The VAR Thread

['O Zio]

True but dean has an agenda v us.

Despite all the conspiracy theories, every ref that makes it to PL level is genuinely trying their best to ref the game as fairly as possible. They make mistakes (some more than others) and even the best of them have the occasional moment of madness, but this idea that certain referees have some kind of agenda against a particular club is just nonsense.

As a perfect example, you say Mike Dean hates spurs and yet this is the exact same ref that people used to claim was a closet spurs fan, citing things like some clip of him seeming to "celebrate" one of our goals once.

 

[mr ashley]

It doesn't matter who is involved on the field. The issue is that the law isn't what anyone wants. The refs themselves, regardless of what you might think of them otherwise, can only enforce the laws as they're written. I'd wager most of them hate this rule as much as the rest of us. If anything they probably hate it more because they're the ones having to award these decisions against their better judgement because their hands are tied

If the referees themselves don’t like it (and, by the way nobody knows this for a fact because they are never interviewed), then why aren’t they protesting about it?

 

[Marty]

If the referees themselves don’t like it (and, by the way nobody knows this for a fact because they are never interviewed), then why aren’t they protesting about it?

Another in the long list of reasons why I feel referees should face the media like players and managers do. If they also think this is hopeless they have the right to say so, but instead PGMOL just hides them away.

 

[cjsimba]

Can someone please clarify when these rules came into effect as I'm thoroughly confused.

I saw on MOTD last night that they said this new handball law came into effect in other european leagues last season, but the Premier League has only adopted it this season. But what about the incidents after lockdown such as Moura's handball in the Sheffield United game. What law was in place then? I've read in other places that the law actually came into effect in the Premier League at the start of last season but there was a more 'relaxed' interpretation implemented. Is that true? Doesn't seem to have been with Moura's handball incident among others....

Same with the champions league final with Sissoko's handball - what were the laws at that time?

I know that there have been tweaks to the rule to start this season such as the 'below the armpit' rule and the 'only accidental if immediately before scoring a goal', but I can't find a good timeline of how the handball law has changed over the last few seasons and in which leagues. Can anyone help?

 

['O Zio]

If the referees themselves don’t like it (and, by the way nobody knows this for a fact because they are never interviewed), then why aren’t they protesting about it?

Maybe they are behind the scenes? What do you expect them to do during a match, hold up a placard? At the end of the day they're professionals doing a job. I'm sure they make their feelings known in private but when they step onto the pitch they have to just get on with it.

 

[Trotter]

Can someone please clarify when these rules came into effect as I'm thoroughly confused.

I saw on MOTD last night that they said this new handball law came into effect in other european leagues last season, but the Premier League has only adopted it this season.

The strict interpretation of handball has been in place across the world since the 2018/19 season, we just didn't adopt it in England, because there was still a few loopholes in them so we just carried on what we were doing. FIFA's response was taking over our VAR and removing any ambiguity in the law and strengthening the law from July 1, 2020 however they were not to be implemented until the start of the 2020-21 season.

But in general England has for many years not really refereed to the laws of the game, but more to how the clubs wanted us to referee the game, and there was enough ambiguity in the laws to enable that.

But what about the incidents after lockdown such as Moura's handball in the Sheffield United game. What law was in place then? I've read in other places that the law actually came into effect in the Premier League at the start of last season but there was a more 'relaxed' interpretation implemented. Is that true? Doesn't seem to have been with Moura's handball incident among others....

There are 2 parts to the handball law, one what is a general handball, but secondly that a handball directly leading to a goal whether accidental or not needs to be penalised.
The second part which affected Moura was in place from beginning of last season

 

[mr ashley]

Maybe they are behind the scenes? What do you expect them to do during a match, hold up a placard? At the end of the day they're professionals doing a job. I'm sure they make their feelings known in private but when they step onto the pitch they have to just get on with it.

I understand your point, I guess I’m more frustrated at how the officials and their bosses are shielded from scrutiny to an unhealthy level.
But I think it’s unhelpful for anyone to say that refs don’t like these current laws (unless they’re an official spokesperson for PGMOL), as there’s no way of confirming it.

 

[Who’s our next manager?]

VAR seems not to apply to Liverpool as,once again Mane elbows an Arsenal player and is not sent off.

