VAR Thread

[RPCB]

Just ruining football more.

It’s becoming harder to be invested in it.

I personally haven’t signed up to Stan for the CL and despite having a decent website to stream matches, I have probably watched half an hour of the CL this season. I have Optus for the PL and I don’t wake up to watch matches like I used to (unless they are at a time that I am awake) and instead of watching the replay, I stick with the 9 minute highlights. Football is slowly being destroyed.

 

[Bradesmaen]

VAR: Club Brugge want replay as wrongly disallowed goal is not given

Club Brugge want a replay after VAR failed to give a goal that had been wrongly disallowed in their game against KV Mechelen on Sunday.

www.bbc.com

Don't tell Zidane98

 

[Zidane98]

VAR: Club Brugge want replay as wrongly disallowed goal is not given

Club Brugge want a replay after VAR failed to give a goal that had been wrongly disallowed in their game against KV Mechelen on Sunday.

www.bbc.com

Don't tell Zidane98

The laws of the game allow for an incorrect decision. Also written in the laws of the game that VARs decision to intervene is final even if it were to be incorrect.

What the laws of the game do not allow for is when the right decision has been made and it subsequently fails to be applied in game or is applied incorrectly.

That scenario has happened only a handful of times ever in professional football history out of tens of millions of professional fixtures. These are the only games where there's a case for a replay and two of those were actually replayed.

Brugge won't be getting anywhere with this. They'd have a case for sure if VAR gave the goal and the referee failed to implement that decision.

 

[Bradesmaen]

The laws of the game allow for an incorrect decision. Also written in the laws of the game that VARs decision to intervene is final even if it were to be incorrect.

What the laws of the game do not allow for is when the right decision has been made and it subsequently fails to be applied in game or is applied incorrectly.

That scenario has happened only a handful of times ever in professional football history out of tens of millions of professional fixtures. These are the only games where there's a case for a replay and two of those were actually replayed.

Brugge won't be getting anywhere with this. They'd have a case for sure if VAR gave the goal and the referee failed to implement that decision.

 

[RossFC]

 

[Art Vandelay_]

 

[hawkman]

It’s becoming harder to be invested in it.

I personally haven’t signed up to Stan for the CL and despite having a decent website to stream matches, I have probably watched half an hour of the CL this season. I have Optus for the PL and I don’t wake up to watch matches like I used to (unless they are at a time that I am awake) and instead of watching the replay, I stick with the 9 minute highlights. Football is slowly being destroyed.

Football or United doing that?

 

[RPCB]

Football or United doing that?

Yes.

 

[RossFC]

 

[ossie_21]

Good insight, now we just wait for all the audio to be released and hopefully one day, it’s broadcast live like in cricket/rugby

 

[Zidane98]

Clearly the referee stated he believed that Odergaards hand was on the ground from the audio.

Coote should have immediately sent the referee to the monitor after viewing the replay showing that not to be the case while also telling him verbally.

The referee saying the player had his hand on the ground is an absolute clear & obvious error. Unbelievable this one wasn't reviewed.

 

[glenferry23]

About as blatant a handball/penalty as I can recall recently. That’s an extraordinary defence of that call, even the mention of “in my brief look….” That in itself shows they didn’t view the footage properly. Baffling stuff.

 

[hawkman]

Shame they didn't release the audio of the Gusto tackle or the Dunk tackle on Kulusevski. Both of those seems to checked off pretty quickly for what should have been reds

 

[Frank Bunn]

Silly title for the video. It was possibly a foul, and most refs would normally give it, but not a clear and obvious error that would cancel the goal.

 

[RossFC]

 

[Zidane98]

Got it spot on.

This is clearly dealt with this in the laws of the game where it specifically says a player must challenge for the ball to be penalised for offside. Any foul prior to that is penalised.

As the foul came before any attempt to play the ball it is a foul and a penalty kick.

 

[SC_Power]

And one more atrocious VAR “decision”, how on earth did they pick out Endo as offside for VVD’s initial strike in the League Cup final?

I could pick every single bloody corner these days where a player stands in front of the keeper, and I’m reliably told that it is not an offence to stand still, as long as the player is not making an active attempt to block. (The key word is active).
And I’m reliably told every week that it’s not against the rules to stand in an offside position.

And somehow, the two perfectly legal actions are combined to chalk off a goal in a cup final, ffs.

And not just a referee and linesperson making a wrong call on the spot, but a couple of off field officials with endless replays at their disposal. And they came up with that dribble.

 

[Bradesmaen]

And one more atrocious VAR “decision”, how on earth did they pick out Endo as offside for VVD’s initial strike in the League Cup final?

I could pick every single bloody corner these days where a player stands in front of the keeper, and I’m reliably told that it is not an offence to stand still, as long as the player is not making an active attempt to block. (The key word is active).
And I’m reliably told every week that it’s not against the rules to stand in an offside position.

And somehow, the two perfectly legal actions are combined to chalk off a goal in a cup final, ffs.

And not just a referee and linesperson making a wrong call on the spot, but a couple of off field officials with endless replays at their disposal. And they came up with that dribble.

Endo moved into him. Even Jamie Redknapp (A Liverpool fan) said to the letter of the law it is correct. How is the Linesman meant to see where Endo and Colwill are in relation? Similar with the Ref not knowing whether Endo is offside. It was a correct call every day of the week.

Also how does the significance of the game make a difference? If it was game 25 of a 38 game season or a cup final the same decision should be made or you'd be crying bloody murder that there's no consistency. (in the event it was the reverse)

EDIT:

The laws state that in situations where:

• a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12

A) Endo is standing in an offside position, there is no debate.
B) He impedes the movement which affects Colwills ability to get to the ball. Note the section in bold. Doesn't say he has to move into his path (that is the next section), just says interferes with the movement towards the ball. This is exactly what happened.

