The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Pelle]

The two swedish pundits put a good view on this situation, IMO. By the letter of the law, yes, it's offside. It's not the ref that makes a mistake. But the rule is not proportional to the outcome of situations like this. It's not similar to the situation vs citeh as that clearly affected Heaton's actions. This time Leno saw the ball when it was hit by McGinn but couldn't do anything about it. He probably wouldn't stand a chance even if he stood in that corner. The ref easily could've said that "Yeah, he's in the triangle between the ball and the posts, if that rule still applies, but it's still not affecting Leno as he can still see the ball and didn't have a chance to save it."

When it comes to southampton's goal against us I wasn't even happy when it was disallowed. I thought it was ridiculous. That's never offside in my book. It was good for us, but it's not how I want to win. Well, we didn't win, but if we had won by one goal it wouldn't feel as good. Luckily, none of the decisions had any impact to the outcome of the games. We won anyway and southampton won anyway.

[Stevo985]

3 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

Is the wording of the rule literally "interfering with play" though? Because then I could argue that "interfering with play" can be interpreted as whether the offside player makes any difference to the outcome only, which in this case was a goal and the answer is no.

The line drawing for Barkley being offside was comical though as he clearly was, at least in the current rules, so this took 1 minute before they even told the ref to look at the monitor. Which was then broken.

From the official laws of the game

Quote

 

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or

interfering with an opponent by:

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

challenging an opponent for the ball or

clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

 

Yes you could argue that Leno wouldn't have saved it anyway, but like I said that's not a rule anywhere else. Ronaldo is offside if he's a foot in front of the defender despite the fact he's so fast he would have got there anyway

 

[bannedfromHandV]

Not a single person thought it was offside other than the chump controlling the VAR.

Commentators didn’t see anything, on field officials didn’t see anything, not a single Arsenal player complained nor any of the arsenal fans on that Arsenal TV watchalong joke thing, I’d be surprised if a single villa fan thought it either.

So no one watching the game or playing the game sees a problem except for the dick on VAR, that’s why it’s not offside.

[Mic09]

8 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Not a single person thought it was offside other than the chump controlling the VAR.

Commentators didn’t see anything, on field officials didn’t see anything, not a single Arsenal player complained nor any of the arsenal fans on that Arsenal TV watchalong joke thing, I’d be surprised if a single villa fan thought it either.

So no one watching the game or playing the game sees a problem except for the dick on VAR, that’s why it’s not offside.

Just because nobody saw it to start with (which is a guess, for all we know many people might have done) doesn't mean it's not an offside.

Listen, I don't like it. He wouldn't have saved it. In my personal opinion, he saw the ball and reacted by turning his body to see it off.

But unfortunately Barkley was offside, and that's that. He was standing behind the last defender in the line of sight of the keeper. Simples. 

[villaglint]

11 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

From the official laws of the game

Yes you could argue that Leno wouldn't have saved it anyway, but like I said that's not a rule anywhere else. Ronaldo is offside if he's a foot in front of the defender despite the fact he's so fast he would have got there anyway

 

Thanks for posting the wording and the part you have bolded obviously supports your argument but surely the other half of the sentence supports other peoples. 

 

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

 

ie does Barkley obstructing Leno's line of vision prevent him from playing or being able to play the ball.

 

I would argue no he doesn't so he doesn't fall foul of that rule.

 

Another way to think about this is by making the situation more extreme and to imagine Leno had rushed out of his box for a clearance and finds himself out of his box and the ball drops to McGinn who lobs Leno (10 feet above his head) and into the goal. VAR shows Barkley is 30 cm offside and in the line of sight for the keeper. But is he preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision? 

 

It's obviously all pointless anyway because it is done. But fun to argue the point. 

[Stevo985]

33 minutes ago, villaglint said:

Thanks for posting the wording and the part you have bolded obviously supports your argument but surely the other half of the sentence supports other peoples. 

