What's new

The VAR Thread

LeSoupeKitchen

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2011
3,102
7,621
It's just mad we've got a system now that chalks off goals like the sheff u one against us (toe being offside about 10 passes before the goal) and the bournemouth one (questionable handball essentially gives two goals to the opponent) but can't do anything when a team massively benefits from an incorrectly given corner (man city yesterday).

I would hate VAR to start looking into things like corners but to me it demonstrates why the "rules is rules" arguement is total bollocks. You can't be mega ruthless in applying one rule and totally impotent in applying another.
 

WalkerboyUK

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2009
21,658
23,476
The ball doesn't have to touch someone for that person to be interfering with play.

We can argue all night about whether De Gea would've had a chance of saving it had Gylfi not been in the way (he probably wouldn't have), but according to the rulebook this was a correct call but in a bit of a grey area.

First paragraph is an interesting one. I run the line sometimes for my son’s matches and the referee tells us to only flag for offside if the player touches the ball.
One match earlier this season I flagged because I believed a player was offside. Kept flag up until ball went out of play. Ref came over to me and asked why I flagged. He said as player hadn’t touched the ball it wasn’t offside.
 

WalkerboyUK

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2009
21,658
23,476
I thought VAR had been abandoned. Not used at all in our game despite their being one clear handball in the Wolves penalty area.

Never getting a handball decision for that. Arm was down in a natural position and it was pretty much point blank at him.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
Is the rule the hand/arm has to move for it to be handball ?
This where the handball rule has become farcical. At one point, I think, it was wherever the hand was didn’t matter. Now, I think they’ve reverted back to the unnatural position thinking.

Im really not sure, to be honest, so happy to be corrected.
 

Graham Minshall

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2016
536
1,351
VAR is a tool to be used by officials to get to the correct decision, now in my opinion, that cannot be used for subjective decisions because my opinion might be different from yours.

Now, given that officials sitting away from the game are over ruling subjective decisions made by the match officials, without asking the referee to take another look at his decision, that shouldn’t be the way forward given the ineptitude of officials in this country.

This morning I’ve read the offside law/rule which is fairly definitive, the only part that isn’t defined is the blocking of the line of sight of the goal keeper, that is subjective, if you ask the goalie has his line of sight been blocked, what would he say?

So, on to Everton’s disallowed goal, it can only be assessed on what is seen,
1, De Gea is standing up and siggi is on the floor,
2,De Gea moves in the direction of ball to his right, so it could be assessed that his line of sight wasn’t impaired,
3, as he had moved, all his weight was on his right foot, which meant he would have struggled to get to the deflected shot.
So really there was no reason to disallow the goal.

So, in this age of forensic examination of the by television, the rules of that the game are no longer fit for purpose especially with the advent of VAR.
 

allatsea

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
8,866
16,054
This where the handball rule has become farcical. At one point, I think, it was wherever the hand was didn’t matter. Now, I think they’ve reverted back to the unnatural position thinking.

Im really not sure, to be honest, so happy to be corrected.
I’m the same. I know longer understand what is and what is not handball.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
I’m the same. I know longer understand what is and what is not handball.
It beggars belief, doesn't it, that they've pissed around so much that we can't even be sure of something that should really be relatively clear.
 

Armstrong_11

Spurs makes me happy, you... not so much :)
Aug 3, 2011
8,572
19,113
Been awhile since we complained about VAR... villa were lucky... very lucky.

Unless the ball some how didn't fully cross the line???? It could have maybe juz stayed out... gosh
 

Armstrong_11

Spurs makes me happy, you... not so much :)
Aug 3, 2011
8,572
19,113
Not sure. If the GDS doesn't work. VAR should have stepped in. I think it crossed the line.
 

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
39,885
62,562
Full statement

Aston Villa v Sheffield United
Goal line incident – 42’


Hawkeye statement

During the first half of Aston Villa v Sheffield United match at Villa Park, there was a goal line incident where the ball was carried over the line by Aston Villa goalkeeper, No. 25 Nyland. The match officials did not receive a signal to the watch nor earpiece as per the Goal Decision System (GDS) protocol. The seven cameras located in the stands around the goal area were significantly occluded by the goalkeeper, defender, and goalpost. This level of occlusion has never been seen before in over 9,000 matches that the Hawk-Eye Goal Line Technology system has been in operation.

