VAR Thread

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
37,415
15,977
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
Absolutely wrong. Your own link explains perfectly that VAR is not limited to the shot or the pass leading to the shot.

So many examples prove that.

I think Dermott Gallagher has agreed with every VAR decision so far. It's been a bit of a joke for months.
Nope. It's limited to the immediate phase. The player assisting the goal and the goalscorer.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
53,331
16,361
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
Nope. It's limited to the immediate phase. The player assisting the goal and the goalscorer.
OK I'm travelling at the moment but in a few days I reckon I'll easily find half a dozen examples that prove you're wrong as well as the link you provided that confirms that the phase of play isn't limited to the final shot or pass before a goal.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
37,415
15,977
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
OK I'm travelling at the moment but in a few days I reckon I'll easily find half a dozen examples that prove you're wrong as well as the link you provided that confirms that the phase of play isn't limited to the final shot or pass before a goal.
The link confirms that VAR is limited to the immediate phase / what the referee ruled on. In the case of the Wolves goal Taylor gave handball for the assist to Mane from Lallana which is the immediate attacking phrase. What happened prior to that is irrelevant.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
53,331
16,361
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
The link confirms that you're talking shite.

Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack.
Why have other factors for consideration if you're limiting VAR to the shot or final pass before a goal.

For the Chelsea disallowed goal PGMOL specifically referred to the Liverpool defence being unable to reset themselves as the reason VAR went back before Liverpool actually had possession which led to the Chelsea goal.
 
Last edited:

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
37,415
15,977
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
The link confirms that you're talking shite.



Why have other factors for consideration if you're limiting VAR to the shot or final pass before a goal.
Because there has to be a limit for how far it goes back otherwise it becomes ridiculous.

In the scenario that Lallana did actually handball, ball went to Mane who had his shot saved and cleared by a defender any goal scored after that action would not be affected by the previous handball.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
53,331
16,361
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
Because there has to be a limit for how far it goes back otherwise it becomes ridiculous.

In the scenario that Lallana did actually handball, ball went to Mane who had his shot saved and cleared by a defender any goal scored after that action would not be affected by the previous handball.
There is a limit. That's why the consider the ability of the defence to reset itself and the momentum of the play.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
37,415
15,977
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
There is a limit. That's why the consider the ability of the defence to reset itself and the momentum of the play.
That's only one factor. The main factor is the immediate attacking phase.

In the case of the Wolves game that was the pass from Lallana to Mane.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
53,331
16,361
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
That's only one factor. The main factor is the immediate attacking phase.

In the case of the Wolves game that was the pass from Lallana to Mane.
It's good that you concede finally that VAR can look beyond the final shot or pass.

I disagree on the VVD but it's not worth arguing about.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
37,415
15,977
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
It's good that you concede finally that VAR can look beyond the final shot or pass.

I disagree on the VVD but it's not worth arguing about.
It's good to see you agree that VAR can only look at the immediate phase of play.

Which in the Wolves game was Lallana passing to Mane who then scored. Glad we have settled it.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
37,415
15,977
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
I don't think that and have said the opposite consistently.
Weren't you claiming that the first goal vs City should have been disallowed because Silva handled and created a goalscoring opportunity?

This despite your defence clearing the ball and pushing out only for Fabinho to score from long range. All the same immediate phase.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
53,331
16,361
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
Weren't you claiming that the first goal vs City should have been disallowed because Silva handled and created a goalscoring opportunity?

This despite your defence clearing the ball and pushing out only for Fabinho to score from long range. All the same immediate phase.
No.

IMO the goal should have been disallowed, and a penalty given to us for a handball on TAA.

Or if handball on Silva was called (I don't think it was), the goal should have been disallowed and a free to Liverpool given.

If we had scored after Silva handled the ball it would have been disallowed under the new handball rule.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
37,415
15,977
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
No.

IMO the goal should have been disallowed, and a penalty given to us for a handball on TAA.

Or if handball on Silva was called, the goal should have been disallowed and a free to Liverpool given.
PMSL. Your player handled and created a goalscoring opportunity. The end result was never going to be a penalty to City.

Fabinho goal came after the next phase of play after the ball was cleared and defence reset. That's why it was unaffected by the Silva incident unless you are now claiming it was all the same phase of play.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
53,331
16,361
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
PMSL. Your player handled and created a goalscoring opportunity. The end result was never going to be a penalty to City.
He didn't create a goalscoring opportunity. We never had a shot on goal. TAA handballed before we had that chance.

Fabinho goal came after the next phase of play after the ball was cleared and defence reset. That's why it was unaffected by the Silva incident unless you are now claiming it was all the same phase of play.
Has nothing to do with Silva, it should have been disallowed due to the Arnold handball IMO.
 
Last edited:

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
37,415
15,977
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
He didn't create a goalscoring opportunity. We never had a shot on goal. TAA handballed before we had that chance.



Has nothing to do with Silva, it should have been disallowed due to the Arnold handball.
No It shouldn't have. Play had moved on into another phase. Can only be disallowed for the next immediate attacking phase. Your defence cleared the ball, reset and pushed out. You seen to think a possible handball precludes any further possible Liverpool goals for the next 5 minutes of play.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
53,331
16,361
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
No It shouldn't have. Play had moved on into another phase. Can only be disallowed for the next immediate attacking phase. Your defence cleared the ball, reset and pushed out. You seen to think a possible handball precludes any further possible Liverpool goals for the next 5 minutes of play.
You need to stop with the strawman arguments. It's happening in every post.

Of course I don't think play could continue for 5 minutes and then pulled back. I've consistently spoken about the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of play.

It's not worth arguing specific incidents with you as your interpretation of the rules depends on the teams involved.

So I'll leave it VAR discussion in general.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
37,415
15,977
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
You need to stop with the strawman arguments. It's happening in every post.

Of course I don't think play could continue for 5 minutes and then pulled back. I've consistently spoken about the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of play.

It's not worth arguing specific incidents with you as your interpretation of the rules depends on the teams involved.

So I'll leave it VAR discussion in general.
This is the VAR thread.

Simple yes or no question. Do you believe Fabinho scoring was in the same phase of play as the possible TAA handball?
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
53,331
16,361
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City
Interesting story here


Video evidence and plenty of confirmation that it was at half time, not blocking people's view as the club statement says.

FWIW Don Grant is regularly pictured with signs he brings to games, as far as I know he's never been asked to take one down before.

He's also the bloke that designed the Kompany shirt last season, I reckon another shirt might be on the market soon.

And a few questions that that the club should but probably won't answer.
 

RPCB

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 21, 2007
6,211
3,446
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Manchester United

Of course Pereyra received the red card in a game that had VAR. Imagine holding up a game for up to a few minutes (VAR wasn’t used though) to give out a red card that just gets rescinded a couple of days later.
 

chef

Moderator
Oct 5, 2007
29,063
18,637
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Chelsea
ESPN and the team led by Dr. Thomas Curran at the London School of Economics have compiled the Anti-VAR Index, which shows how the league would look if VAR decisions were removed from games.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
37,415
15,977
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
ESPN and the team led by Dr. Thomas Curran at the London School of Economics have compiled the Anti-VAR Index, which shows how the league would look if VAR decisions were removed from games.
Some utterly bizarre logic in there. Claims 3 points for City if the penalty awarded at 0-0 wasnt given by VAR. City lost the game 1-2 so that would make it 1-1. Not a win to City. Basically a table of their opinion on how games would have progressed if not for the intervention of VAR rather than going off factual VAR decisions and their impact.
 

Top Bottom