of the contact happening about 6 inches outside the area, to the end of the review, when the 'foul outside the penalty' was announced on screen, only to be ignored by the ref, it seemed like the VAR focus was only on where the foul had occurred.

Other footage, like the angle that has been shown here, which clearly showed Rafinha's boot clipping Mane's boot and altering its trajectory (to the extent that he sliced the shot well wide), was not shown at all, which again suggests that it was not a question of whether it was a foul, just where the foul occurred.

And then the ref says there was no foul? As I said earlier, I'd love to have heard the interaction between VAR and the ref. Seems to have been some serious crossed wires.

Agent Coulson

VAR again making it up as they go along they didn't have an issue with it in this game a few weeks back but tonight they do.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Re-posting this again, cause I'm sure someone will make an idiot of themselves:

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

eigrod

Clear 2 handed push on Andy Carroll in the box - looked at, pen not given. Similar type push on Lovren that resulted in Palace goal being disallowed.

How is any contact on the foot (City yesterday, Mane v Leicester etc) looked at as a pen irrespective of the fall, yet 2 hands in the back is not enough for a pen?

j8wk2feszrnpao

eigrod wrote: »

Clear 2 handed push on Andy Carroll in the box - looked at, pen not given. Similar type push on Lovren that resulted in Palace goal being disallowed.

How is any contact on the foot (City yesterday, Mane v Leicester etc) looked at as a pen irrespective of the fall, yet 2 hands in the back is not enough for a pen?

I thought it could have been given, two handed push.
But ref didn't, and VAR bar is set high.
Seen a few people say it would have been soft, so guess not clear and obvious.

Nunu

This VAR offside lunacy is out of control. If I was a top flight ref I’d be debating to go on strike until they let them make decisions themselves by consulting the pitch side monitor...like in every other league.

This nonsense of using bloody CAD lines to look for a mm offside is utter bollix.

CSF

Nunu wrote: »

This VAR offside lunacy is out of control. If I was a top flight ref I’d be debating to go on strike until they let them make decisions themselves by consulting the pitch side monitor...like in every other league.

This nonsense of using bloody CAD lines to look for a mm offside is utter bollix.

They may well change this to a eye level check at the end of the year and I’d have no problem with it.

But this thing with people acting like they’re a better judge than the technology is a bit mad.

poppers

Nunu wrote: »

This VAR offside lunacy is out of control. If I was a top flight ref I’d be debating to go on strike until they let them make decisions themselves by consulting the pitch side monitor...like in every other league.

This nonsense of using bloody CAD lines to look for a mm offside is utter bollix.

Think the ref should go to the pitchside monitor and speak to the var officials while both looking at and let pitch ref decide as they do in rugby

Weepsie

CSF wrote: »

They may well change this to a eye level check at the end of the year and I’d have no problem with it.

But this thing with people acting like they’re a better judge than the technology is a bit mad.

The technology is bs. It's a human coming up with the lines. You can look at the same incident from 2 angles and get a different answer.

Unless the camera is directly in line with play it is not infallible.

kerplun k

They seem to be saying on Sky that the angle is collaborated and they measure it and is accurate.

It’s frustrating, Pukki looked level, but if VAR can accurately say his elbow was slightly ahead, then I guess it’s the right decision. I just wish I could see it directly from a side view with a straight line.

It’s so, so frustrating the way these decisions are made.

marklazarcovic

kerplun k wrote: »

They seem to be saying on Sky that the angle is collaborated and they measure it and is accurate.

It’s frustrating, Pukki looked level, but if VAR can accurately say his elbow was slightly ahead, then I guess it’s the right decision. I just wish I could see it directly from a side view with a straight line.

It’s so, so frustrating the way these decisions are made.

You can't score with your elbow tho ..it's a fcuk up

Nunu

CSF wrote: »

They may well change this to a eye level check at the end of the year and I’d have no problem with it.

Ye that sounds like the best solution. No one trusts these decisions especially with the camera looking in at an angle. And like you can’t get the split second a pass his hit in these stills either. Every similar offside that’s been given today alone and throughout the season should have stood in my opinion. Universally they all looked level until the dreaded right angles had their say.

TitianGerm

kerplun k wrote: »

They seem to be saying on Sky that the angle is collaborated and they measure it and is accurate.

It’s frustrating, Pukki looked level, but if VAR can accurately say his elbow was slightly ahead, then I guess it’s the right decision. I just wish I could see it directly from a side view with a straight line.

It’s so, so frustrating the way these decisions are made.

You can't score with your elbow and I thought the rule was if any part of your body that you can legally score with is in an offside position then you are off.

Nunu

They said shoulder on sky.

Harry Palmr

Given the nature of modern tech it's not hard to map movement in all dimensions for an instant replay.

They should be able to put a sequence which shows the movement and the passing action as it happened.

kerplun k

Nunu wrote: »

They said shoulder on sky.

Yep. Sorry, your right. It was his shoulder that was off.

kerplun k

marklazarcovic wrote: »

You can't score with your elbow tho ..it's a fcuk up

Sorry, meant shoulder.

Tom Mann Centuria

Just give benefit of doubt to attacking team, like the good old days. If it looks onside after a quick (maybe minute or less) review it's on, this slither of shin or toenail being off after a few minutes is tiresome.

TitianGerm

https://streamja.com/gRzJ

Here's a replay of the decision.