 

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

 

ie does Barkley obstructing Leno's line of vision prevent him from playing or being able to play the ball.

 

I would argue no he doesn't so he doesn't fall foul of that rule.

 

Another way to think about this is by making the situation more extreme and to imagine Leno had rushed out of his box for a clearance and finds himself out of his box and the ball drops to McGinn who lobs Leno (10 feet above his head) and into the goal. VAR shows Barkley is 30 cm offside and in the line of sight for the keeper. But is he preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision? 

 

It's obviously all pointless anyway because it is done. But fun to argue the point. 

I think he does. I think the wording of "being able to play the ball" covers that. That means it doesn't matter if he'd have got there or not, he was denied the ability to by someone standing in his way.

And yes in your example if Barkley was totally blocking Leno's line of sight then that would be offside, imo.

[Stevo985]

9 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Not a single person thought it was offside other than the chump controlling the VAR.

Commentators didn’t see anything, on field officials didn’t see anything, not a single Arsenal player complained nor any of the arsenal fans on that Arsenal TV watchalong joke thing, I’d be surprised if a single villa fan thought it either.

So no one watching the game or playing the game sees a problem except for the dick on VAR, that’s why it’s not offside.

No offence but that's not a very good reason for it not to be offside.

Surely the one of the main points of VAR is to spot things that break the rules that people haven't noticed

[fightoffyour]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

No offence but that's not a very good reason for it not to be offside.

Surely the one of the main points of VAR is to spot things that break the rules that people haven't noticed

To spot things that the on-field referee(s) didn't notice. If there is a "clear and obvious error", which is still stated as a requirement for the use of VAR, then all of the opposition players would be appealing. In this case they weren't.

I will caveat this with:

Quote

Factual decisions, such as offside or if a foul was committed inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the "clear and obvious error" test. 

Then we're back to yes Barkley was factually offside, but he was only subjectively interfering with play. Tricky one.

[The_Steve]

2 hours ago, villaglint said:

Thanks for posting the wording and the part you have bolded obviously supports your argument but surely the other half of the sentence supports other peoples. 

 

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

 

ie does Barkley obstructing Leno's line of vision prevent him from playing or being able to play the ball.

 

I would argue no he doesn't so he doesn't fall foul of that rule.

 

Another way to think about this is by making the situation more extreme and to imagine Leno had rushed out of his box for a clearance and finds himself out of his box and the ball drops to McGinn who lobs Leno (10 feet above his head) and into the goal. VAR shows Barkley is 30 cm offside and in the line of sight for the keeper. But is he preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision? 

 

It's obviously all pointless anyway because it is done. But fun to argue the point. 

I'd add that if the referee didn't interrupt Barkley as being active, how can VAR officials? It's not a clear and obvious error. The more subjectivity applied, the more it exposes the fragility of the system.

[sharkyvilla]

Personally I think if anyone is in-line with the goal when a shot is taken then they should be considered with interfering with play.  Even if they aren't directly in the direct line of the shot then they will affect the way in which a keeper tries to save it to avoid a rebound straight to the offside player.  This isn't the actual rule obviously, I thought they followed the VAR process reasonably well, again I just wish they would tweak the offside rule so that you're onside if any part of you is in-line with the defender.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, fightoffyour said:

To spot things that the on-field referee(s) didn't notice. If there is a "clear and obvious error", which is still stated as a requirement for the use of VAR, then all of the opposition players would be appealing. In this case they weren't.

 

I don't agree that the judgement for a clear and obvious error is whether the opposition are appealing.

[fightoffyour]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't agree that the judgement for a clear and obvious error is whether the opposition are appealing.

Okay that's not the judgement, for instance a striker that stays up could just volley the opposition goalkeeper in the jaw while play is up the other end of the pitch and no one would notice. But in this case if there was a clear and obvious error why would've 11 players, 1 manager, and 2-4 officials not noticed anything if it was so clear and obvious?

