What’s the point of VAR in the Premier League?

[Dr Balls]

I am no fan of Villa or Jack Grealish, but how on earth did Kevin Friend book him for simulation today? Pushed and tackled in the penalty area and plays the ball off for another Villa play to score a late equaliser. Except of course, it’s not as the ref has blown to penalise (incorrectly) Grealish. So given that the Premier League has VAR this season, can this decision be overturned? No, apparently not as the referee has already blown his whistle.

So if VAR can’t overturn a decision that is that wrong, what is the point of having it at all? Surely the point of VAR should be to overturn the most obviously incorrect decisions, especially those where a goal is disallowed or a goal-scoring opportunity is prevented. And I don’t mean the forward’s big toe being 1mm offside or the ball hitting an attacking team player’s hand or arm accidentally in the penalty area, which is obviously when VAR has come into its own on picking out decisions that no one could see in real time, and made no material difference to the way that a goal was scored. Except of course, thanks to VAR, they were disallowed!

[RedLionLad]

I’ve said all along, VAR will ruin the game of football and not improve it.

Two instances highlighted on MOTD showing where it should be used......and it wasn’t.

[chinapig]

VAR can only be used for goals, penalties, red cards, and mistaken identity. None of these applied.

We seem to be in a position where fans are simultaneously saying that VAR shouldn't be used at all and that it should be used for every disputed decision.

As for Grealish, his well earned reputation for diving did for Villa. Perhaps he should have thought of that before?

[Pezo]

6 minutes ago, chinapig said:

VAR can only be used for goals, penalties, red cards, and mistaken identity. None of these applied.

We seem to be in a position where fans are simultaneously saying that VAR shouldn't be used at all and that it should be used for every disputed decision.

As for Grealish, his well earned reputation for diving did for Villa. Perhaps he should have thought of that before?

You'r correct the discussion has moved from if a particular decision was right or wrong to either A) should VAR have been used - most of the time it's people that think it should have been because they aren't happy with the decision or B) VAR has been used and the decision is still not what we want - most of the time people come away thinking what's the point in VAR if it's not actually sorting out all the problems. 

[Fordy62]

The moment the ref blows his whistle, in theory the Palace players stop what they’re doing.

VAR can be used to go back in time, but it cannot be used to go forwards in time. So when the ref blew his whistle it wouldn’t really be fair for VAR to say that play was allowed to continue  when everyone had already stopped. 

The ref should have played on and gone back to look at it if he was unsure. 

No sleep lost here tho. **** Villa. 

[East End Old Boy]

7 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

The moment the ref blows his whistle, in theory the Palace players stop what they’re doing.

VAR can be used to go back in time, but it cannot be used to go forwards in time. So when the ref blew his whistle it wouldn’t really be fair for VAR to say that play was allowed to continue  when everyone had already stopped. 

The ref should have played on and gone back to look at it if he was unsure. 

No sleep lost here tho. **** Villa. 

Spot on and as mentioned previously, Grealish’s past reputation cost Villa the game, or Kevin Friend getting his own back as a City supporter! 

[BTRFTG]

VAR creates as many problems as it attempts to resolve and should be scrapped.

I also viewed the Villa incident and wholly disagree. The cheat Greslish was barely touched and went down like a sack of spuds. I thought on balance the ref got it spot on. As we discovered at their place last year they like a dive or two, the Villains. Contact does not equal foul.

As an idea, let's have one month of refs going over the top and booking everyone who goes over theatrically. A few decisions may be incorrect but the cheats, most of them off the park or serving suspensions, might get the message.

[ChippenhamRed]

You remember that enormous adrenaline rush you got when Korey scored in the 93rd minute?

You remember that moment of collective ecstasy, when you hugged strangers, when you screamed with pure joy?

You remember how it felt to know you’d just witnessed the single greatest moment in your club’s history?

....now imagine what a pause for a VAR offside check would have done to that moment.

And that’s why I hate VAR.

[1960maaan]

Just watched MotD, I don't understand what they are watching.

The challenge on Calum Wilson could have broken his leg, VAR ... nah, didn't see nuffin !
There was another challenge by a Bournemouth player that should have been a 2nd yellow, VAR ... nah, didn't see nuffin.
WHU Vs Norwich , obvious Pen , VAR ... nah, didn't see nuffin !

