The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Keyblade]

This is a psyop to get football fans to stop complaining about refereeing decisions.

Seriously, if we get rid of VAR because it's too precise and ruining the "feel" of football, then we have no place to moan about bad calls. Refs are only human anyway.

[tomav84]

58 minutes ago, Pelle said:

As this one was checked by VAR you mean that as it wasn't an obvious error but still an error (I'm on the fence on this one, btw) it should be as the ref said? Even if it was wrong? Sincere question. Which if I get you right begs the question about all those very close offside calls.

the on field decision was no penalty, as it was not clear and obviously a penalty, the on field decision stands. i too was on the fence with this one, which means the on field decision was right not to be overturned, whichever way around that happened to be...which unfortunately was no penalty. it sounds like a contradiction, but had the ref given a pen, it too would have been correct not to be overturned.

the offside calls are a different animal in that it's black and white. the ball being 1mm over the line is still a goal, a striker being 1mm offside is still offside. the arguments around offside are the part of the player that's offside from what I've seen. i think it's defined as 'a part of the body that a player can score from', hence how feet can be in line but you can still be offside if you're leaning forwards. which i can see changed in the future to be just feet, to make it clearer.

they also cannot calculate the exact point the ball is kicked, which has just added to the arguments...but offsides are the least of my concerns about VAR to be honest.

i am still amazed at how a premiership qualified ref can watch something in slow motion and see something that no fan, player or pundit can see. there's also no accountability...you dont hear the conversations like in rugby, they aren't interviewed after the game, but these guys have so much power to influence the game and they have done in so many areas. palace are going to finish bottom half this season...they may well even be relegation rivals for us. how valuable could that point be for them yesterday. imagine if we go down and they finish 1pt ahead of us....

[LakotaDakota]

1 hour ago, Pelle said:

You know that this picture actually shows that he is offside, don't you? His head is over the line and that's enough

It doesn't, Sterling is the red line, there is even a dotted line coming down from his shoulder, The last defender is the blue line. there was some better shots after the game but this one was what was shown live during the match

[villa4europe]

just seen one of the utd ones, jesus **** Christ...

James tries to shoulder barge a bloke who's body is at a different angle so the contact is not what he expected forcing james to bounce off him and go to ground (I think harry kane had a similar one earlier in the season) its not a dive and its certainly not a foul

utterly clueless from the ref watching that

im also not sold on Liverpool's penalty, Mane's magical knees once again buckling when he gets a tap on his ankle, just looks completely unnatural to me, accentuation of the contact, he gets tapped on his left ankle (its daft from aurier to say the least) and his right knee gives way...the problem is that kind of decision is at least consistent, you'll always get it

[Newry_Villan]

When is the next premier League meeting that the chairmen/CEO's attend to discuss business? This shambles needs to be top of the agenda.

[Pelle]

20 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

It doesn't, Sterling is the red line, there is even a dotted line coming down from his shoulder, The last defender is the blue line. there was some better shots after the game but this one was what was shown live during the match

But you do see Sterling's head being over the blue line, right? It's quite clear. If a ref misses it when it happens is one thing, but this picture clearly shows Sterling's head further forward than the blue line.

[Pelle]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

the blue line is mings shoulder or maybe I think McGinn behind him, the red line is sterling

I still think the interfering with play rule is the biggest problem, you never see them given

Yes, but Sterling's head is over both the blue and red line, and the head has been counted before. Perhaps not Gabby's head, but that's another matter.

You might be right on the interfering rule, but that would be right out ridiculous. If so, let's put Mings, Wes and Engels in front of their keeper the next time we have a freekick. As long as they don't touch the ball.

[villalad21]

40 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

just seen one of the utd ones, jesus **** Christ...

James tries to shoulder barge a bloke who's body is at a different angle so the contact is not what he expected forcing james to bounce off him and go to ground (I think harry kane had a similar one earlier in the season) its not a dive and its certainly not a foul

utterly clueless from the ref watching that

im also not sold on Liverpool's penalty, Mane's magical knees once again buckling when he gets a tap on his ankle, just looks completely unnatural to me, accentuation of the contact, he gets tapped on his left ankle (its daft from aurier to say the least) and his right knee gives way...the problem is that kind of decision is at least consistent, you'll always get it

Man Utd were 15th in the league though.

The refs can't have anything of that.

Important to give them as many penalties as possible to move them up the table.

[villa4europe]

25 minutes ago, Pelle said:

Yes, but Sterling's head is over both the blue and red line, and the head has been counted before. Perhaps not Gabby's head, but that's another matter.

You might be right on the interfering rule, but that would be right out ridiculous. If so, let's put Mings, Wes and Engels in front of their keeper the next time we have a freekick. As long as they don't touch the ball.

I think that's just the angle playing tricks, the lines are right

I seriously don't remember ever seeing a goal disallowed for someone who didn't touch the ball being classed as interfering, I don't agree with it, it pisses me off, of course sterling's run impacted Heaton's thought process therefore interfered 

[Keyblade]

It doesn't really matter whether Sterling is offside at that particular instance anyway. He was offside when Silva touched it and that's all that matters. He was literally blocking Heaton's view from an offside position.

[sne]

3 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

It doesn't really matter whether Sterling is offside at that particular instance anyway. He was offside when Silva touched it and that's all that matters. He was literally blocking Heaton's view from an offside position.