Correct weight. But you know, Victim FC = VAR and the EFL are against us!

 

[moomba]

I could pick every single bloody corner these days where a player stands in front of the keeper, and I’m reliably told that it is not an offence to stand still, as long as the player is not making an active attempt to block. (The key word is active).
And I’m reliably told every week that it’s not against the rules to stand in an offside position.

If you're standing in an offside position and you're interfering with play it's offside. You don't have to make an active attempt to block, you don't even have to make a play at the ball.

It's offside if you're standing in the keepers line of sight. So it certainly can be an offence to stand still.

 

[Zidane98]

Endo moved into him. Even Jamie Redknapp (A Liverpool fan) said to the letter of the law it is correct. How is the Linesman meant to see where Endo and Colwill are in relation? Similar with the Ref not knowing whether Endo is offside. It was a correct call every day of the week.

Also how does the significance of the game make a difference? If it was game 25 of a 38 game season or a cup final the same decision should be made or you'd be crying bloody murder that there's no consistency. (in the event it was the reverse)

EDIT:


A) Endo is standing in an offside position, there is no debate.
B) He impedes the movement which affects Colwills ability to get to the ball. Note the section in bold. Doesn't say he has to move into his path (that is the next section), just says interferes with the movement towards the ball. This is exactly what happened.

Correct weight. But you know, Victim FC = VAR and the EFL are against us!

a) he is. The linesman sees this and decides that he is not interfering with play.

b) he stands his ground. again the linesman sees this and decides he isn't interfering as the ball goes flying over his head. He is not marking or anywhere near Van Dijk.

The linesman decided that the 2 players involved were irrelevant to the goal being scored. Rightly so. If Endo had of impeded the player marking Van Dijk there is a case.

As we see from your posts it takes serious mental gymnastics from you to say there's a clear impact on the ability to play the ball. Colwill never was playing the ball. You know it, the linesman knew it.

This should never have gone anywhere near VAR - the linesman got it correct and he had the best view of the entire incident.

 

[Bradesmaen]

a) he is. The linesman sees this and decides that he is not interfering with play.

b) he stands his ground. again the linesman sees this and decides he isn't interfering as the ball goes flying over his head. He is not marking or anywhere near Van Dijk.

The linesman decided that the 2 players involved were irrelevant to the goal being scored. Rightly so. If Endo had of impeded the player marking Van Dijk there is a case.

As we see from your posts it takes serious mental gymnastics from you to say there's a clear impact on the ability to play the ball. Colwill never was playing the ball. You know it, the linesman knew it.

This should never have gone anywhere near VAR - the linesman got it correct and he had the best view of the entire incident.

The lengths you will go to... Honestly I've never read such biased stupidity. Maybe we should just replay the game.

 

[Zidane98]

The lengths you will go to... Honestly I've never read such biased stupidity. Maybe we should just replay the game.

Exactly your posts on the matter.

The facts are a goal was scored and a linesman correctly ruled Endo was not interfering with play. Your bias is blatant.

Everything else is subjective nonsense that should never have gone anywhere near VAR. Hackett wrote a great piece about it in the telegraph.

Replays should only be looked at when as misapplication of law happens. To help you understand what that is here's a link for you

‘Misapplication of the laws’: VAR error leads to full replay of Belgian match

Genk were denied a penalty retake in defeat to Anderlecht and the ruling to overturn it is believed to be first of its kind in European football

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bradesmaen]

Keep going, it's actually hilarious. I'm enjoying your delusions.

 

[Frank Bunn]

If you're standing in an offside position and you're interfering with play it's offside. You don't have to make an active attempt to block, you don't even have to make a play at the ball.

It's offside if you're standing in the keepers line of sight. So it certainly can be an offence to stand still.

They usually pay offside if a player is standing in the keeper's line of sight. It's incredibly harsh to pay a free kick against a player standing still on the edge of the area. Colwill was never getting anywhere near that ball so it didn't affect the play.

I found the Hackett article that Zidane98 referred to.

The key Carabao Cup final decisions went against Liverpool

Virgil van Dijk's first goal should have stood and Moises Caicedo's appalling tackle on Ryan Gravenberch inexplicably went unpunished

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Zidane98]

They usually pay offside if a player is standing in the keeper's line of sight. It's incredibly harsh to pay a free kick against a player standing still on the edge of the area. Colwill was never getting anywhere near that ball so it didn't affect the play.

I found the Hackett article that Zidane98 referred to.

The key Carabao Cup final decisions went against Liverpool

Virgil van Dijk's first goal should have stood and Moises Caicedo's appalling tackle on Ryan Gravenberch inexplicably went unpunished

www.telegraph.co.uk

It simply comes down to the fact that the linesman decided Endo wasn't interfering with play. That decision is wholly subjective and shouldn't be overruled except in the most blatant of circumstances. Ie - Endo interfered with the player directly marking Van Dijk (in this case it was Chilwell).

From my memory the only players penalised for interference would be ones that directly affect those challenging for the ball. I can remember very few instances of a player not being involved in the play being penalised for offside because an opponent might have challenged the player who scored. There are probably countless examples of goals scored where off the ball tussles happen with an attacking player in an offside position.


Endo had an absolute right to be where he was. He didn't play or make any attempt to play the ball. What if Chilwell won the header and it fell to him on the edge of the box for him to put it in the back of the net? That's the next phase of play and the goal would have stood.


Line of sight is addressed directly in the laws of the game. Whether a player is interfering with play or not (and the laws of the game state he/she has to be clearly interfering with play by the way) is up to the linesman.