 

[Trotter]

VAR seems not to apply to Liverpool as,once again Mane elbows an Arsenal player and is not sent off.

Whilst it wasn't an elbow, but hand/forearm to opponents face, it is in the category of "orange card" and VAR I am certain would have gone with the referee whichever way he chose. I don't think it quite meets the criteria of being clear and obvious error.

The offence this has to be judged against is: Serious Foul Play and is written as such-
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality.

I think an argument can be made either way whether it was excessive force/brutality/endangering or just a reckless illegal attempt of fending off the opponent, hence why VAR would not have got involved if they were happy that what the referee said to him was consistent with the pictures.
Now next week an exact same offence could be judged a Red Card offence by the referee, and rightly people will say where is the consistency, but VAR cannot eliminate subjectivity on "borderline" decisions.
Personally if that happened against Spurs I would be saying send off, if it was a Spurs player making the tackle would say Reckless and Yellow Card, however deep down I know if I was refereeing and saw the reverse angle (linesman had better angle of the actual contact) I believe it would likely have been a dismissal, but if only had the referees view, then more likely erred towards yellow.

It cannot be classified as Violent Conduct as it was whilst in a challenge for the ball, violent conduct only occurs when not in challenge for the ball (and it certainly would have met the criteria for violent conduct which is much lesser standard, if this was outside playing distance of ball, like for example Kieran Gibbs last week against Everton)

 

[Who’s our next manager?]

Whilst it wasn't an elbow, but hand/forearm to opponents face, it is in the category of "orange card" and VAR I am certain would have gone with the referee whichever way he chose. I don't think it quite meets the criteria of being clear and obvious error.

The offence this has to be judged against is: Serious Foul Play and is written as such-
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality.

I think an argument can be made either way whether it was excessive force/brutality/endangering or just a reckless illegal attempt of fending off the opponent, hence why VAR would not have got involved if they were happy that what the referee said to him was consistent with the pictures.
Now next week an exact same offence could be judged a Red Card offence by the referee, and rightly people will say where is the consistency, but VAR cannot eliminate subjectivity on "borderline" decisions.
Personally if that happened against Spurs I would be saying send off, if it was a Spurs player making the tackle would say Reckless and Yellow Card, however deep down I know if I was refereeing and saw the reverse angle (linesman had better angle of the actual contact) I believe it would likely have been a dismissal, but if only had the referees view, then more likely erred towards yellow.

It cannot be classified as Violent Conduct as it was whilst in a challenge for the ball, violent conduct only occurs when not in challenge for the ball (and it certainly would have met the criteria for violent conduct which is much lesser standard, if this was outside playing distance of ball, like for example Kieran Gibbs last week against Everton)

Come on now,Liverpool get away with lots of things.

 

[Marty]

Come on now,Liverpool get away with lots of things.

The problem with Liverpool is that they so rarely get a bad decision against them. If a card is borderline like the Mane incident the ref will always produce the most lenient punishment and VAR will agree using the clear and obvious argument that it's not enough of an error by the ref to have it overturned.

 

[Danny1]

The bit I can’t get my head around was in the Fulham game. Fulham’s goal was disallowed due to a foul by Mitrovic that was nothing to do with the goal. Yet the push on Dier that lead to the hand ball incident wasn’t looked at as we were told VAR can’t look at these types of incidents?

Thoroughly confused by it all. Quite simply it should be scrapped and goal line technology should be the only thing.

 

[mr ashley]

Whilst it wasn't an elbow, but hand/forearm to opponents face, it is in the category of "orange card" and VAR I am certain would have gone with the referee whichever way he chose. I don't think it quite meets the criteria of being clear and obvious error.

The offence this has to be judged against is: Serious Foul Play and is written as such-
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality.

I think an argument can be made either way whether it was excessive force/brutality/endangering or just a reckless illegal attempt of fending off the opponent, hence why VAR would not have got involved if they were happy that what the referee said to him was consistent with the pictures.
Now next week an exact same offence could be judged a Red Card offence by the referee, and rightly people will say where is the consistency, but VAR cannot eliminate subjectivity on "borderline" decisions.
Personally if that happened against Spurs I would be saying send off, if it was a Spurs player making the tackle would say Reckless and Yellow Card, however deep down I know if I was refereeing and saw the reverse angle (linesman had better angle of the actual contact) I believe it would likely have been a dismissal, but if only had the referees view, then more likely erred towards yellow.