Now previous weeks VAR was defended as mistakes weren't really mistakes, but it was how the rules have been written. The 3 cases above (there were probably more) are just the latest and most obvious ones I've seen. I really don't understand how anyone, let alone qualified Refs' could see these and say it fine. Just not working.
 

[cidercity1987]

Absolute shocking decision, why wasn’t it a penalty in any case?

I initially felt sorry for one of our own because he whistled for the penalty instead of letting play continue one second for a goal. 

[Markman]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

VAR can only be used for goals, penalties, red cards, and mistaken identity. None of these applied.

We seem to be in a position where fans are simultaneously saying that VAR shouldn't be used at all and that it should be used for every disputed decision.

 

which is exactly why we should have never taken this path. It should be abandoned. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. It is worse than ever now. A bad or incorrect decision is just that - live with it. (and yes if it happened to City as it has in the past I would be annoyed but I would move on) - VAR will kill football as I know it

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

47 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Just watched MotD, I don't understand what they are watching.

The challenge on Calum Wilson could have broken his leg, VAR ... nah, didn't see nuffin !
There was another challenge by a Bournemouth player that should have been a 2nd yellow, VAR ... nah, didn't see nuffin.
WHU Vs Norwich , obvious Pen , VAR ... nah, didn't see nuffin !

Now previous weeks VAR was defended as mistakes weren't really mistakes, but it was how the rules have been written. The 3 cases above (there were probably more) are just the latest and most obvious ones I've seen. I really don't understand how anyone, let alone qualified Refs' could see these and say it fine. Just not working.
 

Completely agree.  The Bournemouth decision was shocking - the Leicester player could easily have broken his ankle.  Absolutely farcical that VAR didn’t see anything.

[chinapig]

32 minutes ago, Markman said:

which is exactly why we should have never taken this path. It should be abandoned. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. It is worse than ever now. A bad or incorrect decision is just that - live with it. (and yes if it happened to City as it has in the past I would be annoyed but I would move on) - VAR will kill football as I know it

I agree, but as long as we have VAR, fans, and especially pundits, should at least understand when and how it will be used. A lot of the arguments are about situations where VAR would not be used at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/09/var-premier-league-season

[Robbored]

Had there been VAR in use at AG yesterday then Asambalonga’s goal would not have stood - he was offside before he scored.

[Numero Uno]

3 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Had there been VAR in use at AG yesterday then Asambalonga’s goal would not have stood - he was offside before he scored.

Well judging by the new farcical offside laws that seem to have been introduced a clear offside yesterday may not have been offside following a VAR check!! The law makers in football need to get a grip because no clever explanation from anyone will convince me that Assombolonga was not gaining an advantage.

Complete and utter bullshit whatever the law says. Anyone who believes that law interpretation is just and correct has clearly never played the game to any half decent level........which probably explains how the law has come into being!!!!!

[chinapig]

18 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Had there been VAR in use at AG yesterday then Asambalonga’s goal would not have stood - he was offside before he scored.

He probably wasn't:

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or

interfering with an opponent by:

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

challenging an opponent for the ball or

clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

[A Horse With No Name]

37 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Had there been VAR in use at AG yesterday then Asambalonga’s goal would not have stood - he was offside before he scored.

Wrong I'm afraid. When the ball was played to him , he would only be flagged offside once he touched the ball. Taylor Moore, in efffect, passed the ball to him , which everyone knows you cannot be offside from.

Although with that Linesman on the Dolman side, who knows what he would or wouldnt have flagged for?

[RedLionLad]

45 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Had there been VAR in use at AG yesterday then Asambalonga’s goal would not have stood - he was offside before he scored.

You are wrong. You need to know the rules before posting comments as fact.

[chinapig]

44 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Well judging by the new farcical offside laws that seem to have been introduced a clear offside yesterday may not have been offside following a VAR check!! The law makers in football need to get a grip because no clever explanation from anyone will convince me that Assombolonga was not gaining an advantage.

Complete and utter bullshit whatever the law says. Anyone who believes that law interpretation is just and correct has clearly never played the game to any half decent level........which probably explains how the law has come into being!!!!!

I don't know about clever but being in an offside position is not an offence in itself and the key part of Law 11 is:

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

I'm not sure there is anything particularly new or contentious about that.

[Numero Uno]

8 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I don't know about clever but being in an offside position is not an offence in itself and the key part of Law 11 is:

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

I'm not sure there is anything particularly new or contentious about that.

