Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[alfieconn]

6 hours ago, alfieconn said:

Well it appears Refs are adhering to different laws https://www.the-ra.org/news/ifab-law-changes-2019-2020

And it's the The IFAB who make the rule changes ????

[Bredbury Blue]

Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental.

So now we know we're following the Premier League's interpretation / version (of this season's IFAB handball law) shown above. But in trying to amend the handball rule so there's no grey area (touch attackers hand/arm...= handball) they've now made a law which favours the defending team. Consider the following scenarios:

 

Laporte and Skippy go to head the ball, they miss it, and it brushes Laporte's arm and goes to Jesus who scores = Disallowed [if Jesus passes it to someone who scores would it be disallowed? If Jesus and others pass the ball 1, 2, 5, 10, or 44 times before scoring would it be disallowed?] FAVOURS THE DEFENDING TEAM

 

Laporte and Skippy go to head the ball, they miss it, and it brushes Laporte's arm and goes to a Spurs player at the back of the box who runs the length of the pitch and scores. It wouldn't be disallowed for Laporte's handball would it. FAVOURS THE DEFENDING TEAM

 

Laporte and Skippy go to head the ball, they miss it, and it brushes Skippy's arm, would they award a penalty? Debatable (probably not). FAVOURS THE DEFENDING TEAM.

 

Imagine Spurs have a corner. The ball is crossed to Kane outside the box who hits a goal of the season volley and just before it crosses the goal line it brushes Rose's arm and goes in with barely a change in it's trajectory. Disallowed yes. FAVOURS THE DEFENDING TEAM.

 

So in trying to improve the laws of the game there could be less (good) goals, benefiting the defending team.

 

Surely this not what we want is it?

 

 

[alfieconn]

9 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Alfie, below is how it is presented in the Laws (i've added the bold and underline for you) and NOT as you have posted it. As you can see i did not leave out "a very small thing called a comma and the word OR" because they do not exist in the Law:

 

Handling the ball

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:

  • scores in the opponents’ goal

  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity

• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

What i posted  was off the IFAB website which as far as i understand is the official website for law changes, and as you can see a comma and the word OR are included and do exist in the law.

 

• A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm•and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

[Bredbury Blue]

3 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

What i posted  was off the IFAB website which as far as i understand is the official website for law changes, and as you can see a comma and the word OR are included :

 

• A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm•and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

Interesting  because i also copy and pasted from the IFAB website, anyway we moved on from that Alfie. Keep up.

 

[Bredbury Blue]

9 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Here's another one for you to *ponder, which has been the subject of several articles in the media. Why was Lamela's 'contact' on Rodri (arm around the neck, pulled him down to the ground) not given as a penalty and why was it not reviewed by VAR? 

Seems nobody responded, but our Dermot has cleared this one up.

 

DERMOT SAYS: "At the time, I wasn't convinced that it was a penalty. The more I see it, the more I'm leaning towards it being one. The dilemma there is that the referee didn't think it was a penalty and he would have fed to the VAR team what he had seen and why he's come to that conclusion. The dilemma is not whether it is a penalty or not, it is that VAR cannot do anything about it.

[alfieconn]

According to Dermot if there hadn't been any goals scored by players using their hand last season the law wouldn't have been changed and guess who scored one of them goals, yes Mr Arguero, couldn't make it up, strange that BB didn't mention that ????

[alfieconn]

4 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Interesting  because i also copy and pasted from the IFAB website, anyway we moved on from that Alfie. Keep up.

 

Until i put the link up to the website you hadn't even mentioned the IFAB website.

[Bredbury Blue]

24 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

Until i put the link up to the website you hadn't even mentioned the IFAB website.

Incorrect: go read (my) post #4 on page 1 in which i added the link to the IFAB website. Doh!

[Bredbury Blue]

28 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

According to Dermot if there hadn't been any goals scored by players using their hand last season the law wouldn't have been changed and guess who scored one of them goals, yes Mr Arguero, couldn't make it up, strange that BB didn't mention that ????

Here you go Alfie

 

"We saw three handball goals in the Premier League last year - Willy Boly [against Man City], Sergio Aguero [against Arsenal] and Nathan Redmond [against West Ham] - and everybody thought that it wasn't acceptable. Everybody had this notion that you can't have a goal scored by the hand or the arm so the law was brought into place by IFAB (International Football Association Board) for the start of the season."

 

I don't remember the Redmond one but the other two the ball went in off them, and yes to quote Dermot "Everybody had this notion that you can't have a goal scored by the hand or the arm so the law was brought into...", but now they have taken it a step too far.