The system was tested and proved functional prior to the start of the match in accordance with the IFAB Laws Of The Game and confirmed as working by the match officials. The system has remained functional throughout. Hawk-Eye unreservedly apologises to the Premier League, Sheffield United, and everyone affected by this incident.

PGMOL statement

Under the IFAB protocol, the VAR is able to check goal situations, however due to the fact that the on-field match officials did not receive a signal, and the unique nature of that, the VAR did not intervene.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,894
45,042
Perhaps from now on a duty of the referee needs to be kicking the ball into each goal before the start of every game.
 

mr ashley

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2011
3,127
8,524
Full statement

Aston Villa v Sheffield United
Goal line incident – 42’


Hawkeye statement

During the first half of Aston Villa v Sheffield United match at Villa Park, there was a goal line incident where the ball was carried over the line by Aston Villa goalkeeper, No. 25 Nyland. The match officials did not receive a signal to the watch nor earpiece as per the Goal Decision System (GDS) protocol. The seven cameras located in the stands around the goal area were significantly occluded by the goalkeeper, defender, and goalpost. This level of occlusion has never been seen before in over 9,000 matches that the Hawk-Eye Goal Line Technology system has been in operation.

The system was tested and proved functional prior to the start of the match in accordance with the IFAB Laws Of The Game and confirmed as working by the match officials. The system has remained functional throughout. Hawk-Eye unreservedly apologises to the Premier League, Sheffield United, and everyone affected by this incident.

PGMOL statement

Under the IFAB protocol, the VAR is able to check goal situations, however due to the fact that the on-field match officials did not receive a signal, and the unique nature of that, the VAR did not intervene.
And yet, as it was a free kick the linesman would have been in position to to give it. He’d have been, at worst, in line with the penalty spot and with an umimpeded view.
Just shows how important it is to have a video ref in the stadium, who can alert the ref to a missed decision
 

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
39,885
62,562
Perhaps from now on a duty of the referee needs to be kicking the ball into each goal before the start of every game.
They already do that. Something's gone wrong between the pre-match check and the goal, although I see Hawkeye are blaming the crowded penalty area obstructing all seven cameras which shouldn't even be possible.

At least we know the VAR refs can overrule Hawkeye now, the VAR refs were just as confused as everyone else and didn't react before the ball was back in play.
 

1882andallthat

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2009
2,821
4,157
The Mendes Rule takes over!
Exactly, it was almost in Mendes territory, in that it was so much over the line. Is it a case of Michael Oliver and the linesman officiating by remote control and not relying on their good old fashioned instincts? Have we really got to this stage where ref states, because their watch doesn’t work it’s not a goal ? Surely they must look at this in the future and put something in place to refer to VAR to get a second look when it appears that there’s been an obvious mistake, in this case a failure of the goal line technology. Will we be informed as to why it failed, it must be a concern if we don’t know because it could happen again.
 

Gbspurs

Gatekeeper for debates, King of the plonkers
Jan 27, 2011
26,945
61,824
And yet, as it was a free kick the linesman would have been in position to to give it. He’d have been, at worst, in line with the penalty spot and with an umimpeded view.
Just shows how important it is to have a video ref in the stadium, who can alert the ref to a missed decision

It's catch 22 thought, because the goalline technology has (until last night) proved to be infallible the refs/assistant refs have stopped caring about whether a ball has gone over the line because they have the tech. VAR was clearly lulled into the same false sense of security.

Clearly what should have happened is that they should have stopped the game whilst they checked whether the GDS was working and once they knew it wasn't then they could check the goal. With no fans in the stadium who cares if play is stopped for 10 mins whilst they get a 1 in 9000 decision correct?

Worst case scenario is they should have informed both teams at half time about the mistake and given Villa the chance to concede at the beginning of the 2nd half. Waiting until the end of the match, probably desperately hoping Sheff Utd scored was a stupid thing to do and affected the integrity of the technology.
 

Tucker

Shitehawk
Jul 15, 2013
31,131
146,025
The VAR excuse for not getting involved is a load of Barnard Castle. Frankly it stinks.
 
Top