Sorry, that should be offside. The law is an ass. The initial ball was played by a Middlesbrough player and skimmed of Moore’s head.

[chinapig]

4 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Sorry, that should be offside. The law is an ass. The initial ball was played by a Middlesbrough player and skimmed of Moore’s head.

Then you need to lobby IFAB for a change in the law. In the meantime the fact that Moore headed the ball put Assombalonga onside I'm afraid.

There is nothing new about that and we may have benefited from it in the past or may benefit in the future.

[Robbored]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Then you need to lobby IFAB for a change in the law. In the meantime the fact that Moore headed the ball put Assombalonga onside I'm afraid.

There is nothing new about that and we may have benefited from it in the past or may benefit in the future.

My complaint is that Asambalonga was offside before he was played onside by Moore. 

Watching it live the guys around me all went up as the goal was scored claiming offside despite having seen the ball deflect off TM.

Watching the replay later the linesman should have flagged before the cross came in.

[cityexile]

The root problem yesterday was not VAR, it was an appalling decision from the ref. I though if it was a dive you were meant to let play continue, then book the player at the next dead ball. A VAR review cannot let play continue somehow after the whistle has gone.

[cityexile]

9 minutes ago, Robbored said:

My complaint is that Asambalonga was offside before he was played onside by Moore. 

Watching it live the guys around me all went up as the goal was scored claiming offside despite having seen the ball deflect off TM.

Watching the replay later the linesman should have flagged before the cross came in.

I agree to the extent that it is nonsense, and everyone can see he got an advantage from being offside.

I wanted to feel robbed, and went to read up on it. Sadly I was wrong, and on this occasion the Lino was right. The rule has changed. They no longer flag as the pass is made, but when the attacker becomes active. In this occasion the fact that Moore deliberately played the ball puts him on side. If Moore had ducked under it, the Lino should have then flagged, but only when he plays the ball.

I do not like it, and I think it is wrong. The officials interpreted the rule correctly however.

[Simon79]

3 minutes ago, cityexile said:

The root problem yesterday was not VAR, it was an appalling decision from the ref. I though if it was a dive you were meant to let play continue, then book the player at the next dead ball. A VAR review cannot let play continue somehow after the whistle has gone.

Surely not if the diving players team have gained an advantage? I use to love this simple game, but I think I have more of an idea on the game of Chess, & I don’t play chess! COYR 

[chinapig]

9 minutes ago, Robbored said:

My complaint is that Asambalonga was offside before he was played onside by Moore. 

Watching it live the guys around me all went up as the goal was scored claiming offside despite having seen the ball deflect off TM.

Watching the replay later the linesman should have flagged before the cross came in.

Read the law again. Being in an offside position is not an offence so Moore's intervention played him onside. If Moore had left the ball Assombalonga would have been offside, but only once he played the ball.

[bcfc01]

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Read the law again. Being in an offside position is not an offence so Moore's intervention played him onside. If Moore had left the ball Assombalonga would have been offside, but only once he played the ball.

Thats the lack of communication that LJ spoke of after the game.

A shout from a team mate to Moore to leave it and Assombalonga is offside.

Poor goal to concede/give away.

 

[Numero Uno]

40 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Then you need to lobby IFAB for a change in the law. In the meantime the fact that Moore headed the ball put Assombalonga onside I'm afraid.

There is nothing new about that and we may have benefited from it in the past or may benefit in the future.

It’s the interpretation of “deliberate” that is wrong and lacking in common sense. If Moore was deliberately trying to head it back to Bentley then he’s bang to rights and the goal should stand. But he was trying to clear the ball knowing the run Assombolonga was making and made a genuine error with the header. An unfair advantage was gained imo.  Anyway, it won’t change but the law is an ass!!

[swanker]

I think football needs an additional VAR. Because of these problems it might need  another VAR to scrutinise the original VAR. that will solve it!

[chinapig]

28 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

It’s the interpretation of “deliberate” that is wrong and lacking in common sense. If Moore was deliberately trying to head it back to Bentley then he’s bang to rights and the goal should stand. But he was trying to clear the ball knowing the run Assombolonga was making and made a genuine error with the header. An unfair advantage was gained imo.  Anyway, it won’t change but the law is an ass!!

