VAR thread

[shanks69]

Looking at the handball rule bobby's goal should stand i was sent this earlier

If an attacking player accidentally touches the ball with their hand or arm and then scores a goal,orthe ball goes to another attacking player and they immediately score this a handball offence.
But it is not a handball offence if after an accidental handball the ball travels some distance via a pass or a dribble,or there are several passes before the goal or goalscoring opportunity.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[Roboklopp]

The thing that double ****s me off is that he wouldn’t have handled it had the Spuds players not had him in a rear naked choke. So ****ing stupid it’s untrue.

[Fivex]

Looking at the handball rule bobby's goal should stand i was sent this earlier

If an attacking player accidentally touches the ball with their hand or arm and then scores a goal,orthe ball goes to another attacking player and they immediately score this a handball offence.
But it is not a handball offence if after an accidental handball the ball travels some distance via a pass or a dribble,or there are several passes before the goal or goalscoring opportunity.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

The argument against that was that "it wasn't accidental, as he moved his arm towards the ball, so was deliberate" but that still ignores the reason that happened in the first place, i.e, he was getting molested by Dier.

[Exiled_red]

The thing that double ****s me off is that he wouldn’t have handled it had the Spuds players not had him in a rear naked choke. So ****ing stupid it’s untrue.

[Kenneth]

The argument against that was that "it wasn't accidental, as he moved his arm towards the ball, so was deliberate" but that still ignores the reason that happened in the first place, i.e, he was getting molested by Dier.

I still think it was deliberate handball. Dyer fouling doesn't change that, he didn't push his arm into it, so the rightful outcome would have been a free kick for us. Hard to be upset that VAR spotted it when it caught an actual foul, but that's where the inconsistency is. It doesn't check that freekicks or corners were correctly awarded when they result in a goal, and they're far more significant to a game than a handball on the halfway line. And corners are a 'matter of fact' issue that VAR is supposedly ideal for.

[ntto]

one of the stand outs for me was we didnt see all of the angles being played out on teh VAR screen.

There was one replay from side on that showed the handball - the optimum angle was what we saw on TV which was full frontal view of bobby with dyer behind him. The VAR team can use whatever bias they may have to influence a decision - not saying they are or anything but we all know that 5 or 6 different view viewpoints could lead to different opinions

[Exiled_red]

one of the stand outs for me was we didnt see all of the angles being played out on teh VAR screen.

There was one replay from side on that showed the handball - the optimum angle was what we saw on TV which was full frontal view of bobby with dyer behind him. The VAR team can use whatever bias they may have to influence a decision - not saying they are or anything but we all know that 5 or 6 different view viewpoints could lead to different opinions

One thing that is not clear to me is which angles the VAR cameras have? Do they have access to all the broadcast cameras as well as their own cameras? Or do they see incidents from fewer angles than we do? Because there have been some interesting angles that have been used (or not used) for some calls.

[ntto]

One thing that is not clear to me is which angles the VAR cameras have? Do they have access to all the broadcast cameras as well as their own cameras? Or do they see incidents from fewer angles than we do? Because there have been some interesting angles that have been used (or not used) for some calls.

totally - at the very least they should have all of the angles available from broadcasters and every angle should be scrutinised.

When the ref goes to the screen they have a decision made in a few seconds whereby we've had the benefit of minutes worth of replays by that stage (Var review to stockley park to red).

[Exiled_red]

https://www.givemesport.com/1649989-...ite-var-ruling

I posted this in the match thread, but think it also deserves discussion here. The above link suggests that the line from which Firmino's foot is marked may actually be the shadow of his foot rather than the foot itself. I'm not sure if this is accurate, but to my mind the line on the Leicester player's arm doesn't look right based on the sleeve rule and what we have seen previously this season.

There have been a number of questions raised about this decision:
1) The position of the line of the Leicester player's arm
2) The position of the line of Firmino's foot (discussed above)
3) Klopp also suggested issues of when the ball is played.

All three of these are presumably subjective, the VAR official has to choose the appropriate frame and the positions of the player's body which define the boundaries to make the decision. These decisions shouldn't be made by one person in isolation, as there is no accountability, it seems to be far too easy to make mistakes or (and I'm not saying that this is or has happened) manipulate decisions. Also there is no explanation as to what is and what isn't reviewed, another example being the 2nd Leicester goal, was the goal reviewed for the 2 handed push on Mane? If not why not? If it was why was this not deemed a foul? Leicester players were making 'clever' decisions to 'draw fouls' where there was minimal contact, Mane gets a two handed push in the back which is as clear as day and allows Leicester to regain possession and score, to me this seems a classic example of a 'clear and obvious error' by the official which should have been reviewed.

These incidents show the short comings and lack of accountability for these decisions and it really needs addressing, last week we had the FA overturning red cards after the match was over based on video evidence. This in itself shows the fallibility of VAR, if there is enough evidence for the FA to overturn the decision days later why did VAR not overturn it at the time. The system is a joke and is ruining the game.

Hardly any of the players, managers, pundits or fans know when the rules are supposed to be applied and if they are being applied correctly, I feel that there needs to be either some system where there is a club representative (from each side) watching the decision being made in the room who can flag up anything dubious, and the ability of the manager to challenge or ask the officials to look at a decision that has been missed. The decisions need to be explained fully so that there is clarity in the process, e.g. with the Pickford foul on VVD they could explain that the offside negated a penalty, but that they were looking at a possible red card (it's still unclear whether that was or wasn't done as there are differing reports on what VAR actually looked at) It needs to be recorded as a matter of fact what was looked at (offside, penalty, red card) and the reasoning for one or more of them being given or not.

[ChesterDave]

Seems to have infected cricket this week too. Some absolutely baffling decisions

[McDermotX]

Well well well


Ironically VAR done it's job. But apparently its not enough to override the complete ineptitude, and let's face it, pride, of a PL referee.

[ChesterDave]

I don't understand how he has been told to review it and has seen about 75% of a single replay and decided he was right. Trent isn't even looking at the man. Never ever ever a foul. Players look for the man and run away from the ball to block the man to 'shield' the ball out of play. Trent has no idea where the man is. The man runs in to Trent and gets a penalty.

Pride is definitely a factor. Senior PL figures talking about how important it is for the product that different teams win along with decisions like that are of course going to create suspicions its bent.

I think there is too much money swirling around football. There is no way organised crime groups are going to stay away because of the potential attention. If they will risk it to nobble a challenger tour tennis match and win 4, maybe 5 figures they absolutely will risk it on PL to win 7 figures!

[Rich]

I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, it’s individuals under a lot of pressure making really poor calls.

If the sport is serious about keeping VAR then implementation needs to change and Riley needs to be replaced.

I bet they’re currently concocting some BS to explain the pen decision.

[Exiled_red]

I'd be interested to know what the VAR official says to the ref, do they just say you need to look at this? Do they say I think you have made a mistake? Do they say you need to look at this again because from one angle it looks a pen from another it doesn't.

Surely the VAR official has seen it from multiple angles and has to tell the ref to look at multiple angles? Or there are more angles, or does the VAR not have all the angles that TV have?

To me it looks like the big error is with the ref not looking at, or VAR not showing the second angle and the question has to be why?

[Norbs]

If the referee isn't studying the footage for a minute or so and also in slow mo, then going over to the screen is merely playing lip service