It cannot be classified as Violent Conduct as it was whilst in a challenge for the ball, violent conduct only occurs when not in challenge for the ball (and it certainly would have met the criteria for violent conduct which is much lesser standard, if this was outside playing distance of ball, like for example Kieran Gibbs last week against Everton)

We still using “clear and obvious error” as part of the VAR criteria?

 

[Marty]

We still using “clear and obvious error” as part of the VAR criteria?

They do for red cards.

 

['O Zio]

I understand your point, I guess I’m more frustrated at how the officials and their bosses are shielded from scrutiny to an unhealthy level.
But I think it’s unhelpful for anyone to say that refs don’t like these current laws (unless they’re an official spokesperson for PGMOL), as there’s no way of confirming it.

I wasn't trying to claim any kind of inside knowledge or anything. Obviously I don't know what the refs really think.

However, I can make an educated guess that they really don't like the amount of criticism they're getting when they apply the laws as they've been told to. Whatever they may think about the law personally, there's no way they like being put in the position of having to give these penalties when everyone, even the benefiting team's manager, is furious about it.

 

[Leachy]

The bit I can’t get my head around was in the Fulham game. Fulham’s goal was disallowed due to a foul by Mitrovic that was nothing to do with the goal. Yet the push on Dier that lead to the hand ball incident wasn’t looked at as we were told VAR can’t look at these types of incidents?

Thoroughly confused by it all. Quite simply it should be scrapped and goal line technology should be the only thing.

Im probably wrong but I think the foul by Mitrovic meant that they defender was on the ground and his foot was playing the guy onside who scored from the rebound off the keeper. If there hadn’t been a foul it would have been offside.

 

[Trotter]

The bit I can’t get my head around was in the Fulham game. Fulham’s goal was disallowed due to a foul by Mitrovic that was nothing to do with the goal. Yet the push on Dier that lead to the hand ball incident wasn’t looked at as we were told VAR can’t look at these types of incidents?

Thoroughly confused by it all. Quite simply it should be scrapped and goal line technology should be the only thing.

Don't recall the Fulham incident. Post a link and will advise, but obviously be aware that I don't think there was any foul committed against Dier on Sunday in the incident, so that is the starting point.

 

[Trotter]

The piece in the Mirror this morning, has obviously been briefed, as is basically how I understand the discussions went yesterday at the weekly referees conference call.


English refereeing chiefs are moving to quell the handball furore - by softening their approach to the controversial law.
Professional Game Match Officials Limited are to tell referees that in future Everton ’s match-winning penalty at Crystal Palace should not be awarded.
New advice is to be given to officials on implementing a relatively recent law change that has provoked widespread condemnation and ridicule.
It sparked fury at two Premier League venues last weekend when Everton and Newcastle both benefited spectacularly from the way the law was rewritten in 2018.
However, PGMOL chiefs are likely to be frustrated in their opposition to the sort of incident from which Spurs were denied by a late equaliser.
The “handball” given against Tottenham ’s Eric Dier looked even harsher than the one against Joel Ward at Selhurst Park.
Both players were hit inadvertently at point blank range and Dier even had his back to the ball in his aerial challenge.
However, the fact his arm was raised above the shoulder - while natural in the act of jumping - will give PGMOL a problem under the complex wording of the law.
Virtually all referees in this country believe that to penalise either incident is contrary to the spirit of the game.
That they appear to have been given little option but to apply the vexed law has provoked much sympathy for their position. (edit - apart from at Spurs Community )
Having previously been dragged into line by FIFA on applying it, PGMOL are in a delicate position.
Players and managers will want to know if there is going to be any change. However, to announce it would spark a political conflict.
Ironically, it was the taking of a more common sense approach last season in the English leagues that provoked the law makers to harden their stand.
Now PGMOL are seeking out some middle ground - and more certainty for confused referees.
But the bottom line belief is that unless and until the law is rewritten and simplified, handball will remain the most divisive law in football.