I sympathise where a ball happens to glance off a player who has no intent to play it. In those cases the ref tends to ignore the deliberate bit. Maybe that word should be removed from the law

But the fact is as you describe it, Moore was deliberately trying to clear the ball, or at least stop the pass getting through, so Assombalongo was not offside.

 

[marmite]

52 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Thats the lack of communication that LJ spoke of after the game.

A shout from a team mate to Moore to leave it and Assombalonga is offside.

Poor goal to concede/give away.

 

I played center back in my day and instinct would have made Taylor Moore attempt to win that header knowing a player was waiting to receive it whether he had a shout to leave it or not. Imagine if he had just let it go and the goal was still given. He would have been slaughtered on here for not trying to clear it.

[BS4 on Tour...]

7 hours ago, chinapig said:

VAR can only be used for goals, penalties, red cards, and mistaken identity. None of these applied.

We seem to be in a position where fans are simultaneously saying that VAR shouldn't be used at all and that it should be used for every disputed decision.

As for Grealish, his well earned reputation for diving did for Villa. Perhaps he should have thought of that before?

He doesn’t dive - he’s way too skilful for most defenders and he gets fouled - a lot. He didn’t even appeal for a penalty during that incident at Palace yesterday. 

[chinapig]

5 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

He doesn’t dive - he’s way too skilful for most defenders and he gets fouled - a lot. He didn’t even appeal for a penalty during that incident at Palace yesterday. 

He gets fouled a lot. He also dives on other occasions. The two are not mutually exclusive. Rather like Zaha in that respect.

As to how good he is, I'll wait until he has had a full Premier League season before judging whether he is as good as his reputation. He will need to deliver in the way Maddison has I think to justify the claims of some that he should be in the England squad already.

[Mr Popodopolous]

28 minutes ago, chinapig said:

He gets fouled a lot. He also dives on other occasions. The two are not mutually exclusive. Rather like Zaha in that respect.

As to how good he is, I'll wait until he has had a full Premier League season before judging whether he is as good as his reputation. He will need to deliver in the way Maddison has I think to justify the claims of some that he should be in the England squad already.

I agree.

Clear foul? Dunno- thought he went down fairly easy but will gladly watch it again.

IF perhaps he got a bit of a foul and it was classed as a dive then as you said earlier in the thread his reputation may have counted against him.

I remember in the mid 2000s, Andy Johnson had a rep for Everton or some other side of going down easy.  Didn't get many pens for a while! Mud can stick.

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I agree.

Clear foul? Dunno- thought he went down fairly easy but will gladly watch it again.

IF perhaps he got a bit of a foul and it was classed as a dive then as you said earlier in the thread his reputation may have counted against him.

I remember in the mid 2000s, Andy Johnson had a rep for Everton or some other side of going down easy.  Didn't get many pens for a while! Mud can stick.

I don't think it was a penalty or a dive yesterday, so I do suspect his reputation cost him.

He also tends to berate officials somewhat, which may not help him with marginal decisions. Not that I think refs will deliberately decide against him, more a sub-conscious thing.

[BTRFTG]

The fundamental issue with VAR and recent law changes are it detracts from the fundamental simplicity of Football, namely wherever you are, whatever level you play at The Laws remain the same for all participants.

So now we have a situation whereby an attacker in the box who handles the ball though without intending to do so is penalised, a defender in the same circumstance is not. How long before somebody punches one off the line only to claim they didn't intend to do so and were protecting their head or suchlike?

Stupid.

[Up The City!]

5 hours ago, chinapig said:

Then you need to lobby IFAB for a change in the law. In the meantime the fact that Moore headed the ball put Assombalonga onside I'm afraid.

There is nothing new about that and we may have benefited from it in the past or may benefit in the future.

Id argue that had he not of been in a offside position then Moore would have taken a different course of action. He wasn't to know if he was offside or not so made a desperate and poor attempt to prevent the ball from reaching the offside player.

[chinapig]

6 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

Id argue that had he not of been in a offside position then Moore would have taken a different course of action. He wasn't to know if he was offside or not so made a desperate and poor attempt to prevent the ball from reaching the offside player.

However the law doesn't and can't account for hypothetical situations. It can only deal with what players do not what they might have done if circumstances had been different.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

1 hour ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

He doesn’t dive - he’s way too skilful for most defenders and he gets fouled - a lot. He didn’t even appeal for a penalty during that incident at Palace yesterday. 

