General officiating/rules

[villa4europe]

2 hours ago, The_Steve said:

The audio again proves how VAR is a racket to protect incompetence - they aren’t that interested in listening to those with expertise. Too afraid or unwilling to criticise their own. 

the crazy thing for me about it all is how many times the guy says "cant do anything" they **** can, its a dead ball, just run the check again, either grow a pair of balls or have a little bit of something about you, its mad that they all sit on their hands knowing its the wrong decision rather than using their initiative

cant do anything because the game has restarted is absolute pathetic bullshit

[wishywashy]

 

 

[Mic09]

12 minutes ago, wishywashy said:

 

 

Since about 12 months ago, he is my least favourite football person. 

Fits right into the club he represents. 

[jimmygreaves]

6 minutes ago, wishywashy said:

 

 

Utter, utter horseshit.

An opportunity to be the bigger man and acknowledge the mistake like an adult but comes out with this bollox. Pep said similar deflectionary crap earlier too.

Neither accepts any responsibility that they were the leading voices advocating for the introduction of VAR based on their accusation that the refs weren't up to it and they never got decisions going their way.

They have the best resources, the best players, the most success but it's always unfair and a hardship when things don't go quite their way.

Pricks the lot of em.

[MWARLEY2]

8 minutes ago, jimmygreaves said:

Utter, utter horseshit.

An opportunity to be the bigger man and acknowledge the mistake like an adult but comes out with this bollox. Pep said similar deflectionary crap earlier too.

Neither accepts any responsibility that they were the leading voices advocating for the introduction of VAR based on their accusation that the refs weren't up to it and they never got decisions going their way.

They have the best resources, the best players, the most success but it's always unfair and a hardship when things don't go quite their way.

Pricks the lot of em.

This is all to do with ensuring that any debatable var decisions go his way for the rest of the season.  Vintage SirAlex 

[duke313]

1 minute ago, MWARLEY2 said:

This is all to do with ensuring that any debatable var decisions go his way for the rest of the season.  Vintage SirAlex 

100%, happened last season.  Can't remember the incident, but Klopp was moaning about it for weeks, and Liverpool got loads of dodgy VAR decisions go their way.  Whinging works.

[JPJCB]

3 hours ago, LondonLax said:

 

If you thing the surrounding and harassment of referees is bad now imagine what it would be like in a world where they can disregard play and go back to an earlier point in the match to redo it. 

I don’t think this necessarily is how it plays out. After all the players/manager can’t see VaR. what I’m suggesting is that in circumstances like what happened re the Diaz goal, where the VaR officials have come to a clear conclusion but accidentally miscommunicated it, that it’s an entirely sensible outcome to just pull the play back and say that a major error has been made.

Thats very different to the VaR officials reaching a decision which the teams/managers happen to disagree with.

And for those who talk about negative precedents. Do you really think that taking the play back and correcting the error would have resulted in a worse precedent than what’s just happened? We now have a manager calling for the entire game to be replayed ffs 

[mikeyp102]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

Since about 12 months ago, he is my least favourite football person. 

Fits right into the club he represents. 

Been about 3 yrs for me, horrible individual it seems unless everything is going his way.

[TheMelvillan]

I genuinely the most satisfying football viewing experiences are those matches - early cup games etc - that dont use VAR.

Its just simpler and you  know within a second whether the goal has been given so uninhibited celebrations can ensue

I also think its rich that pundits are up on their high horse about all this - it has been the evolution of their hyper-focused dissection of every decision and criticism of mistakes that has brought us to this point. For years they would replay every decision after the game frame by frame with the benefit of time, no pressure and multiple pairs of eyes - then slag off the officials for any errors

[Demitri_C]

Liverpool will get decisions galore fie the next few minths aftee this i gurantee it

Glad we don't have them coming up

[Zatman]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

Liverpool will get decisions galore fie the next few minths aftee this i gurantee it

Glad we don't have them coming up

They already got one against us

[Zatman]

1 hour ago, wishywashy said:

 

 

English football be a better place when this clearing in the woods and the drug clearing in the woods at City have left England

[Demitri_C]

3 minutes ago, Zatman said:

They already got one against us

Which means brighton are going to get at least 4 against them weekend! Its gonna be a blood bath

[MrBlack]

3 hours ago, villa4europe said:

the crazy thing for me about it all is how many times the guy says "cant do anything" they **** can, its a dead ball, just run the check again, either grow a pair of balls or have a little bit of something about you, its mad that they all sit on their hands knowing its the wrong decision rather than using their initiative

cant do anything because the game has restarted is absolute pathetic bullshit

I get in that scenario the rules say you can't call play back or reverse a decision that was made. But the fact the game carried on after a dead ball shouldn't really be a factor.