Yup, this

[Pelle]

16 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

I think that's just the angle playing tricks, the lines are right

I seriously don't remember ever seeing a goal disallowed for someone who didn't touch the ball being classed as interfering, I don't agree with it, it pisses me off, of course sterling's run impacted Heaton's thought process therefore interfered 

Hm, you might be right on the angles. Taking a closer look on it the whole picture is weird. The blue and red lines are not parallell with the lines fot the penalty area and the goal area.

I remember when they changed the rules in the early '90's. Then there were some debate and some unclear things. Before that you were almost always offside if the ball went in your direction. Clearly the rules are made up by people who don't fully understand the game. I remember when I played myself. I was a defender. A clearly offside standing player in the other team ran for a ball, then the bench started to yell at him not to go for it, so he stopped. Then another player in their team went for it when we had stopped just waiting for the call. That player got a clear path to goal. And the ref said that he didn't interfere. Well, I know, keep on playing untill the whistle, but come on! Anyway, enough about my nothing career and back OT. No, I can't come up with an example where they have called for offside for that as of late, say the last 15-20 years or so. But this was just ridiculous. It would be great if they could come out with why they didn't call for offside. Was it because they didn't think Silva touched it or because they didn't think Sterling interfered. Both calls could have them in trouble as Silva got the goal.

[LakotaDakota]

44 minutes ago, Pelle said:

Yes, but Sterling's head is over both the blue and red line, and the head has been counted before. Perhaps not Gabby's head, but that's another matter.

You might be right on the interfering rule, but that would be right out ridiculous. If so, let's put Mings, Wes and Engels in front of their keeper the next time we have a freekick. As long as they don't touch the ball.

It isn't. Other than his hand his shoulder is the furthest point forwards, This is what was measured and where the dotted red line comes down from. The angle here doesn't help but they showed a full 360 view too later on & He was clearly onside when De Bruyne hit the ball.

Var ruled that silva didn't touch it which is why the goal was given as nobody was offside when the ball was struck. There is no clear shot of him actually making contact and the spin of the ball does not alter al all which generally indicates that no contact was made so you can see why the goal was allowed, Silva said it hit his studs and the goal was later awarded to him by a completely different independant body but that is not what the ruling during the game was.

Waste of time having arguments about it really as even if it had been ruled out i don't think it would have made much difference to the end result, We were ok in the first half but from the moment the second half kicked off City were going to win/had already won

[Pelle]

10 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

It doesn't really matter whether Sterling is offside at that particular instance anyway. He was offside when Silva touched it and that's all that matters. He was literally blocking Heaton's view from an offside position.

Of course you're right about that. Would still be interesting to know why they made the decision not call for it.

[sne]

So VAR couldn't see that Silva touched the ball but could detect the non offside.

Partial success for the offside checker   

But since it's been known to detect offsides down to a molecular level it surely ought to have seen any touch by Silva, even if it just nudged a single strand of fabric on his jersey?

[Pelle]

11 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

It isn't. Other than his hand his shoulder is the furthest point forwards, This is what was measured and where the dotted red line comes down from. The angle here doesn't help but they showed a full 360 view too later on & He was clearly onside when De Bruyne hit the ball.

Var ruled that silva didn't touch it which is why the goal was given as nobody was offside when the ball was struck. There is no clear shot of him actually making contact and the spin of the ball does not alter al all which generally indicates that no contact was made so you can see why the goal was allowed, Silva said it hit his studs and the goal was later awarded to him by a completely different independant body but that is not what the ruling during the game was.

Waste of time having arguments about it really as even if it had been ruled out i don't think it would have made much difference to the end result, We were ok in the first half but from the moment the second half kicked off City were going to win/had already won

It most likely didn't have any impact on the end result, but the thing is that that goal killed off the game completely. And we got screwed again. And FA changed the scorer to Silva and he himself implied that he touched the ball.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Pelle

[Zatman]

I think I will just watch VAR free leagues next season

[LakotaDakota]

2 minutes ago, Pelle said:

It most likely didn't have any impact on the end result, but the thing is that that goal killed of the game completely. And we got screwed again. And FA changed the scorer to Silva and he himself implied that he touched the ball.

It's not the FA, Just 3 former players and/or officials that make a decision based on video & a discussion. There is no clear video of his studs making contact with the ball so can only assume that they have taken his protestations into effect and awarded him the goal although without any clear evidence of a deflection i think everyone is just guessing & taking silvas word for it.

The fact that him touching it should have led to the goal being ruled out for offside is not considered by the panel. they have no influence in this at all. They are only there to judge who got the final touch that led to the ball going into the net

[Keyblade]

Honestly, I'm thinking VAR is a bit of a redundancy that complicates things. Just have the ref look at the pitchside monitor whenever there's a contentious decision. Or at the very least have VAR's remit be to tell the referee that he might have missed something and go check the monitor and never to overrule him, which they seem hesitant in doing so anyway. That leaves the responsibility solely with the referee and his interpretation. Also keep it for the offside checking as that's more objective anyway.

[Pelle]

2 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

It's not the FA, Just 3 former players and/or officials that make a decision based on video & a discussion. There is no clear video of his studs making contact with the ball so can only assume that they have taken his protestations into effect and awarded him the goal although without any clear evidence of a deflection i think everyone is just guessing & taking silvas word for it.

The fact that him touching it should have led to the goal being ruled out for offside is not considered by the panel. they have no influence in this at all. They are only there to judge who got the final touch that led to the ball going into the net

So what you say is that tjey would go for his claim and take away a goal for KDB without actually seeing him touch it? And a system that see an offside only half a mm in front can't see if the ball touches a player or not? Ok.