His momentum took him down, and as he fell he delivered an unbelievable pass to a team mate.  He did not appeal for a penalty.  How the referee could have deemed it a dive is laughable.  I agree with Jermaine Jenas that it was one of the worst decisions in the history of the Premier League.

[Up The City!]

58 minutes ago, chinapig said:

However the law doesn't and can't account for hypothetical situations. It can only deal with what players do not what they might have done if circumstances had been different.

In that case the law is a ass. Had their player not been offside then that header goes back to the keeper.

Why can't the rule be if your offside when the ball is played then your offside, none of this active or inactive bollocks or defenders deliberately playing the ball etc. 

[chinapig]

4 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

In that case the law is a ass. Had their player not been offside then that header goes back to the keeper.

Why can't the rule be if your offside when the ball is played then your offside, none of this active or inactive bollocks or defenders deliberately playing the ball etc. 

Again, you need to ask IFAB!

That was the law years ago but it led to goals being disallowed because somebody was in an offside position despite not being involved in the play at all. That also allowed teams to repeatedly play the offside trap, which was a bit of a buzz kill to say the least.

Us oldies can remember goals being disallowed because a player standing on the wing 30 yards from the play was standing in an offside position.

That was regarded as unfair, which is why the law was changed, along with others, to favour the attacking side. On balance the current law seems more sensible but you're never going to please everybody I suppose.

[CityCiderEd]

Thierry Henry was the master of the not being active law. He would stray offside with the opposition thinking leave him he's well off and suddenly a different player gets on the ball who has come from an onside position makes the run and passes to Henry who is now onside with nobody near him.....and goal have that.

[Rinkadink]

8 hours ago, chinapig said:

I agree, but as long as we have VAR, fans, and especially pundits, should at least understand when and how it will be used. A lot of the arguments are about situations where VAR would not be used at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/09/var-premier-league-season

I think this is what needs sorting, the when and how. Checking a video in itself isn't a bad thing, neither can be waiting for a big call - it means you can even celebrate twice in some cases and adds to the drama if done correctly in a timely fashion.

Ref mics (for TV and supporters at the ground) and more transparency of processes should be top priority too.

[Portland Bill]

6 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

Thats the lack of communication that LJ spoke of after the game.

A shout from a team mate to Moore to leave it and Assombalonga is offside.

Poor goal to concede/give away.

 

Moore or any of the other defenders wouldn’t have known if he was offside or not, there was inches in it, so no other player is going to give Moore a shout. 

[Portland Bill]

25 minutes ago, Rinkadink said:

I think this is what needs sorting, the when and how. Checking a video in itself isn't a bad thing, neither can be waiting for a big call - it means you can even celebrate twice in some cases and adds to the drama if done correctly in a timely fashion.

Ref mics (for TV and supporters at the ground) and more transparency of processes should be top priority too.

I’m all for refs to have mics, but for the reason that people will then realise the shite they have to put up with from the players!

[BS3_RED]

Watching the Spurs game now and trying to work out how the hold on Alli does not even warrant a review. I for one wanted VAR but the way it is being used I am glad we dont have it in the Championship 

[Lanterne Rouge]

13 minutes ago, BS3_RED said:

Watching the Spurs game now and trying to work out how the hold on Alli does not even warrant a review. I for one wanted VAR but the way it is being used I am glad we dont have it in the Championship 

Anyone know if there are plans to introduce it in the future? I hope not for what it`s worth.

[bcfc01]

28 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

Moore or any of the other defenders wouldn’t have known if he was offside or not, there was inches in it, so no other player is going to give Moore a shout. 

Inches ?

My eyesight must be shot to ****.

[Up The City!]

Sat here watching the Man United V Arsenal game, how the hell were United not given a penalty for hand ball? And the offside call for Aubas goal was bizarre, he was clearly onside, Auba didn't even celebrate due to the flag going up. All goals are reviewed anyways so why did the lino flag it offside? 

I just don't understand VAR and when and when it isn't used. 

Also Neville mentioned that he has a ear piece to listen into what is going on and announced the goal before the ref did, why isn't this feed played to the viewers also? I feel like I'm in the dark half the time and would maybe understand if we were shown the decision making process.

