VAR Discussion thread

Cantona's Collars · 13-11-2019 1:50pm

FitzShane wrote: »

I think this is actually ok. It removes doubt from the referees mind. You can't score or create a goalscoring chance from a handball. Accidental or not.

Why was Koscienly's handball goal vs WBA allowed and Aguero's handball goal vs Arsenal allowed, but Solanke's handball goal vs WBA not allowed? All 3 were accidental so should have been the same result, in theory. The new rules has stopped the referee interpretation of accidental and now all incidents are ruled the same.

The problem is now defining what a goalscoring chance. Bernando Silva handled the ball the last day, accidentally, and then hit off TAA's hand which overwise would have have been a penalty. But a penalty is a goalscoring chance and was created as a result of accidental handball by an attacker. If the penalty was not given for this rule, everything would be ok but but insteas there was some statement about the penalty not being given for this reason which just creates more confusion and doubt.

For even more confusion, because Liverpool broke and scored, the handball by TAA was classed as a goal scoring opportunity and a penalty should have been given by the world governing body. Duncan Castles spoke about it after contacting them. He called it Schrödinger's handball.
Now if TAA had sliced the ball and it went for a corner would the officials have called it back for a free out due to Silva originally handling the ball before he did?

Diggy78 · 13-11-2019 1:59pm

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

For even more confusion, because Liverpool broke and scored, the handball by TAA was classed as a goal scoring opportunity and a penalty should have been given by the world governing body. Duncan Castles spoke about it after contacting them. He called it Schrödinger's handball.
Now if TAA had sliced the ball and it went for a corner would the officials have called it back for a free out due to Silva originally handling the ball before he did?

Good question. I think we all know they wouldn't have called it back but a corner is technically a goal scoring opportunity. It's just adding layers of rules but I think I'm happy to consider penalty's different to free kicks and corners as goal scoring opportunities.

osarusan · 13-11-2019 2:06pm

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Now if TAA had sliced the ball and it went for a corner would the officials have called it back for a free out due to Silva originally handling the ball before he did?

I don't think so, as that wouldn't have been a game-changing moment.

Fitz* · 13-11-2019 2:08pm

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

For even more confusion, because Liverpool broke and scored, the handball by TAA was classed as a goal scoring opportunity and a penalty should have been given by the world governing body. Duncan Castles spoke about it after contacting them. He called it Schrödinger's handball.
Now if TAA had sliced the ball and it went for a corner would the officials have called it back for a free out due to Silva originally handling the ball before he did?

But because City got the ball back and cleared the ball themselves, does that not class as a different phase of play and the TAA handball did not directly result in a goalscoring chance? That chance finished when Gundogan had control of the ball and then passed it out of the box, then starting a new phase of play which Liverpool scored from. That's what my interpretation of it is.

Because this is the first example of a double handball, well that I am aware of anyways, there was a bit of panic and confusion and no-one really knew what to do. The PL should just come out and say 'this is what the rule is and everyone knows now'. Clear everything up.

I'm guessing that if City scored from the corner if TAA had sliced it out for a corner that it would have been called back as the bernando handball created a goalscoring chance, but there is a real lack of clarity on the rule. But we will see a scenario like a double handball again? To be fair, the likelihood is pretty low.

But it would also bring up the scenarios where players are offside and putting crosses into the box which result in corners. Even though the attacker was offside, the corner is still given. This is a result of linemen being told to let VAR decide but VAR can only overrule on goals/penalties/offsides/sending offs.

osarusan · 13-11-2019 2:11pm

FitzShane wrote: »

The PL should just come out and say 'this is what the rule is and everyone knows now'.

The impression I get is that there is massive inconsistency even within the group of PL officials as to how rules should be interpreted.

One example of a few weeks ago, the Aaron Connolly/Michael Keane penalty springs to mind. Now, it's one thing to play that clip to a set of referees and ask them 'do you think this is a penalty?' A good few might say yes.

But it's another thing to ask them 'did the referee make a clear and obvious error by not awarding a penalty here?' and I think you'd get a different answer too.

VAR intervenes, gives a penalty, Brighton win. Then after the game the PGMOL 'reviews the incident' and decides VAR was mistaken (But what is VAR other than a review of the incident). That kind of stuff really drains the fans' support for it.

dfx- · 13-11-2019 2:15pm

CSF wrote: »

Do you think referees making inconsistent judgement calls is a good thing though?

The drawbacks of VAR (both in its current and purest form) are there to see, but the standard of refereeing in England is so so bad.

