VAR Discussion thread

Hyzepher · 11-11-2019 10:54am

internelligent wrote: »

I can see how this looks offside since the line is parallel to the line on the pitch, but if this line is moved to the right it's in no way parallel to the other line on the pitch. Do you think there is a chance that Var actually got this one correct?

This is 100% correct. He's onside.

fyfe79 · 11-11-2019 10:56am

Deleted User wrote: »

Just spotted this too.
You have to feel sorry for Sheffield United who were robbed of 3 points arguably because of one of the tightest offside decision.
Then the above in the Liverpool v City clearly being offside and nobody called it.

There's no football in that screenshot - could easily be taken a second after the ball has been kicked. Proves nothing, in other words.

Sky showed a screenshot - with the ball viewable - and Salah's onside.

Cantona's Collars · 11-11-2019 11:06am

fyfe79 wrote: »

There's no football in that screenshot - could easily be taken a second after the ball has been kicked. Proves nothing, in other words.

Sky showed a screenshot - with the ball viewable - and Salah's onside.

There's another image floating about that shows the cross being hit and Salah is offside......under VAR rules. Look at Sheffield United for example,a perfect goal disallowed because a player who had nothing to do with a goal being scored was deemed to have his toe offside.
It's as if officials are making this up as they go along. Firmino had one disallowed last week but anyone with eyes could see it should have stood.

osarusan · 11-11-2019 11:22am

We have loads of fans, ex-player pundits, and even some ex-referees, who are complaining about the decisions.

I think what VAR has done more than anything is highlight the inconsistency in application and lack of understanding of the rules. VAR isn't a rule, it just ensures microscopic examination of the rules, and they seem to be found wanting.

And the lack of any communication or transparency about the process just makes those flaws worse.

dfx- · 11-11-2019 11:23am

niallo27 wrote: »

How far do you go on. If the ball stays in play for 5 mins and then a goal is scored do you still go back.

Yes, if the policy is to only check when the ball is out. All these questions and hypotheticals were raised before it was brought in and they were ignored.

Offside has always been a judgement call from the referee's assistant, but it has now inexplicably become a matter of fact to spoil games. Judgement calls for everything else is deemed canonical.

TheCitizen · 11-11-2019 11:34am

fyfe79 wrote: »

I feel like Mugatu in Zoolander when I see these posts - "Am I the only one taking crazy pills here!?"

Silva passes the ball with his hand. The ball then hits TAA's hand while it's down by his side. Even if Silva doesn't pass the ball with his hand, it's still not a penalty.

But Silva passes the ball with his hand. Surely we've all seen it!!

I'm not disagreeing that accidental handball shouldn't be a penalty but they have been giving penalties for accidental handball since they started using/misusing VAR.

TheCitizen · 11-11-2019 11:40am

citytillidie wrote: »

Because the ref played on and VAR went with the on field decision

Yes but they didn't go with the onfield decision for McGoldricks disallowed goal v Spurs, in that instance they dispensed with their "clear and obvious" stipulation for overturning on field decisions. Salah was as offside as McGoldrick was.

They are not using VAR properly at all, all they are doing is introducing a whole new layer of inconsistencies into the game.

TitianGerm · 11-11-2019 11:40am

TheCitizen wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing that accidental handball shouldn't be a penalty but they have been giving penalties for accidental handball since they started using/misusing VAR.

But the Silva handball is creating a goal scoring opportunity for City if the pen is awarded.

If Augero had actually played the whistle Liverpool most likely wouldn't have broke so quick either. Then the poor clearance from the City player is actually what set up the Fabhino chance.

TheCitizen · 11-11-2019 11:41am

fyfe79 wrote: »

There's no football in that screenshot - could easily be taken a second after the ball has been kicked. Proves nothing, in other words.

Sky showed a screenshot - with the ball viewable - and Salah's onside.

You can say that, but VAR officials did not explain that.

irelandrover · 11-11-2019 11:45am

TitianGerm wrote: »

But the Silva handball is creating a goal scoring opportunity for City if the pen is awarded.

If Augero had actually played the whistle Liverpool most likely wouldn't have broke so quick either. Then the poor clearance from the City player is actually what set up the Fabhino chance.

But then the Trent handball led to a goal being scored 21 seconds later. So it should have gone back to the handball. And since a penalty would have been given, Silva's handball becomes relevant so a free out for Liverpool is the correct decision?