[Dr Balls]

It’s a completely different situation in both rugby union and cricket. Watching the Rugby World Cup, the viewer gets to hear what the referee has asked for, and also sees what the TMO sees. Likewise the TV viewer in the cricket gets to see the 3rd umpire go through the ball tracking and snickometer, then make a clear decision. Admittedly the poor punter at the ground doesn’t get to see any of that, same as football, but it does seem the other sports have got this way more sorted.

[Robbored]

I completely agree.

The difficultly with VaR  is the lack of definition in where and when it’s used.

Goals - I can see why every goal scored is checked but things like unclear handball that’s been missed by the ref is deemed as necessary to review the incident and notify the ref .....why? It’s not as missing an unclear handball is a ‘clear and obvious mistake’.....

As for offside whilst the delay in annoying a player is either on or offside and the VaR review is absolute.

[Up The City!]

6 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I completely agree.

The difficultly with VaR  is the lack of definition in where and when it’s used.

Goals - I can see why every goal scored is checked but things like unclear handball that’s been missed by the ref is deemed as necessary to review the incident and notify the ref .....why? It’s not as missing an unclear handball is a ‘clear and obvious mistake’.....

As for offside whilst the delay in annoying a player is either on or offside and the VaR review is absolute.

In this case Auba was like 5 yards on side. It was a bizarre call. 

It's the clear and obvious mistake that I struggle to understand. With that handball did the ref see it or not? Was the players arms in a unnatural position? For me that was a penalty all day long. The player had plenty of time to get his arms out of the way.

It just seems to me that by overturning the ref that's like them admitting the ref got it wrong. 

[Up The City!]

The lino also raised his flag before the goal was scored, are they not supposed to keep it down and let VAR sort it out? United could argue they saw the flag go up so stopped playing.

[Lrrr]

37 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

Sat here watching the Man United V Arsenal game, how the hell were United not given a penalty for hand ball? And the offside call for Aubas goal was bizarre, he was clearly onside, Auba didn't even celebrate due to the flag going up. All goals are reviewed anyways so why did the lino flag it offside? 

I just don't understand VAR and when and when it isn't used. 

Also Neville mentioned that he has a ear piece to listen into what is going on and announced the goal before the ref did, why isn't this feed played to the viewers also? I feel like I'm in the dark half the time and would maybe understand if we were shown the decision making process.

Handball - because the player didn't make his body unnaturally bigger, its hit his arm naturally by his side, funnily enough if thats the striker and he then kicks it in the goal is disallowed 

For the goal and offside...... Either the lino is sure he's offside and just shit or he's fluffed what he should be doing (more likely)

'Where there is a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity and the assistant referee is not certain whether the attacker actively involved is in an offside position, the assistant should delay indicating the offence until the phase of play has concluded.

Where there is a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity and the assistant referee is certain the attacker actively involved is in an offside position, then the assistant should indicate the offence immediately.

In both of these situations the referee should wait to blow the whistle until the immediate phase of play has ended.'

As for Neville getting a feed for the decision making they won't give it to the public because of the controversy it may cause if the refs are made audible, however you'll also never get refs mics made live because of the language thats used in football despite the attempts made to change it.

[MarcusX]

26 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I completely agree.

The difficultly with VaR  is the lack of definition in where and when it’s used.

Goals - I can see why every goal scored is checked but things like unclear handball that’s been missed by the ref is deemed as necessary to review the incident and notify the ref .....why? It’s not as missing an unclear handball is a ‘clear and obvious mistake’.....

As for offside whilst the delay in annoying a player is either on or offside and the VaR review is absolute.

It’s not absolute because you can’t be sure the exact time the ball is played due to the frame rates of the video. Someone explained this better on Twitter I think but basically when it’s these real close millimetre decisions with the coloured lines, there’s a degree of inaccuracy

[Up The City!]

3 minutes ago, hodge said:

Handball - because the player didn't make his body unnaturally bigger, its hit his arm naturally by his side, funnily enough if thats the striker and he then kicks it in the goal is disallowed 

For the goal and offside...... Either the lino is sure he's offside and just shit or he's fluffed what he should be doing (more likely)

'Where there is a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity and the assistant referee is not certain whether the attacker actively involved is in an offside position, the assistant should delay indicating the offence until the phase of play has concluded.

Where there is a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity and the assistant referee is certain the attacker actively involved is in an offside position, then the assistant should indicate the offence immediately.