Having actual rules that are applied rigidly seems preferable. It’s the kind of inconsistency we’ve been talking about which means that nobody can say definitively whether Alexander-Arnold’s incident from Saturday should have been considered a handball foul.

We've seen how badly rigidly applied laws are in the Women's World Cup, especially defensive handballs.

What we have is a referee in the ground refereeing the game one way when there is no 'decisive' ending and a completely different set of rules when there is. There could be ten offsides ruled by a narrower or wider margin by the assistant than the one given by VAR with the measuring tape. Does VAR consider benefit of doubt, pace of the player covering in behind, even weather conditions in the ground, decisions previously given in the game?

What you could do instead is have VAR judge every single decision and then it would be consistent - wouldn't that be fun....

TheCitizen · 13-11-2019 2:27pm

dfx- wrote: »

We've seen how badly rigidly applied laws are in the Women's World Cup, especially defensive handballs.

What we have is a referee in the ground refereeing the game one way when there is no 'decisive' ending and a completely different set of rules when there is. There could be ten offsides ruled by a narrower or wider margin by the assistant than the one given by VAR with the measuring tape. Does VAR consider benefit of doubt, pace of the player covering in behind, even weather conditions in the ground, decisions previously given in the game?

What you could do instead is have VAR judge every single decision and then it would be consistent - wouldn't that be fun....

Why has rules and conventions been changed because of VAR. VAR should only be seen as a tool to help refs on close decisions, it's not supposed to usurp or undermine the officials.

Why is the benefit of the doubt being done away with? If it took 3 minutes to adjudicate on McGoldricks disallowed goal at Spurs there was obviously still doubt, he should have got the benefit of doubt as the attacking player after the first couple of viewings.

What has happened to onfield decisions only being overturned if there's a clear and obvious error?

VAR is a brilliant tool but in the EPL in particular they are misusing it and it looks like they're misusing it deliberately because they can't be bothered to face the challenge that it brings to incorporate it properly into the game.

osarusan · 13-11-2019 2:29pm

dfx- wrote: »

What we have is a referee in the ground refereeing the game one way when there is no 'decisive' ending and a completely different set of rules when there is.

Isn't that why VAR was introduced? To make sure all the 'decisive' moments got the right decisions?

I don't see the issue with VAR reviewing all the decisive moments to check the decisions. My issue is that the decisions are still wrong in some cases.

Cantona's Collars · 13-11-2019 2:30pm

osarusan wrote: »

I don't think so, as that wouldn't have been a game-changing moment.

My point is that the rules are as clear as mud sometimes with var. When is a handball not a handball?
Look at rugby,the ref will consult the tmo and ask if the offence "is clear and obvious" plus the crowd are privy to the discussion so no ambiguity whereas with var they treat the fans like idiots. Apparently even the Spurs fans were booing the var decision against Sheffield United even though it saved them from conceding a goal.

osarusan · 13-11-2019 2:37pm

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

My point is that the rules are as clear as mud sometimes with var.

I think it's a bit different - I think the implementation of VAR had brought with a forensic examination of the rules, and we see just how clear as mud they can be, and how even the referees don't interpret them in the same way.

(Maybe that's what you meant though).

TheCitizen · 13-11-2019 2:43pm

osarusan wrote: »

Isn't that why VAR was introduced? To make sure all the 'decisive' moments got the right decisions?

I don't see the issue with VAR reviewing all the decisive moments to check the decisions. My issue is that the decisions are still wrong in some cases.

In other sports VAR is a tool to help officials. In soccer they seem determined to turn it into a monster and "it's going to ruin the game etc......"

VAR should check an officials decision but should not be overturning it unless there is a clear and obvious error. That convention will be accepted. An onfield decision will be respected and upheld by VAR unless it's a clear mistake and overturning it would have to be more than clear cut.

If an attacker is slightly offside with part of his boot or something, that's benefit of the doubt territory and if the onfield decision was onside, it should not be overturned. If the onfield decision was offside it should be upheld. VAR should do quick checks on goals and big decisions but it should not be intervening unless it's clear and obvious and it's general remit should be to support officials.

They're making a mess of it in soccer and it looks deliberate in the hopes that it will be scrapped.

dfx- · 13-11-2019 2:48pm

osarusan wrote: »

Isn't that why VAR was introduced? To make sure all the 'decisive' moments got the right decisions?

I don't see the issue with VAR reviewing all the decisive moments to check the decisions. My issue is that the decisions are still wrong in some cases.