TitianGerm · 11-11-2019 11:48am

irelandrover wrote: »

But then the Trent handball led to a goal being scored 21 seconds later. So it should have gone back to the handball. And since a penalty would have been given, Silva's handball becomes relevant so a free out for Liverpool is the correct decision?

But City won possession back before Liverpool scored. That's why I think it's extremely messy.

My best guess is the ref didn't see the Silva handball because Augero was in his line of site, thought TAA had his hands in a "natural" position and as such no fouls given either way. Then when VAR looks at it they can't say a clear and obvious error as there are two decisions being looked at.

brick tamland · 11-11-2019 11:56am

AdrianII wrote: »

City's poor clearance created the goal.

VAR has ruined football. I didn't enjoy salahs goal because of the fear of it's being offside. I enjoyed fabs goal, then the controversy after it ruined it.

It really has taken the enjoyment of scoring a goal out of the game. It's getting to the point like rugby., it goes to the TMO and then everyone cheers the announcement. It's a load of crap the way the premiership are using it.

Uniteds 2nd goal yesterday took 3-4 mins to check. Nobody in the stadium had a clue what was going on from all accounts. Its daft

irelandrover · 11-11-2019 11:56am

TitianGerm wrote: »

But City won possession back before Liverpool scored. That's why I think it's extremely messy.

My best guess is the ref didn't see the Silva handball because Augero was in his line of site, thought TAA had his hands in a "natural" position and as such no fouls given either way. Then when VAR looks at it they can't say a clear and obvious error as there are two decisions being looked at.

That shouldn't matter. Any handball in the lead up to a goal is a free by the new rules.

Every goal is reviewed. And the handball by TAA leads to a goal being scored. I don't see anything about an opposition player touching the ball resetting the bulid up phase.

For me they haven't actually define what a build up is for this new stupid handball rule is and that's the problem. We've seen goals ruled out because a player accidentally handles it from a cross and even though the ball touches a defender it is still the build up. And we have see them go back more than 21 seconds also as a build up.

osarusan · 11-11-2019 11:57am

TheCitizen wrote: »

Yes but they didn't go with the onfield decision for McGoldricks disallowed goal v Spurs, in that instance they dispensed with their "clear and obvious" stipulation for overturning on field decisions. Salah was as offside as McGoldrick was.

Offside doesn't have to be 'clear and obvious', it just has to be offside.

The marginal onsides/offsides remind me of the tennis challenges where the computer-generated image shows the ball was either in or out by a millimetre. When you have a line (and you need a line), there are always going to be marginal calls either side of the line.

For me the only question is whether you can trust the technology that makes the line.

Weepsie · 11-11-2019 11:57am

TitianGerm wrote: »

But the Silva handball is creating a goal scoring opportunity for City if the pen is awarded.

If Augero had actually played the whistle Liverpool most likely wouldn't have broke so quick either. Then the poor clearance from the City player is actually what set up the Fabhino chance.

They've allowed for that in the rules though. A handball that has resulted from a deflection can be given more leeway

TitianGerm · 11-11-2019 12:01pm

irelandrover wrote: »

That shouldn't matter. Any handball in the lead up to a goal is a free by the new rules.

Every goal is reviewed. And the handball by TAA leads to a goal being scored. I don't see anything about an opposition player touching the ball resetting the bulid up phase.

For me they haven't actually define what a build up is for this new stupid handball rule is and that's the problem. We've seen goals ruled out because a player accidentally handles it from a cross and even though the ball touches a defender it is still the build up. And we have see them go back more than 21 seconds also as a build up.

City player didn't just touch the ball though he tried to pass it out and to me that's a new phase of play as City regained possession and any advantage of the handball is gone. If the City lad pumps it out over the side line then there's no danger or finds his own teammate with the pass then they are countering.

Fitz* · 11-11-2019 12:06pm

This is the full image that Sky Sports used, that shows that Salah was onside at the time of the cross.

EJBwLoyX0AERhpt?format=jpg&name=large

fyfe79 · 11-11-2019 12:11pm

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

There's another image floating about that shows the cross being hit and Salah is offside......under VAR rules. Look at Sheffield United for example,a perfect goal disallowed because a player who had nothing to do with a goal being scored was deemed to have his toe offside.
It's as if officials are making this up as they go along. Firmino had one disallowed last week but anyone with eyes could see it should have stood.

Totally agree that the Sheff Utd one should have stood - ridiculous call. I think if you need to spend 3 or 4 minutes trying to prove that a goal is offside, then the spirit of the game is at risk - the benefit of the doubt should go with the attacking team.