[Bredbury Blue]

34 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

According to Dermot if there hadn't been any goals scored by players using their hand last season the law wouldn't have been changed and guess who scored one of them goals, yes Mr Arguero, couldn't make it up, strange that BB didn't mention that ????

Former ref Halsey take on it: “Obviously to the letter of the law they were correct in what happened, and there’s only one person to blame for the change in the law of handling the ball, and that’s David Elleray and the IFAB.

“For me, in a situation like that we’ve got to be giving goals, you cannot see goals chalked of for those sort of incidents.

“I just think it’s an ass. The law now is an ass.

“You could argue that there are two different rules – one for defenders and one for attackers.
“There’s no chance of a penalty being given there if it hits the defender’s arm – it wasn’t deliberate and that’s still there in the laws of the game.

“This law has been brought in for the absolute howlers. The Thierry Henry handball we saw many years ago against Ireland – that’s what it’s for.

“I think we’ve got to seriously sit down and look at it.

“Mike Riley said we’re raising the bar regarding handling the ball, we’re raising the bar with encroachment and goalkeepers coming off the line, but for me we’ve got to look at raising the bar on offsides and these situations.

“I think everybody had got to come together and have a discussion about that we’ve going to disallow, what is handball, what is controlling it, what is accidental.
“If the ball drops down to Jesus, it hits his arm and then he puts it in the net, then yes, that’s what we want to see. But in these situations, incidents like that, we’ve got to be giving goals.

“I think they should come in a make their own little change to the law, a little minor tweak – like they did in the Champions League last season. If UEFA can do it…

“Incidents like the one on Saturday, we shouldn’t be ruling those goals out.

“But we cannot blame VAR because with the law as it is written, you can’t say they’re incorrect.

“It’s the law makers who are to blame for what we’re seeing now.”

 

[Bredbury Blue]

One of the biggest complaints from those in the stadiums watching live is that don't know, say in the case of Laporte handball, why a goal was disallowed - plenty left the Etihad not knowing why Jesus goal didn't stand.

 

A quick fix in this current VAR public relations disaster would be, after the sign that goes up with VARs decision, would be another sign "Handball - Laporte". Simple solution.

[jellydog]

I stole this from a guy from the UK living in Hong Kong. Short and simple and expresses my misgivings about VAR:

 

Some people seem genuinely not to understand what others dislike about VAR, so here's the short summary: the VAR process is considerably more irritating to us than wrong decisions were. It's that simple.

 

 

 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

Andre Mariner doesn't  give a penalty for the David Silva incident. VAR reviews it, 'No Penalty'.

 

Dermot Gallagher and Chris Foy say a penalty.

 

It was a clear penalty.

 

Whats going on?

[mrbojangles]

13 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Andre Mariner doesn't  give a penalty for the David Silva incident. VAR reviews it, 'No Penalty'.

 

Dermot Gallagher and Chris Foy say a penalty.

 

It was a clear penalty.

 

Whats going on?

I don't know. I think it's about letting the ref on the field referee as much as possible and not over rule him, except if there is a clear and obvious error (which I thought there was in this instance). This isn't really the VAR I thought we were going to get but it's early days and we knew it wasn't going to be perfect from the off.

[owl sees all]

23 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

I don't know. I think it's about letting the ref on the field referee as much as possible and not over rule him, except if there is a clear and obvious error (which I thought there was in this instance). This isn't really the VAR I thought we were going to get but it's early days and we knew it wasn't going to be perfect from the off.

Interesting post this.

 

This is not about the David Silver incident specifically, but about VAR's integrity. If it's "about letting the ref on the field referee as much as possible and not over rule him, except if there is a clear and obvious error,,,....." then it should be made clear ASAP. This is a crucial point. Can only the ref and his assistants make real-time decisions? If VAR can also, then the Silva incident should have been pointed out to the ref'; also in the Anfield game the Salah's spot-kick goal. 

 

If the ref misses something on the field of play, should VAR (or the 4th official) send him a quick message to review the incident?

 

In the Liverpool - Arsenal match at the w/e, the penalty goal by Salah should NOT have stood. What is VAR actually for? To point out obvious errors or only to assist the ref' when he makes a decision.

[mrbojangles]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

If the ref misses something on the field of play, should VAR (or the 4th official) send him a quick message to review the incident?