Because you are introducing two sets of interpretations. Is it enough of an 'error' to overrule or ask to go to the screen...that is the constant problem.

CSF · 13-11-2019 3:59pm

dfx- wrote: »

We've seen how badly rigidly applied laws are in the Women's World Cup, especially defensive handballs.

What we have is a referee in the ground refereeing the game one way when there is no 'decisive' ending and a completely different set of rules when there is. There could be ten offsides ruled by a narrower or wider margin by the assistant than the one given by VAR with the measuring tape. Does VAR consider benefit of doubt, pace of the player covering in behind, even weather conditions in the ground, decisions previously given in the game?

What you could do instead is have VAR judge every single decision and then it would be consistent - wouldn't that be fun....

Rigid might not be the right word really. Clear laws that can be easily interpreted. This is why we give a handball, this is why we don’t. With consideration given to the players arm position, speed of the ball, and the distance from which the ball is hit. Not even as much as to a science, but not just deferring to a lad who doesn’t wanna give a decision in a big game but will give the exact same decision as a penalty when a team is 4 nil down and the game is over.

I don’t really think VAR needs to consider benefit of the doubt, and previous decisions in the game. That’s the kind of refereeing that creates ambiguity in the game. Whatever we do will create a new normal anyway, so players will act accordingly, so why not actually play by the rules rather than a referee’s interpretation of whether he’d like to apply them?

TheCitizen · 13-11-2019 4:25pm

CSF wrote: »

Rigid might not be the right word really. Clear laws that can be easily interpreted. This is why we give a handball, this is why we don’t. With consideration given to the players arm position, speed of the ball, and the distance from which the ball is hit. Not even as much as to a science, but not just deferring to a lad who doesn’t wanna give a decision in a big game but will give the exact same decision as a penalty when a team is 4 nil down and the game is over.

I don’t really think VAR needs to consider benefit of the doubt, and previous decisions in the game. That’s the kind of refereeing that creates ambiguity in the game. Whatever we do will create a new normal anyway, so players will act accordingly, so why not actually play by the rules rather than a referee’s interpretation of whether he’d like to apply them?

There will always be an element of doubt with some decisions even if rules are tightened up. The onfield decision should hold sway in that case and VAR should not be overturning onfield decisions unless there is a clear and obvious reason to.The benefit of the doubt even if it's wrong should be to support the officials.

osarusan · 13-11-2019 4:28pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

If an attacker is slightly offside with part of his boot or something, that's benefit of the doubt territory and if the onfield decision was onside, it should not be overturned.

Offside doesn't need a clear and obvious error, as it's something that can be measured objectively (with the use of the line).

But lets say we adopt your idea - then we'll need to define slightly. What is slightly offside, compared to real offside. What does that look like in a VAR review.

If for example, VAR had two lines running either side of the main offside line, and these lines represented 12 inches either side of the main line, so a 24-inch buffer zone to allow for 'benefit of the doubt'....then it will just end up with people complaining that an attacker's kneecap was a fraction over the buffer line.

Cantona's Collars · 13-11-2019 4:56pm

Some former footballers were joking about who had the biggest head and how far offside they'd be because of it under VAR. They also said there's a serious side to it as to how an armpit or a big toe of someone 30 yards from the ball can be called back for offside.

TheCitizen · 13-11-2019 5:08pm

osarusan wrote: »

Offside doesn't need a clear and obvious error, as it's something that can be measured objectively (with the use of the line).

But lets say we adopt your idea - then we'll need to define slightly. What is slightly offside, compared to real offside. What does that look like in a VAR review.

If for example, VAR had two lines running either side of the main offside line, and these lines represented 12 inches either side of the main line, so a 24-inch buffer zone to allow for 'benefit of the doubt'....then it will just end up with people complaining that an attacker's kneecap was a fraction over the buffer line.

So they just dispense with the benefit of the doubt, not interfering with play, supporting the onfield decision unless it's a clear and obvious error? They're making this more difficult than it needs to be.

CSF · 13-11-2019 5:29pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

There will always be an element of doubt with some decisions even if rules are tightened up. The onfield decision should hold sway in that case and VAR should not be overturning onfield decisions unless there is a clear and obvious reason to.The benefit of the doubt even if it's wrong should be to support the officials.

The key to have a more successful approach with that is having referees that apply the rules consistently without applying context. It shouldn’t matter what minute of the game, how big it is, and who is in front.