Play regularly carries on for longer than the period that had elapsed in this case,  while checks are being made, if the ball doesnt go out of play.

The fact a deadball happened didn't have to be the end point for a decision to be reached there. The rulebook says it does though. 

5 hours ago, LondonLax said:

FA Rule 5 subsection 2:

“The referee may not change a restart decision on realising that it is incorrect or on the advice of another match official if play has restarted or the referee has signalled the end of the first or second half (including extra time) and left the field of play or abandoned the match.”

I don’t get the extra fuss with this case anyway. Referees make mistakes, it happens

However, the United penalty after full time whistle was blown seems to contradict this rule , so maybe there is precedent for exceptional circumstances?

It would create a potential precedent problem for how long is too long after an objectively incorrect decsison is realised, but fundamentally you can build that into the rules after this cock-up happened to add clarity going forwards. If they didn't rush the decision, and have such a loose crap process in place, the same situation wouldn't arise again anyway. 

[delboy54]

55 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Liverpool will get decisions galore fie the next few minths aftee this i gurantee it

Glad we don't have them coming up

Mate of mine is an Everton supporter I said exactly the same to him...."god help who they have next at home!".....his reply......"its Everton!"         the look on his face was utter utter dejection....

[villa4europe]

the thing is though they've royally royally **** up

they've made a really basic error in communication which has resulted in a goal not being given

the answer would be to say bollocks to the rule book and make the right decision and give the goal

how can they not have the common sense or intelligence to see that's the lesser of the 2 evils? no one is spending a week talking about the overriding the rule book to ultimately achieve the correct decision

 

[NeilS]

37 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

However, the United penalty after full time whistle was blown seems to contradict this rule , so maybe there is precedent for exceptional circumstances?

 

The exceptional circumstances in this case were that the decision favoured Man Utd.

[duke313]

41 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

the thing is though they've royally royally **** up

they've made a really basic error in communication which has resulted in a goal not being given

the answer would be to say bollocks to the rule book and make the right decision and give the goal

how can they not have the common sense or intelligence to see that's the lesser of the 2 evils? no one is spending a week talking about the overriding the rule book to ultimately achieve the correct decision

 

Don't worry, they'll get a penalty in their next match to make up for it. 

[sharkyvilla]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

the thing is though they've royally royally **** up

they've made a really basic error in communication which has resulted in a goal not being given

the answer would be to say bollocks to the rule book and make the right decision and give the goal

how can they not have the common sense or intelligence to see that's the lesser of the 2 evils? no one is spending a week talking about the overriding the rule book to ultimately achieve the correct decision

 

I'm not sure the Spurs fans would have taken it well at the time.  Maybe even cause a riot.  

[OutByEaster?]

if you want to see how ridiculous the offside rule now is, have a look at Atletico Madrid's equaliser against Feyenoord.

A through ball to a striker who is two yards offside is intercepted by a defender running back who slides to get a foot onto it and prevent it getting to the striker - this inadvertently plays  it into the path of the second (onside) striker who scores. Given as offside on the field and then overturned by the ref at the monitor on VAR.

Now for me, it's offside for a number of reasons, all of which are based on the first striker interfering with play - firstly because the defensive team have played an offside trap and caught him offside, that was their aim and that's what they've done - for me, when a team is playing a high line in order to catch a player offside, if they've successfully caught him,  then he's interfering with play - he's the reason that defensive line is where it is - he's the most advanced forward and as such he dictates the position of the back line. If they play him offside, even if the ball doesn't reach him, for me, he's actively influencing the play.

Secondly, and perhaps less controversially, when the defender slides and sticks out a leg to divert the ball away from a striker who is offside - the player in an offside position has actively interfered with play - the defender can't just let the ball go to the striker and hope they caught the offside, so he's defending - he's defending because he doesn't know if the player is offside - how you can then claim that the offside player hasn't interfered with play is beyond me. When he touches the ball, he's not making a pass, there isn't a new phase, he's trying to cut out a pass, and sure he's trying to steer it to a safe position, but that's not a new phase of play where the defender had the ball. 

if he doesn't reach the ball, if he defends badly, then the ball gets through to the striker, and it's offside, if he defends well and gets a touch on it, then the player becomes not offside.

The rule is garbage - we need to get rid of the whole active/inactive thing - if you keep a high, organised line and a pass is played to a player, he's offside. Whether he's offside or not shouldn't depend on whether the pass reaches him - you shouldn't need the ball to be offside.