GLaDOS · 11-11-2019 12:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Just spotted this too.
You have to feel sorry for Sheffield United who were robbed of 3 points arguably because of one of the tightest offside decision.
Then the above in the Liverpool v City clearly being offside and nobody called it.

That image is just a grid tilted 'til it's parallel with one of the lines on the pitch (note: only one). That's not how perspective works.

gimli2112 · 11-11-2019 12:14pm

I can't help but think of Father Ted and Dougal with the cows being far away, when I look at the pictures.

BillyHasMates · 11-11-2019 12:14pm

Weepsie wrote: »

They've allowed for that in the rules though. A handball that has resulted from a deflection can be given more leeway

But it's not a normal deflection. The deflection is off a players arm in this instance. It was a pretty unique situation. Silva's handball was obviously not deliberate but it greatly altered the trajectory of the ball. Have seen refs give free kicks over the years for it. If the ball hadn't hit Trent's arm but instead fell to Aguero who puts it in the back of the net, what happens then?

It's never a pen. I think the confusion for me is whether Fab's goal should have stood and it should have been called back for a free out. Again it's not clear. Did Trent's handball lead directly to a goal? People will argue yes or no with valid points and that's the problem. It's so unclear and inconsistent in the wording of the rules and application of them.

VAR is ruining this season. It's the main talking point at half time and full time for all pundits and analysts and we have confusing statements issued about decisions from the Premier League and refereeing body that only feeds the confusion.

It shouldn't be this complicated to implement but it's fair to say the Premier League are fairly butchering it.

BillyHasMates · 11-11-2019 12:16pm

fyfe79 wrote: »

Totally agree that the Sheff Utd one should have stood - ridiculous call. I think if you need to spend 3 or 4 minutes trying to prove that a goal is offside, then the spirit of the game is at risk - the benefit of the doubt should go with the attacking team.

I thought the Sheffield United one was a goal also. Couldn't believe it was ruled out.

fyfe79 · 11-11-2019 12:20pm

TitianGerm wrote: »

But the Silva handball is creating a goal scoring opportunity for City if the pen is awarded.

If Augero had actually played the whistle Liverpool most likely wouldn't have broke so quick either. Then the poor clearance from the City player is actually what set up the Fabhino chance.

Yes. I think Oliver sees the TAA handball, but doesn't think his arm is in an un-natural position (rightly or wrongly). VAR looks at it, sees the TAA handball but also sees the Silva handball (which Oliver has missed), and this influences the decision by the VAR official to play on. The fact that two City players touch the ball (Angelino with the block and then Gunduan with the clearance) before Fabinho scores, also influences the VAR official to play on. There would have been mayhem if the goal had been disallowed after all that.

osarusan · 11-11-2019 12:21pm

BillyHasMates wrote: »

If the ball hadn't hit Trent's arm but instead fell to Aguero who puts it in the back of the net, what happens then?

It's disallowed as any attacking handball that leads to a goal is punished.

I also think it's way too much of a stretch to say that Trent's handball was part of an attacking move and therefore the Liverpool goal should have been ruled out.

What I thought was interesting was that the referee group (whatever their name is) released an explanation of the decision not to award a penalty, and they didn't mention Silva's initial handball at all, they just mentioned the lack of time to react to a deflected ball. This makes me think that even if there had been no Silva handball, it wouldn't have been a penalty, but I actually think it was a penalty in that scenario.

But again, disregarding Silva's handball for the sake of discussion, when VAR looks at that, their question is not 'is that a penalty', or 'is that more a penalty than not a penalty', it's 'was it a clear and obvious error not to award a penalty', which is a very different question.

I think we'll see close calls not overturned, and very very similar incidents will either end up being a penalty or not based on whether the referee initially gave it or not.

elefant · 11-11-2019 12:25pm

fyfe79 wrote: »

Yes. I think Oliver sees the TAA handball, but doesn't think his arm is in an un-natural position (rightly or wrongly). VAR looks at it, sees the TAA handball but also sees the Silva handball (which Oliver has missed), and this influences the decision by the VAR official to play on. The fact that two City players touch the ball (Angelino with the block and then Gunduan with the clearance) before Fabinho scores, also influences the VAR official to play on. There would have been mayhem if the goal had been disallowed after all that.

The Sheffield United goal that VAR disallowed also involved Spurs clearing the ball though, and 4 players in total being in possession between Lundstram's toe being past the VAR line and McGoldrick knocking it in.