If we get to a better refereed game, then the rare instances when VAR is required for outrageously obvious ones, will seem like a godsend.

citytillidie · 13-11-2019 5:45pm

It is the PL they are making a meal out of it by not having the ref go over to look at the monitor. Then they are simply refusing to over rule what the ref has said on the field in 98% of cases

CSF · 13-11-2019 6:05pm

citytillidie wrote: »

It is the PL they are making a meal out of it by not having the ref go over to look at the monitor. Then they are simply refusing to over rule what the ref has said on the field in 98% of cases

I don’t think this pitch side monitor thing is going to bring the benefits people are hoping for. And it will make the process slower I think.

It’s all based on this optimistic notion that Premier League referees are perfectly reasonable and will have no problem second guessing themselves publicly.

Cantona's Collars · 14-11-2019 2:28am

Villa and City are said to be making official complaints over the officiating and var in recent games.

Klopp has also joined in calls for changes to var at the European managers conference in Switzerland.

osarusan · 14-11-2019 2:09pm

I wonder if the idea of VAR making the decision outright, rather than inviting the on-field referee to review/change their decision, is based on taking pressure of the ref, as they are no long the one in charge for those key decisions.

They can adopt a 'VAR says it's a penalty/red card, nothing I can do' attitude to it.

Cantona's Collars · 14-11-2019 2:15pm

osarusan wrote: »

I wonder if the idea of VAR making the decision outright, rather than inviting the on-field referee to review/change their decision, is based on taking pressure of the ref, as they are no long the one in charge for those key decisions.

They can adopt a 'VAR says it's a penalty/red card, nothing I can do' attitude to it.

Refs seem to be handing over too much responsibility to VAR. Fair enough if they miss a serious incident that could result in a penalty or red card but it's gotten to the stage that fans are nearly afraid to celebrate a goal in case var finds someone's hair offside.
Hopefully after today's meeting we might get some changes.

Richard Hillman · 14-11-2019 4:46pm

Most people are reporting that after the meeting with the Club Officials at the Undisclosed Location (Hyatt Regency, London), that there will be no major changes during the season.

Seems like the Clubs are happy with how it's going.

So by the end of the season, there will be enough calls for it to be scrapped. They want it to fail.

dfx- · 14-11-2019 4:58pm

CSF wrote: »

Rigid might not be the right word really. Clear laws that can be easily interpreted. This is why we give a handball, this is why we don’t. With consideration given to the players arm position, speed of the ball, and the distance from which the ball is hit. Not even as much as to a science, but not just deferring to a lad who doesn’t wanna give a decision in a big game but will give the exact same decision as a penalty when a team is 4 nil down and the game is over.

I don’t really think VAR needs to consider benefit of the doubt, and previous decisions in the game. That’s the kind of refereeing that creates ambiguity in the game. Whatever we do will create a new normal anyway, so players will act accordingly, so why not actually play by the rules rather than a referee’s interpretation of whether he’d like to apply them?

You can be 4-0 down due to refereeing decisions that VAR does not look at - wrongly given free kicks, corners, fouls made several phases ago, the first of two yellow cards, offsides given where the whistle has blown, you can't abandon how the game has been refereed so far for some specific instances.

CSF wrote: »

I don’t think this pitch side monitor thing is going to bring the benefits people are hoping for. And it will make the process slower I think.

It’s all based on this optimistic notion that Premier League referees are perfectly reasonable and will have no problem second guessing themselves publicly.

It will likely change more decisions, but not improve the process. If you're a junior ref and a senior peer tells you to go over and check, it's already in your head that there's doubt and everyone in the ground knows it too.

Or you will get referees who will press on with their decision regardless. The penalty - the last minute winning goal, no more decisive than that - in the recent Berlin Derby being an example, which he still gave after going to the monitor.

It's not the solution that the pundits are screaming for.

CSF · 14-11-2019 5:05pm

I mean I’m specifically talking about things that VAR does cover though, I fully accept that it’s not going to fix everything. I’m not even really pro-VAR. I’d have preferred if it wasn’t implemented but if it’s going to hit the point where VAR is abolished before refereeing is legitimately addressed, then we should be worried.

osarusan · 14-11-2019 5:22pm

dfx- wrote: »

You can be 4-0 down due to refereeing decisions that VAR does not look at - wrongly given free kicks, corners, fouls made several phases ago, the first of two yellow cards, offsides given where the whistle has blown, you can't abandon how the game has been refereed so far for some specific instances.

I agree with all of this, but I still don't see the point of it to be honest.

