VAR Discussion thread

citytillidie · 30-01-2020 11:24am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I thought that was already widely accepted to not be a penalty in the city game?

People ignore the 1st hand ball from City before the ball hit Trent

.G. · 30-01-2020 11:34am

joe_99 wrote: »

VAR checked for an accidental hand ball by Firmino tonight before awarding the penalty for the foul on Origi. To me that proves that Man City couldn't get a penalty for the Trent handball earlier in the season as Silva had handled it.

It doesn't because attacking handball has different criteria to defensive hand ball which still has to be deemed as deliberate. Any attacking handball, accidental or otherwise by the player scoring or assisting is a foul.

The interesting thing last night was the VAR check on screen said it was a for the foul on Origi, it didn't say VAR check, possible handball even though it was clear from the replays that's what they were looking at.

joe_99 · 30-01-2020 2:30pm

There is a narrative still that the Trent handball should have been a penalty. When the rules that are currently being applied, as per the VAR check last night, prove it could never have been a penalty or a goal if Trent let it through to Aguero.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 30-01-2020 6:39pm

joe_99 wrote: »

There is a narrative still that the Trent handball should have been a penalty. When the rules that are currently being applied, as per the VAR check last night, prove it could never have been a penalty or a goal if Trent let it through to Aguero.

On what grounds? Or is there denial that Silva handled it? Thought this was done and dusted!

joe_99 · 30-01-2020 7:27pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

On what grounds? Or is there denial that Silva handled it? Thought this was done and dusted!

LiVARpool exists based on that incident in the main.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 30-01-2020 10:36pm

joe_99 wrote: »

LiVARpool exists based on that incident in the main.

I know that - I mean it's not as if the idea is based on anything informed or logical - but it doesn't really answer my question.

Kermit.de.frog · 31-01-2020 11:14pm

Would this have been given with VAR?

https://twitter.com/OFalafel/status/1222124323508572161

Guy:Incognito · 31-01-2020 11:21pm

Would what be given? It didnt go in.

Nothing wrong with the block of the ball from the keepers kick.

Kermit.de.frog · 31-01-2020 11:42pm

Seems a little unfair to have a dog head the ball off the line, no? Isn't this the type of travesty VAR is meant to prevent?

Guy:Incognito · 01-02-2020 1:08am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Seems a little unfair to have a dog head the ball off the line, no? Isn't this the type of travesty VAR is meant to prevent?

Unless the camera has a gun on it, what exactly would you like VAR to do?

Kermit.de.frog · 01-02-2020 5:24am

To confirm the ball was going in to the net.

Simples.

joeguevara · 01-02-2020 5:27am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

To confirm the ball was going in to the net.

Simples.

The laws of the game state that if there's outside interference, a drop ball should be awarded. That means if an object, fan or animal either prevents or scores a goal, play should be stopped.

osarusan · 01-02-2020 8:40am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

To confirm the ball was going in to the net.

Simples.

Even if this happened in a match with VAR in operation, it wouldn't have anything to do with VAR.

There isn't any situation in which a goal is awarded without it actually crossing the line.

matrim · 01-02-2020 10:08am

The play should have been stopped because of the block. You can't interfere with the keeper kicking the ball out

Guy:Incognito · 01-02-2020 10:40am

matrim wrote: »

The play should have been stopped because of the block. You can't interfere with the keeper kicking the ball out

No ,it shouldn't. the block was fine.

joeguevara · 01-02-2020 10:44am

matrim wrote: »

The play should have been stopped because of the block. You can't interfere with the keeper kicking the ball out

As per the laws in my previous post, the correct decision should have been a drop ball. I only found out that last night. Was thinking about the infamous beach ball incident goal in the Liverpool match. Should never have stood.

matrim · 01-02-2020 10:47am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No ,it shouldn't. the block was fine.

A similar block happened in a villa game a couple of weeks ago and it was called back. You can't move to block the keeper kicking it out

Guy:Incognito · 01-02-2020 10:58am

matrim wrote: »

A similar block happened in a villa game a couple of weeks ago and it was called back. You can't move to block the keeper kicking it out

Ball is released and kicked.

Doesnt really matter either way, its didnt go in cos the 2nd keeper was on his game.

01-02-2020 3:25pm

VAR up to his old tricks again!

Mushy · 01-02-2020 3:54pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

VAR up to his old tricks again!

If you mean for the end of Leicester chelsea match, then no way was it a penalty

Harry Palmr · 01-02-2020 3:58pm

For some reason I can't make a gif link show the actual gif

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BlaringDecimalGenet-mobile.mp4

Mushy · 01-02-2020 4:02pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

For some reason I can't make a gif link show the actual gif

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BlaringDecimalGenet-mobile.mp4

First time seeing that angle...more damning for sure

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-02-2020 4:03pm

Mushy wrote: »

If you mean for the end of Leicester chelsea match, then no way was it a penalty

No, he's referring to the Liverpool-Southampton game - be just got a bit over-excited and posted pre-emptively.