The whole thing is a mess. Both VAR, and the new idea of handball being considered differently depending on whether it leads to a goal or not.

inforfun · 11-11-2019 12:34pm

There is more discussion now about bad "VAR'ing" then er ever was about bad refereeing.

Referee had 1 shot in the past and people could understand they got it wrong at times.
Now there is this guy in a studio that has 587 replays from 836 different angles and they still **** it up.
There is no excuse for that.

Always felt it was just 1 more instrument to get the "right" winner in the end.
And guess what, without var PSV would have won the Dutch league last year and Excelsior wouldnt be in the 1st division now

Fitz* · 11-11-2019 12:40pm

The handball rule I can accept, and understand. It was brought in to make it black or white. Any handball accidental or not, and the resulting attack cannot result in a goal. It's kind of weird though, as a free kick would not be given, just a goal cannot be scored. The problem lies in what happens after a handball. Is there a certain amount of time that the attacking team must keep the ball before scoring? Like if they made 30 more passes all over the pitch after a handball, would it still be ruled out?

The PL probably never imagined a scenario like yesterday coming up, a double handball in the penalty box. You can't score from a handball, but can you win a penalty from that?

osarusan · 11-11-2019 12:48pm

FitzShane wrote: »

You can't score from a handball, but can you win a penalty from that?

I remember media repoting that the new laws mean a goal can't be scored or created through an accidental handball, and I suppose a penalty is creating a goal.

I don't know the actual wording of the law though.

Weepsie · 11-11-2019 1:45pm

osarusan wrote: »

Offside doesn't have to be 'clear and obvious', it just has to be offside.

The marginal onsides/offsides remind me of the tennis challenges where the computer-generated image shows the ball was either in or out by a millimetre. When you have a line (and you need a line), there are always going to be marginal calls either side of the line.

For me the only question is whether you can trust the technology that makes the line.

Yeah but the line in Tennis is infallible. The line they're using in the PL is fallible. You can look at the same freeze frame from 2 different angles and draw a different conclusion.

There should be absolutely more leeway. A foot should clearly be ahead of play for example, it would show at any angle.

Richard Hillman · 11-11-2019 1:46pm

These minimal offsides are ridiculous. They can draw as many dodgy lines as they want but there is no system in place for when the ball actually left the foot.

In cricket they have umpires call for when they use hawkeye on LBW Claims, knowing that the system isn't 100% accurate, so if a small percentage of the ball is projected to be shading the stump theyll stick to whatever the umpire originally gave the decision. For offsides in football they are overturning decisions when they are not even sure if the players were offside.

They had 2 years to prepare for this implementation and arrogantly said we'll do it our way, without testing it properly. They could have gotten a local league to play a load of games at St George's Park and address the issues as they went along. But no, they went in, made up their own criteria, we're the best in world, we dont need to test it properly.

CSF · 11-11-2019 1:51pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

These minimal offsides are ridiculous. They can draw as many dodgy lines as they want but there is no system in place for when the ball actually left the foot.

In cricket they have umpires call for when they use hawkeye on LBW Claims, knowing that the system isn't 100% accurate, so if a small percentage of the ball is projected to be shading the stump theyll stick to whatever the umpire originally gave the decision. For offsides in football they are overturning decisions when they are not even sure if the players were offside.

They had 2 years to prepare for this implementation and arrogantly said we'll do it our way, without testing it properly. They could have gotten a local league to play a load of games at St George's Park and address the issues as they went along. But no, they went in, made up their own criteria, we're the best in world, we dont need to test it properly.

But isn’t just this a moving of the arbitrary line, and we’ll be having a conversation about the next decision that is marginal for what becomes the new normal being enforced.

I can’t imagine people being less outraged then.

Nerdlingr · 11-11-2019 2:15pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Just spotted this too.
You have to feel sorry for Sheffield United who were robbed of 3 points arguably because of one of the tightest offside decision.
Then the above in the Liverpool v City clearly being offside and nobody called it.

:D:D:D:D:D
two images no doubt contrived by some non-liverpool 12 year old fan at home on his MS Paint.

BillyHasMates · 11-11-2019 2:24pm

Nerdlingr wrote: »

:D:D:D:D:D
two images no doubt contrived by some non-liverpool 12 year old fan at home on his MS Paint.