I mean, if we get rid of VAR, all that will still be there, just like they always have been.

Unless we want VAR to examine literally every decision, those things will still be there, just like they always have been.

For me it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing concept. Goals are such a relative rarity, and red cards such a punishment, that I'm happy for them to be reviewed, and limit it to that.

Just like offside, there has to be a line drawn on how far VAR extends, and just like VAR, you'll get instances which make that line look pretty foolish. But a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I think that line is in the right place at the moment.

inforfun · 15-11-2019 9:09am

dfx- wrote: »

You can be 4-0 down due to refereeing decisions that VAR does not look at - wrongly given free kicks, corners, fouls made several phases ago, the first of two yellow cards, offsides given where the whistle has blown, you can't abandon how the game has been refereed so far for some specific instances.

Feyenoord - Ajax for the Dutch cup last season. VAR is there.
Close to half time 0-0, Ajax gets a corner that never was and score from it.
But corners are not in the things that are reviewed.
And it was always a match that was going to be won by the team that scored first at that time. And the winner would most likely lift the cup later on as well. Which Ajax did (fyi, 2 weeks earlier same match ended 6-2 Feyenoord for the league so it wasnt like the current situation in Holland)

2 weeks ago VVV-Feyenoord, 0-2, injury time 2nd half, 1 of those lovely autumn days with rain and wind in a stadium that is mostly open.
Feyenoord cross hits a defenders arm, ref points to the spot. Not a single protest from a vvv player.
VAR is taking about 2 minutes to see if at 1 point in the built up to that attack there might have happened something so he can tell the ref to disallow the penalty. Why doing a var at a time in the match that people just want to be done with it and go home.

dfx- · 15-11-2019 12:02pm

osarusan wrote: »

I agree with all of this, but I still don't see the point of it to be honest.

I mean, if we get rid of VAR, all that will still be there, just like they always have been.

Unless we want VAR to examine literally every decision, those things will still be there, just like they always have been.

For me it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing concept. Goals are such a relative rarity, and red cards such a punishment, that I'm happy for them to be reviewed, and limit it to that.

Just like offside, there has to be a line drawn on how far VAR extends, and just like VAR, you'll get instances which make that line look pretty foolish. But a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I think that line is in the right place at the moment.

If you allow all that to happen and you have no problem with it, then your complaint is not about getting more decisions right or where the line is - because you're ok with all those decisions being wrong.

You're refereeing the same game differently sometimes by computer generated inches for one attack and the same attack by the opposite team by referee's judgement. Or you can't look back at the first yellow card, but you can look at the second yellow card in slow motion detail (or the Arsenal foul on Milivojevic only visible in slow motion) and for an extended length of time. That's not a level playing field.

If you get rid of VAR, they are all judged by the referee's judgement or all by VAR. Nobody wants it all by VAR, so...

8-10 · 18-11-2019 3:25pm

I'd be perfectly fine with going back to how it was pre-VAR. I'm fine with the decisions being wrong, it'll happen either way.

I don't like a system that 1. Can't be enforced at every level of the game as it's cost prohibitive, and 2. Is confusing to the supporters in the stadium.

Waiting for minutes when there's a check and being in the crowd not knowing that a VAR check is happening, what the check is, or what the end decision was, is beyond confusing and not an enjoyable part of going to see a game

osarusan · 18-11-2019 5:34pm

dfx- wrote: »

If you allow all that to happen and you have no problem with it, then your complaint is not about getting more decisions right or where the line is - because you're ok with all those decisions being wrong.

You're refereeing the same game differently sometimes by computer generated inches for one attack and the same attack by the opposite team by referee's judgement. Or you can't look back at the first yellow card, but you can look at the second yellow card in slow motion detail (or the Arsenal foul on Milivojevic only visible in slow motion) and for an extended length of time. That's not a level playing field.

If you get rid of VAR, they are all judged by the referee's judgement or all by VAR. Nobody wants it all by VAR, so...

I still agree with all of it, but it isn't the stumbling block for me that it is for you.

If you have a fundamental principle that different incidents in the same game never be refereed differently, then obviously VAR needs to be an all-or-nothing scenario, and nobody wants it all to be VAR.

But that isn't a fundamental principle for me. I'm alright with the line being drawn and potentially game-changing incidents (with that potential being evident at the moment of the incident, rather than, say, a corner from which a goal was scored).

For me, the current principles of VAR are where I want them to be, but the executions is nowhere near where I want it to be.