01-02-2020 4:33pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, he's referring to the Liverpool-Southampton game - be just got a bit over-excited and posted pre-emptively.

Spot on

Was never a peno for liverpool

Oranage2 · 01-02-2020 4:37pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Spot on

Was never a peno

Any other team the striker is booked for diving, Liverpool on the other hand nearly get the pen, I've no doubt if pool weren't clear by so much that they'd have gotten that decision

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-02-2020 4:46pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Any other team the striker is booked for diving, Liverpool on the other hand nearly get the pen, I've no doubt if pool weren't clear by so much that they'd have gotten that decision

Should be docked 30 points and two divisions! And then let Donald Trump do the checking. He seems impartial enough....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-02-2020 4:47pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Spot on

Was never a peno for liverpool

Again: wait until you see it before you post about it!

Harry Palmr · 01-02-2020 4:49pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Any other team the striker is booked for diving, Liverpool on the other hand nearly get the pen, I've no doubt if pool weren't clear by so much that they'd have gotten that decision

In what way did they nearly get one? Either you do or you don't. They didn't - correctly.

Oranage2 · 01-02-2020 4:54pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

In what way did they nearly get one? Either you do or you don't. They didn't - correctly.

Not everything is binary son, if you miss the bus by 10 seconds and you miss the bus by 30 minutes both are the same outcome but of them you nearly got

joeguevara · 01-02-2020 4:55pm

Mushy wrote: »

First time seeing that angle...more damning for sure

There is no doubt it hit his hand but he didn’t make his body unnaturally larger and the handball wasn’t over shoulder height. I think the decision was spot on. If I was a Leicester supporter and watching it real time I would be screaming for a penalty but afterwards would see that based on the Law it wasn’t.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-02-2020 4:56pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

In what way did they nearly get one? Either you do or you don't. They didn't - correctly.

It's Liverpool. Again, it's not like people are making logical impartial observations. You know as well as I do, they see the word 'VAR' in the report and immediately hit the post button and vent about how well Liverpool are and how rigged things are.

The's the football equivalent of SJW/woke people being triggered by the word 'racism'.

01-02-2020 4:57pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's Liverpool. Again, it's not like people are making logical impartial observations. You know as well as I do, they see the word 'VAR' in the report and immediately hit the post button and vent about how well Liverpool are and how rigged things are.

The's the football equivalent of SJW/woke people being triggered by the word 'racism'.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-02-2020 4:57pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Not everything is binary son, if you miss the bus by 10 seconds and you miss the bus by 30 minutes both are the same outcome but of them you nearly got

In this case it is: either there was contact and not a dive, or there was no contact.

You've allegedly seen it, I haven't: was there contact, yes or no?

Harry Palmr · 01-02-2020 4:57pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Not everything is binary son, if you miss the bus by 10 seconds and you miss the bus by 30 minutes both are the same outcome but of them you nearly got

A VAR review is.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-02-2020 4:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You've been doing it for my months - nothing quick about about at all!

Now how about style actual discussion instead of hiding being memes and faking offense, t.hanks you very much?!

01-02-2020 5:01pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, he's referring to the Liverpool-Southampton game - be just got a bit over-excited and posted pre-emptively.

Like this bolox talk
Ok

Oranage2 · 01-02-2020 5:03pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In this case it is: either there was contact and not a dive, or there was no contact.

You've allegedly seen it, I haven't: was there contact, yes or no?

I saw it, minimum contact and an extravagant fall from Ferminio, should have been booked.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-02-2020 5:05pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

I saw it, minimum contact and an extravagant fall from Ferminio, should have been booked.

So, no. Not a dive then. And no yellow card. Case closed.

01-02-2020 5:05pm

Danny ings fouled
Oh dear what a mess they have made of that

.G. · 01-02-2020 5:06pm

A cavalcade of woeful opinions in here today, no surprises who from haha

Fitz* · 07-02-2020 7:24pm

FitzShane wrote: »

It cannot be changed mid-season. That would be worse than what is currently happening.

The only thing consistent with the current instance of VAR rules, specifically the offside lines, is that it is consistent for all 20 teams, for and against.

Changing it mid-season would mean for example Norwich v Spurs Pukki has a goal ruled offside marginally and they lose out on 2 points and in the reverse fixture with changed rules, hypothetically Kane scores a marginal offside goal which is ruled onside after the rule change. Only Norwich get screwed this way.