The pic on the right is so bad. Looks like someone took a screenshot on their phone of a freeze frame on their screen and they couldn't even take it while looking directly at it. It's taken from a height and an angle and then attempt to draw a line on the inaccurate screenshot.

osarusan · 11-11-2019 2:47pm

Weepsie wrote: »

Yeah but the line in Tennis is infallible. The line they're using in the PL is fallible. You can look at the same freeze frame from 2 different angles and draw a different conclusion.

There should be absolutely more leeway. A foot should clearly be ahead of play for example, it would show at any angle.

If we say that a foot should be clearly ahead of play, we need to define clearly.

The bottom line is that offside needs a line, and wherever it is, it will have marginal calls.

Richard Hillman · 11-11-2019 2:48pm

CSF wrote: »

But isn’t just this a moving of the arbitrary line, and we’ll be having a conversation about the next decision that is marginal for what becomes the new normal being enforced.

I can’t imagine people being less outraged then.

Well there is one way (and a lot of traditionalists won't like it) put tracking sensors on the players. I think most players already wear them for their own club data analytics.

Another sensor within the ball, when it gets struck forward, player X is ahead of Player Y, offside.

CSF · 11-11-2019 3:01pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Well there is one way (and a lot of traditionalists won't like it) put tracking sensors on the players. I think most players already wear them for their own club data analytics.

Another sensor within the ball, when it gets struck forward, player X is ahead of Player Y, offside.

I don’t see a problem even for traditionalists if it cuts out 4 minute wait periods. It’s the kind of thing where they’d wanna test it to bits and make sure they don’t mess up the use of the tech, because they would be crucified from every angle if it wasn’t up to scratch.

Cantona's Collars · 11-11-2019 3:32pm

Take GAA as an example with Hawkeye,it happened twice in Wexford games,play went on for 20-30 seconds and the ref got a call after it was deemed the keeper caught the ball over the bar and points were given.
No need to wait until the ball went dead,the whistle was blown and the decision was made. Zero ambiguity as in the EPL where it seems rules are being made up as they go along.

At least yesterday we saw controversy in the biggest game of the season so far so hopefully the people in power sort the sh1t show that's var out.
How does one handball cancel out another? If it's handball, it's handball. We've seen goals disallowed and pens given for less.

Weepsie · 11-11-2019 4:51pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Well there is one way (and a lot of traditionalists won't like it) put tracking sensors on the players. I think most players already wear them for their own club data analytics.

Another sensor within the ball, when it gets struck forward, player X is ahead of Player Y, offside.

You'd want to have some absolutely unbelievably accuarte GPS data for that to actually work and in real time too it would be a massive expense you'd think. And you're relying on them being properly calibrated all of the time.

They just need to be more obvious to be called as offside and allow mm/cm decisions like this weekend pass and they're not going to be correct otherwise.

there needs to be a point, x amount of time, when something cannot be reviewed either.

What happened to the "phase of play" nonsense too.

Weepsie · 11-11-2019 4:53pm

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

At least yesterday we saw controversy in the biggest game of the season so far so hopefully the people in power sort the sh1t show that's var out.
How does one handball cancel out another? If it's handball, it's handball. We've seen goals disallowed and pens given for less.

They don't but there's specific leeway in the new ruls for the handball from Silva as it was most definitely ball to arm and a deflection, whereas the Trent one was in slo mo anyway, more arm to ball.

Who decided what a natural position was though.

Morzadec · 11-11-2019 6:00pm

I really think they should convene a big research panel of former players, current players, managers, referees, get them all together and get them to look at at least 100 contentious handball decisions. Block out the teams in case of any bias - get them to look at them and decide "penalty" or "not penalty".

Then looks at the results and try to group and define what it is about each contentious incident that led to it being given and not given. Codify all of this into a list of rules. Add in aggravating (e.g. ball was travelling towards goal or towards a goal-scoring position) and mitigating factors (e.g. defender had less than one second to react).

Don't get me wrong, it's always going to be hard, but some objective standard is needed.

What you could do then is even start to give different enforcement guidelines for certain different incidents (e.g. not just a black and white penalty or play on). For example, an incident where the hands are in a natural position, the player has less than 0.5 seconds to react AND the ball was a shot on target or cross to a goal scoring position, could lead to a corner to the attacking team or a free-kick 25 yards out - a more fair outcome in my opinion to both teams.