Tom Mann Centuria · 23-11-2019 4:48pm

F*ck me, VAR is sh*te. Complete sh*t.

CSF · 23-11-2019 4:48pm

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

F*ck me, VAR is sh*te. Complete sh*t.

What’s happened now?

Oranage2 · 23-11-2019 4:51pm

CSF wrote: »

What’s happened now?

Slight touch on the liverpool defender, he goes down like a scammer on a damp floor in a Liverpool Tesco, ball goes in the net, var rules it out.

CSF · 23-11-2019 4:52pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Slight touch on the liverpool defender, he goes down like a scammer on a damp floor in a Liverpool Tesco, ball goes in the net, var rules it out.

Tried to find a replay of it, but the angle on the dodgy links I’ve found isn’t great. How slight is the touch?

Harry Palmr · 23-11-2019 4:53pm

Lovren was shoved, it's a foul.

windy shepard henderson · 23-11-2019 4:54pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Slight touch on the liverpool defender, he goes down like a scammer on a damp floor in a Liverpool Tesco, ball goes in the net, var rules it out.

Foul all day, two handed push in the back stupid thing to do, good call to disallow it, what VAR was brought in for

Quazzie · 23-11-2019 4:56pm

Why does it not take restarts into account? Arsenal robbed off a goal because VAR doesn't look at restarts!

blanch152 · 23-11-2019 4:57pm

Ball was rolling for the quick free-kick that Southampton scored from, why wasn't it disallowed?

CSF · 23-11-2019 4:57pm

Quazzie wrote: »

Why does it not take restarts into account? Arsenal robbed off a goal because VAR doesn't look at restarts!

Restarts?

murpho999 · 23-11-2019 4:57pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Slight touch on the liverpool defender, he goes down like a scammer on a damp floor in a Liverpool Tesco, ball goes in the net, var rules it out.

You need to look again and take your hate filled glasses off.

Definite push. Stream I'm watching with Tim Sherwood & Michael Owen as pundits (I know!) both claim it was 100% correct decision.

For me it was a definite foul on Lovren.

Fitz* · 23-11-2019 4:58pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Slight touch on the liverpool defender, he goes down like a scammer on a damp floor in a Liverpool Tesco, ball goes in the net, var rules it out.

I'd you take away the club jersey the defender is wearing, you would say that it's a 2 handed push.

But because it's a Liverpool defender, it's a "slight touch".

Quazzie · 23-11-2019 5:02pm

CSF wrote: »

Restarts?

Yeah. Southampton took a free kick and the ball was rolling so should've been retaken. They scored from it and VAR can't call it back for that reason because it doesn't look at restarts

Oranage2 · 23-11-2019 5:02pm

CSF wrote: »

Tried to find a replay of it, but the angle on the dodgy links I’ve found isn’t great. How slight is the touch?

Maybe enough but the ball goes straight into the net from the free kick, the foul doesn't even interfere with play.

CSF · 23-11-2019 5:03pm

Quazzie wrote: »

Yeah. Southampton took a free kick and the ball was rolling so should've been retaken. They scored from it and VAR can't call it back for that reason because it doesn't look at restarts

I don’t think I could navigate this thread/social media/the world and retain my sanity if they had ruled that one out.

CSF · 23-11-2019 5:03pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

Maybe enough but the ball goes straight into the net from the free kick, the foul doesn't even interfere with play.

That’s not relevant at all though surely? Surely the only question should be whether it was a foul or not.

Oranage2 · 23-11-2019 5:06pm

CSF wrote: »

That’s not relevant at all though surely? Surely the only question should be whether it was a foul or not.

Honesly depends on the ref, some refs might think it was enough force, others wouldn't.

Quazzie · 23-11-2019 5:07pm

CSF wrote: »

I don’t think I could navigate this thread/social media/the world and retain my sanity if they had ruled that one out.

The ref pulled back an Arsenal free later on in the game due to a rolling ball. Send only fair VAR should provide consistency in applying the rules

Tom Mann Centuria · 23-11-2019 5:09pm

It's just very very messy. Week in week out, not just today.

CSF · 23-11-2019 5:10pm

Quazzie wrote: »

The ref pulled back an Arsenal free later on in the game due to a rolling ball. Send only fair VAR should provide consistency in applying the rules

I agree with you, but my point is that VAR can not win because people are not rational. Imagine the fume all over the internet and what idiots like Jeff Stelling would be inciting if that goal had been pulled back.

VAR Discussion thread

Comments