[villaglint]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I think he does. I think the wording of "being able to play the ball" covers that. That means it doesn't matter if he'd have got there or not, he was denied the ability to by someone standing in his way.

And yes in your example if Barkley was totally blocking Leno's line of sight then that would be offside, imo.

It’s an opinions one which I guess is why there was some controversy albeit less than the Bamford one which was obviously bananas. 

I’d argue physics prevented Leno from being able to play the ball not Barkley. Ie it was hit too hard and too far away from him for him to have had any chance to reach it. No amount of “looking” changes physics. 

 

 

Not now quantum theorists. 

[Stevo985]

12 minutes ago, villaglint said:

It’s an opinions one which I guess is why there was some controversy albeit less than the Bamford one which was obviously bananas. 

I’d argue physics prevented Leno from being able to play the ball not Barkley. Ie it was hit too hard and too far away from him for him to have had any chance to reach it. No amount of “looking” changes physics. 

 

 

Not now quantum theorists. 

Yeah but that might be fine for this specific example. But whether the keeper would have got there or not is adding even more subjectivity to it. What if it was a yard closer to Leno. You'd then have some people saying yeah he could have got to that, or no he still wouldn't.

It's easy to say it when it's a clear example like this, but I think the law is worded to cut out the subjectivity in that respect.

For me if a player is in an offside position and is stood directly in front of the keeper, that should be offside. Whether it trickles into the goal down the middle or goes in at 200mph in the top corner

[villa4europe]

The wording of the law does not include the word successful or successfully 

Its not impacting his ability to successfully play the ball

Whether or not he could have saved it is irrelevant, it's the impact on his ability to try and save it

The line of sight stuff too, I don't think it says line of sight to the ball it just says line of sight and Barkley is in it, if Leno says he didn't dive because he thought it might deflect off Barkley can you say he is wrong? 

[Stevo985]

35 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

 

The line of sight stuff too, I don't think it says line of sight to the ball it just says line of sight and Barkley is in it, if Leno says he didn't dive because he thought it might deflect off Barkley can you say he is wrong? 

This is exactly why I said we should see more of these decisions and not less.

As a keeper, if someone is even standing near the ball then it affects how you react. You're not going to fully dive at a ball or cross if you think that player could get to it and alter the course. So even if he gets out of the way or is a metre away from it, it could easily have influenced the play.

Again that might not be applicable here because of how hard McGinn hit it. But as a general point, it doesn't usually get taken into account.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Stevo985

[PussEKatt]

The way I see it is ( Taking the Arsenal Vs Villa game ) as an example.If the ref cant see anything wrong and if both sets of players accept the goal,then it should be a goal.

If it walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck,then chances are that it is a duck.

VAR should only be used if a decision is in doubt and most important.It should not be used unless the ref calls for it.

[Stevo985]

On 12/11/2020 at 12:18, PussEKatt said:

The way I see it is ( Taking the Arsenal Vs Villa game ) as an example.If the ref cant see anything wrong and if both sets of players accept the goal,then it should be a goal.

So if a player is standing a yard offside but nobody notices then it should be a goal?

Or if the ball is a foot over the line but nobody appeals then the goal shouldn't be given?

 

Sounds like a really bad way of judging it to me. 

[ThunderPower_14]

I think it was a pretty clear offside and the right result. I'd have wanted it called offside if it happened down the other end.

I'd much prefer something like that lead to a goal being chalked off as opposed to the ones where 4mm of heel was offside in the build up play.

[bannedfromHandV]

3 hours ago, ThunderPower_14 said:

I think it was a pretty clear offside and the right result. I'd have wanted it called offside if it happened down the other end.

I'd much prefer something like that lead to a goal being chalked off as opposed to the ones where 4mm of heel was offside in the build up play.

So clear that not a single player on either side saw it, nor the match officials, nor the commentators or any of either set of fans I’d wager a guess.

But yeah, aside from not a single person involved seeing anything wrong with it it’s a clear call.

It also took 4 minutes and 20 seconds to determine the ‘clear’ offence.