The problem is is that none of us agree what a handball should be. Personally, I think that when the punishment is almost a certain goal against you, there should be very few penalties given for handballs. All handballs deemed not deliberate should not result in a penalty in my opinion if it's a black-and-white option between penalty or nothing, but if we start defining and codifying all the different factors that are debated when one of these situations come up (hand placement, whether the ball was travelling towards goal or not, time between ball leaving the attackers foot and striking the defenders hand, any deflections etc...) then you can establish an action matrix that more objectively and fairly enforces on a handball in the box

CSF · 11-11-2019 6:11pm

One of the reasons I’ve gone from fairly anti-VAR being implemented, to a little bit pro-VAR since it’s implementation is that surely at some stage it’s going to have to bring focus on just how bad a job a large number of these referees are doing?

Richard Hillman · 11-11-2019 8:38pm

Seems like Mike Riley is only really interested in the time it takes to make a decision.

The Premier League Clubs were only concerned about this because if games go on for longer, the TV channel loses out on an ad break, TV Companies suffer, the next TV deal drops again.

Mike Rileys position is untenable. The refereeing system is supposed to uphold the laws of the game. Its starting to appear that his position has been compromised to protect TV Revenue.

Before the start of the season, the Premier League said they will ignore the practice of keepers leaving their lines during penalties, even though it was a success in the Women's World Cup. A retaken penalty is quite a time consuming incident.

A football league within the UEFA/FIFA structure cannot just say we're only going to uphold certain laws of the game. You're either in or your out.

Maybe the Premier League should just start up their own league, outside of FIFA. It looks like they want to go that way, if they are not going to adhere to the laws of the game.

Mitch Connor · 11-11-2019 9:12pm

Weepsie wrote: »

You'd want to have some absolutely unbelievably accuarte GPS data for that to actually work and in real time too it would be a massive expense you'd think. And you're relying on them being properly calibrated all of the time.

They just need to be more obvious to be called as offside and allow mm/cm decisions like this weekend pass and they're not going to be correct otherwise.

there needs to be a point, x amount of time, when something cannot be reviewed either.

What happened to the "phase of play" nonsense too.

And how many sensors would you need? One for each foot, one for your head? One for each shoulder?

Turtyturd · 11-11-2019 9:32pm

gimli2112 wrote: »

I can't help but think of Father Ted and Dougal with the cows being far away, when I look at the pictures.

Cantona's Collars · 13-11-2019 10:29am

The S*n

Premier League refs and assistants were left stunned when chief Mike Riley told them: "I'm well pleased with the way VAR is operating."

He must be the only one because even the world governing body on it aren't happy with the way the EPL are using it.

CSF · 13-11-2019 10:33am

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

The S*n

Premier League refs and assistants were left stunned when chief Mike Riley told them: "I'm well pleased with the way VAR is operating."

He must be the only one because even the world governing body on it aren't happy with the way the EPL are using it.

How can the Premier League refs and assistants show dissent? They’re the ones making the poor decisions that are leading to VAR criticism?

Sounds like they’re opposed to its use at all which fits in with what some have said around a form of sabotage.

LuckyLloyd · 13-11-2019 11:16am

osarusan wrote: »

We have loads of fans, ex-player pundits, and even some ex-referees, who are complaining about the decisions.

I think what VAR has done more than anything is highlight the inconsistency in application and lack of understanding of the rules. VAR isn't a rule, it just ensures microscopic examination of the rules, and they seem to be found wanting.

And the lack of any communication or transparency about the process just makes those flaws worse.

Football is very badly officiated and has had to be dragged kicking and screaming in terms of change and technology. A real positive of VAR will be rules makers and referees will need to up their game over time.

In the short term, the Premier League need to adopt the UEFA system used in the CL. Far superior.

dfx- · 13-11-2019 11:56am

Football is officiated with interpretations of laws including offside.

VAR can't do this, so it tries to make it black and white, changes the handball law, measures offsides and it does not fit.

The accidental handball for attackers is nonsense, but it clears VAR from making a judgement call.

CSF · 13-11-2019 1:17pm

dfx- wrote: »

Football is officiated with interpretations of laws including offside.

VAR can't do this, so it tries to make it black and white, changes the handball law, measures offsides and it does not fit.

The accidental handball for attackers is nonsense, but it clears VAR from making a judgement call.

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.

Fitz* · 13-11-2019 1:18pm

dfx- wrote: »

Football is officiated with interpretations of laws including offside.

VAR can't do this, so it tries to make it black and white, changes the handball law, measures offsides and it does not fit.

The accidental handball for attackers is nonsense, but it clears VAR from making a judgement call.

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.

VAR Discussion thread

Comments