 

In the Liverpool - Arsenal match at the w/e, the penalty goal by Salah should NOT have stood. What is VAR actually for? To point out obvious errors or only to assist the ref' when he makes a decision.

Exactly. That's why I said this wasn't the VAR I was hoping it would be

[NE1]

The reason VAR is not over ruling the refs decisions , is because the VAR controller is a present day ref. Who is not going to over-rule his friend / colleague / team mate on the pitch , because it might show up his incompetence. ( you don't make me look a clown and I won't make you look a clown when it's my turn).

The VAR official should be an ex ref , who has no ties with the present day referees .

[wilai]

2 hours ago, owl sees all said:

In the Liverpool - Arsenal match at the w/e, the penalty goal by Salah should NOT have stood. What is VAR actually for? To point out obvious errors or only to assist the ref' when he makes a decision.

Not a penalty??? Yeah right! ????????

 

[owl sees all]

3 hours ago, wilai said:

Not a penalty??? Yeah right! ????????

 

It was a penalty alright. I'm not disputing that. Correct decision.

 

I'm saying that the goal should have been voided and retaken due to a Liverpool player not being the required distance from the spot when the ball was played. If VAR can't pick that up then some teams are going to hard done by. The Liverpool player's distance was a matter of fact, not opinion. VAR should have sorted it.

 

If the penalty had been retaken the goalie might have stopped it or Salah might have missed. IMO he would have scored; but you never know.

[wilai]

^Perhaps your original post could have been a bit more specific. Didn't notice myself and afaik neither did the commentators, nor Dermot on Sky so I can't comment further.

[owl sees all]

5 minutes ago, wilai said:

^Perhaps your original post could have been a bit more specific. Didn't notice myself and afaik neither did the commentators, nor Dermot on Sky so I can't comment further.

Well it is there for all to see.

 

If VAR can't pick that up, I might ask what is the point of having it.

[Bredbury Blue]

11 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Well it is there for all to see.

 

If VAR can't pick that up, I might ask what is the point of having it.

The ref and VAR should have picked it up. Henderson's that keen he nearly runs up Salah's ass

 

 

 

[owl sees all]

9 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

The ref and VAR should have picked it up. Henderson's that keen he nearly runs up Salah's ass

I'm not taking sides but wasn't VAR called upon in a Man City game. over a penalty infringement?

 

I'd like to see fair play all round, not just when the ref' and VAR people like it. This was unfair to Arsenal and ridiculous football decision, not to void the goal and retake. And BTW the way, if the goalie had saved the penalty it also should have been retaken for the same reason.

[mrbojangles]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

It was a penalty alright. I'm not disputing that. Correct decision.

 

I'm saying that the goal should have been voided and retaken due to a Liverpool player not being the required distance from the spot when the ball was played. If VAR can't pick that up then some teams are going to hard done by. The Liverpool player's distance was a matter of fact, not opinion. VAR should have sorted it.

 

If the penalty had been retaken the goalie might have stopped it or Salah might have missed. IMO he would have scored; but you never know.

I've just watched it in slo mo and every Liverpool player was outside the box when Salah made contact with the ball. Think it's at the 2 min 54 second mark

 

 

 

[wilai]

51 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

I'm not taking sides but wasn't VAR called upon in a Man City game. over a penalty infringement?

 

I'd like to see fair play all round, not just when the ref' and VAR people like it. This was unfair to Arsenal and ridiculous football decision, not to void the goal and retake. And BTW the way, if the goalie had saved the penalty it also should have been retaken for the same reason.

Had the keeper saved it and Hendo knocked in the rebound then there would be a case.....as in the City game when Rice (one of those encroaching) cleared the ball hence the retake. If VAR is gonna be called in for every case of encroachment irrespective of any actual effect on the penalty then virtually every pen will require retaking as things stand. Not saying your point is wrong but I don't agree that VAR should be used for every single transgression, no matter how minor,

[mrbojangles]

41 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

The ref and VAR should have picked it up. Henderson's that keen he nearly runs up Salah's ass

 

Henderson went a long way back on purpose so that he could run into the box when Salah kicked the ball. He timed it perfectly where his foot was just on the line as Salah made contact.

[wilai]

2 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

 

Henderson went a long way back on purpose so that he could run into the box when Salah kicked the ball. He timed it perfectly where his foot was just on the line as Salah made contact.

I think OSA's argument relates to the 'D' as opposed to the box itself so technically encroachment afaik. Hardly up Mo's ass as your fellow City fan so eloquently put it Mr BJ

[mrbojangles]

15 minutes ago, wilai said:

I think OSA's argument relates to the 'D' as opposed to the box itself so technically encroachment afaik. 