The rules have to stay the way they are this season, but hopefully next season we see a change to the offside rule and a sort of 'buffer' or margin of error introduced for the offside decisions - a 6 inch buffer or something to allow for a slight difference in time of when the ball is actually played. If you are in and around that buffer you are onside. If you are going to mms to decide whether you are in the buffer or not, then just give it offside as you already are getting the benefit of the buffer, so trying to get a 2nd advantage is too much.

The PL chiefs must be reading boards! :pac:

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/status/1225830007286751242?s=19

y0ssar1an22 · 07-02-2020 9:32pm

That's an argument I don't understand. If 10cm leeway is given, what happens if you're 10.0001 cm offside?

It's still the same fine margin.

I don't know what the solution is. Like what's the exact point when a pass is made? Don't think the cameras are at that level yet. Perspective is another thing they try to take into account with the camera angles but far from an exact science.

Maybe give them 1 view of the incident. At least that ensure the clear and obvious errors are corrected but thats far from perfect.

~Rebel~ · 07-02-2020 10:43pm

FitzShane wrote: »

The PL chiefs must be reading boards! :pac:

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/status/1225830007286751242?s=19

I'd be ok with that... there were comments before that doing it this way will just mean the same arguments occur, just a few cm's further forward, but I don't think that's the case. The current one is so irritating because the rules say "level" is fine, whilst also using a system whereby level is not a thing anymore. If someone is ruled a cm offside at 11cm, i don't think the same anger will be there as there is currently with someone 1cm off, because they're tangibly not going to be level.

It effectively amounts to the VAR line for the defender just being thicker than for the attacker, spanning 1/3rd of a foot beyond their last point. It's not ideal, and it's still weird and messy, but its a touch better than the present rule at last.

Harry Palmr · 07-02-2020 10:50pm

Clear and obvious - whatever happened to it?

NewRed2 · 07-02-2020 11:01pm

The margin now being 10cm or whatever it is wont change anything. Now he's 10.1cm off by his armpit, so whats different?
Same crap still pops up.

Ah it's a total balls of a system. Anyway, offsides weren't even the half of it, so they're focusing on one tiny element of the problem.

VAR has had a majorly negative impact on football, that's the bottom line. So just remove it and let the ref have the monitor pitch-side and tell him to use it if he needs to for major events and just get on with it other than that.
Football without being able to celebrate goals is half the sport it used to be.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-02-2020 10:24am

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

That's an argument I don't understand. If 10cm leeway is given, what happens if you're 10.0001 cm offside?

It's still the same fine margin.

I don't know what the solution is. Like what's the exact point when a pass is made? Don't think the cameras are at that level yet. Perspective is another thing they try to take into account with the camera angles but far from an exact science.

Maybe give them 1 view of the incident. At least that ensure the clear and obvious errors are corrected but thats far from perfect.

Drop the measurement tech

If there s a debate, let the ref go to the pitchside monitor and review the footage. No lines, no aids, no measurements.

If the player looks level, goal. If he's not, he's off. Simple.

CSF · 08-02-2020 10:31am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Drop the measurement tech

If there s a debate, let the ref go to the pitchside monitor and review the footage. No lines, no aids, no measurements.

If the player looks level, goal. If he's not, he's off. Simple.

I agree, but don’t even think you need the ref to go to the monitor to do this (it slows things down similar to the measurement tech). Freeze the screen the exact same way you are for the measurement tech. Even use the technology to make sure you’re looking at an accurate angle of the line. But then apply the clear and obvious criteria that they decided wasn’t relevant to offsides previously.

A reasonable degree of clear and obvious is fine. It doesn’t need to be a foot offside to be classed as clear and obvious. They’re paying people well to be able to successfully make that distinction.

osarusan · 08-02-2020 10:33am

I think it is a decent idea.

Because of imperfections in the system (exactly when the pass was played, the precise location of the line), there is an element of doubt, so the 10cm line is the benefit of the doubt in the attacker's favour.

CSF · 08-02-2020 10:36am

osarusan wrote: »

I think it is a decent idea.

Because of imperfections in the system (exactly when the pass was played, the precise location of the line), there is an element of doubt, so the 10cm line is the benefit of the doubt in the attacker's favour.

10 cm wouldn’t have allowed the Lundstram goal apparently that offended more than any I’ve seen. It’s a very minute moving of the arbitrary line which feels like papering over cracks rather than actually fixing what is causing all the outrage.

Guy:Incognito · 08-02-2020 12:29pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Drop the measurement tech

If there s a debate, let the ref go to the pitchside monitor and review the footage. No lines, no aids, no measurements.

If the player looks level, goal. If he's not, he's off. Simple.

The var is a ref too. Just let them make the decision and tell the ref on or off.
Less delay for offside then.

VAR Discussion thread

Comments