Premier League referees told to soften handball law following raft of criticism

After controversial handballs given against Eric Dier and Joel Ward at the weekend - Premier League referees have been told to soften the law

www.mirror.co.uk

My understanding is they will say the one against Ward didn't really extend his body, as basically hand was so close to his knee and, would have hit his knee if not his hand, and wasn't extended out as such, but the Doherty one would still have to be given (along with the Dier one, and the one against Leeds). The Lindelof one being a but more debatable, and the Maupay one obviously would be a penalty in many seasons.

 

[wooderz]

The piece in the Mirror this morning, has obviously been briefed, as is basically how I understand the discussions went yesterday at the weekly referees conference call.


English refereeing chiefs are moving to quell the handball furore - by softening their approach to the controversial law.
Professional Game Match Officials Limited are to tell referees that in future Everton ’s match-winning penalty at Crystal Palace should not be awarded.
New advice is to be given to officials on implementing a relatively recent law change that has provoked widespread condemnation and ridicule.
It sparked fury at two Premier League venues last weekend when Everton and Newcastle both benefited spectacularly from the way the law was rewritten in 2018.
However, PGMOL chiefs are likely to be frustrated in their opposition to the sort of incident from which Spurs were denied by a late equaliser.
The “handball” given against Tottenham ’s Eric Dier looked even harsher than the one against Joel Ward at Selhurst Park.
Both players were hit inadvertently at point blank range and Dier even had his back to the ball in his aerial challenge.
However, the fact his arm was raised above the shoulder - while natural in the act of jumping - will give PGMOL a problem under the complex wording of the law.
Virtually all referees in this country believe that to penalise either incident is contrary to the spirit of the game.
That they appear to have been given little option but to apply the vexed law has provoked much sympathy for their position. (edit - apart from at Spurs Community )
Having previously been dragged into line by FIFA on applying it, PGMOL are in a delicate position.
Players and managers will want to know if there is going to be any change. However, to announce it would spark a political conflict.
Ironically, it was the taking of a more common sense approach last season in the English leagues that provoked the law makers to harden their stand.
Now PGMOL are seeking out some middle ground - and more certainty for confused referees.
But the bottom line belief is that unless and until the law is rewritten and simplified, handball will remain the most divisive law in football.

Premier League referees told to soften handball law following raft of criticism

After controversial handballs given against Eric Dier and Joel Ward at the weekend - Premier League referees have been told to soften the law

www.mirror.co.uk

My understanding is they will say the one against Ward didn't really extend his body, as basically hand was so close to his knee and, would have hit his knee if not his hand, and wasn't extended out as such, but the Doherty one would still have to be given (along with the Dier one, and the one against Leeds)

I've bolded, but the point I want to make is "while natural in the act of jumping" that part. They changed it from natural position to making the body shape bigger. You can't jump with your arms by your side so they either make that the same for both attacker and defender (impossible) or they go back to natural position.

If you're reaching out for the ball, of course, handball. If your arms are in a natural jumping position, then it's ball to hand.

No one complained about handball for 100 years, and then FIFA/IFAB decide to fuck with it, and look where we are now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

 

[Trotter]

I've bolded, but the point I want to make is "while natural in the act of jumping" that part. They changed it from natural position to making the body shape bigger. You can't jump with your arms by your side so they either make that the same for both attacker and defender (impossible) or they go back to natural position.

If you're reaching out for the ball, of course, handball. If your arms are in a natural jumping position, then it's ball to hand.

No one complained about handball for 100 years, and then FIFA/IFAB decide to fuck with it, and look where we are now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

It hasn't changed from natural position to making the body shape bigger, the laws haven't changed since they were brought in. Maybe the way it was explained by the media has, but as we didn't adopt last year, so it wasn't noticed over here, but the law and guidelines in respect of "naturally bigger" are the same as when introduced and adopted by rest of the world, with the one exception last year the laws said it was usually an offence, this year they say it is an offence.
It is both the same for attacker and defender (however the problem is if it is the defender and in box it is a penalty, whereas for attacker would just be penalised with direct free-kick, and the attacker has a further law against him that the defender doesn't, not being able to score a goal even if for a handball offence the defender would not be penalised for.
And to say nobody complained about handball for 100 years is just plain wrong, as was so open to interpretation and inconsistency (football is not just Premier League, but a global sport) and what has led to them trying to make it more black and white, but in my view going way too far with it.