Yeah my bad. Sorry OSA. With the new laws i.e. keeper one foot on the line etc, I suppose it should have been retaken

[Bredbury Blue]

Sterling and Son’s armpits offside (unbelievable!) and now Mount’s toe.

 

A very well written piece by the Guardian that sums up the current problem with the offside rule (don’t get me started on the unfair and stupid accidental handball rule only penalising the attacking team) – offside is supposed to stop the attacking team gaining an advantage, but what advantage is to be gained by an armpit 2mm ahead of the opponent ((1) stop and have a look at 2mm on your kid’s ruler, (2) don't know about you, but I don't believe that they can calculate that AT THE MOMENT THE BALL IS PASSED), none. Instead of trying to help the game of football by favouring goals being scored, instead the laws are now more in favour of preventing goals.

 

Guardian:

“For the second time in two days a pivotal Premier League goal was ruled out by another of those problematic reviews. It is something that needs to be fixed.

 

Once again this came with the double-jeopardy punishment of a goal conceded at the other end while the crowd, the players and the manager still seemed to be absorbing the gut punch of all that short-lived elation.

 

This is an issue for players and coaches to resolve and work on: goal celebrations must now be guarded. They must come with an instant recovery time, a professionalism that means no more punching the air, no more touchline sprints, no more unalloyed joy. Like the sound of that? Well, it’s coming.

 

Here’s how it happened. Liverpool had begun like a train at a muggy, clammy Stamford Bridge. The opening goal was a moment of jaw-drop, Alexander-Arnold running on to Mo Salah’s backheel and producing that sublime finish.

 

Chelsea pressed back and thought they had equalised on 27 minutes, César Azpilicueta tapping home after a scramble in the goalmouth. VAR said otherwise. Mason Mount’s toe was decreed to have been offside in the build-up, his ankle having strayed across a line drawn by the VAR as Willian passed the ball down the left flank.

 

Stop. Rewind. Delete. Swallow all that emotion. And within two minutes Liverpool were 2-0 up though Firmino, another superbly worked goal (and some slack marking) that the post-VAR lull should not diminish. But still. Two days, two interventions, two problems.

 

It seems fairly obvious that Serge Aurier’s goal at Leicester on Saturday should have stood. The technology is not good enough to decree with absolute certainty whether Son Heung-min’s armpit was two millimetres offside at the precise moment (whenever that was) the ball was passed, as captured between frames by an elevated TV camera.

 

Drawing a best-guess straight line is not accuracy, consistency, or whatever it is we expect. There is only a pretence of academic rigour here. Understanding and acknowledging a margin for error, incorporating uncertainty is a part of being precise. This is simply bad science.

 

Fast forward 24 hours and Mount’s foot was, arguably, slightly more offside than Son’s armpit. But only arguably, and based on a line that there is no evidence we can actually trust. A middle-aged man playing with a light pen is not the Large Hadron Collider.

Plus, of course, what is offside actually for? Firstly to stop the game from losing its shape, dissolving into a cross between Aussie Rules and mass goal-hanging. And secondly, in its finer margins, to stop players cheating by pushing this enforced line and gaining an advantage.

 

In this case there was no advantage to Mount in having a toe, arguably, beyond the line of a player 20 yards away. It didn’t cause the game to lose its shape. It was offside because a man with a pen drew a pointlessly certain line.

 

Most people have by now “backed a horse” in this race and are intent on arguing it to the line either way. The idea of being pro or anti VAR has its ideological, even generational edge. Suggest this isn’t currently working and you risk becoming a Proper Football Man crying into his Charles Hughes coaching manual about the death of My Day When Things Were Good.

 

And yes, there is a paradox to complaining about discussion of VAR, on a page that discusses VAR at great (and no doubt) tedious length. But the sport is unavoidably affected by all this. There is a price to pay here for the most precious part of the spectacle, the miracle of the moment, the goal, the shared experience. Is it worth paying?”

 

[3 minus 2]

an interesting point the american pundit on nbc made  was that the line for offside  is drawn and the decision is made manually.. ie i suppose  they draw look and judge,   thats sufficiant when its an obvious one .. like an arm or  foot or even a toe  however not so easily conclusive     when it comes to judging  fractions of millimetres.. 4 me decisions like these shouldnt be left to human judgement , cricket umps can use ultra edge . with the money in prem footie they should be able to sort this.