In both of these situations the referee should wait to blow the whistle until the immediate phase of play has ended.'

As for Neville getting a feed for the decision making they won't give it to the public because of the controversy it may cause if the refs are made audible, however you'll also never get refs mics made live because of the language thats used in football despite the attempts made to change it.

The problem is there is just so many grey areas and inconsistencies, especially with hand ball, no one fully understands what hand ball is these days. For me, he had plenty of time to move his hand so therefore it should be hand ball. 

The offside was absolutely ridiculous, that was a stupendous mistake for the lino and if he's getting them sort of offsides wrong then he should not be running the line for such huge games. 

I'd just be happy for there to be a live feed of the decision making process back at VAR hq. I don't like the cloak of secrecy around the process. 

[Up The City!]

1 minute ago, MarcusX said:

It’s not absolute because you can’t be sure the exact time the ball is played due to the frame rates of the video. Someone explained this better on Twitter I think but basically when it’s these real close millimetre decisions with the coloured lines, there’s a degree of inaccuracy

It will never be 100%, could be calibration issues etc. I'm baffled as to why a hawk eye system for offsides hasn't been developed. With their expertise it would be far more accurate than some person moving some red and blue lines around. 

Today's offside call should never of needed the red and blue lines, it was clear to see with the naked eyes.

[Robbored]

10 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

It’s not absolute because you can’t be sure the exact time the ball is played due to the frame rates of the video. Someone explained this better on Twitter I think but basically when it’s these real close millimetre decisions with the coloured lines, there’s a degree of inaccuracy

I’m sure many of us will remember Sterling having a goal ruled out for England because his toe was offside................

The attitude of the commentators was ‘ if he’s offside then he’s offside’.........It’s exactly the same now.

VaR is beyond reproach.

[Northern Red]

VAR is crap, and it's being made worse by the way the PL is implementing it. They're petrified of being seen to be undermining their referees, even on obvious mistakes like that penalty shout tonight.

[Maesknoll Red]

I’d change the offside rule, so there had to be clear daylight between the attacker and the last defender.  It seems mad to me that part of your body can be onside and part off.

[Northern Red]

And on a related subject, I know he's one of us, but Kevin Friend really isn't very good.

[Lrrr]

32 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

For me, he had plenty of time to move his hand so therefore it should be hand ball. 

So you want him to move his arm from a natural position to an unnatural position to try avoiding the ball, but if it then still catches his arm its now in an unnatural position and will be given as a penalty, its tucked into his body, not sure where he's supposed to try and move it.

7 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I’d change the offside rule, so there had to be clear daylight between the attacker and the last defender.  It seems mad to me that part of your body can be onside and part off.

Okay so daylight between all the body/upper body or what? if its all body then you'll get the discussion is a fraction of his boot still in line with the defender etc

[NNSnse]

17 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I’d change the offside rule, so there had to be clear daylight between the attacker and the last defender.  It seems mad to me that part of your body can be onside and part off.

Like the ball being over the line or not for a goal.

[Rinkadink]

1 hour ago, Dr Balls said:

Admittedly the poor punter at the ground doesn’t get to see any of that, same as football

At rugby, both league and union, the crowd get to see what's being reviewed on the big screen whilst the game is stopped. That in itself becomes a spectacle and adds to the atmosphere.

VAR needed to happen but laws and methods around it need refining. IE; officials make an on field decision and signal it then VAR looks for "Clear and obvious" contradictions otherwise on field call stands. Will speed up the process as an added bonus plus similar tweaks to the above. 

[Super]

2 hours ago, Northern Red said:

VAR is crap, and it's being made worse by the way the PL is implementing it. They're petrified of being seen to be undermining their referees, even on obvious mistakes like that penalty shout tonight.

In fairness though it worked with the goal. 

[Up The City!]

1 hour ago, Super said:

In fairness though it worked with the goal. 

In fairness tho, a premier League lino should not be making such a bad call, he wasn't marginally onside, he was massively onside.

[Super]

5 hours ago, Up The City! said:

In fairness tho, a premier League lino should not be making such a bad call, he wasn't marginally onside, he was massively onside.

I agree but that's why VAR is a good thing when it can correct such a shocking decision.

[Port Said Red]

9 hours ago, hodge said:

So you want him to move his arm from a natural position to an unnatural position to try avoiding the ball, but if it then still catches his arm its now in an unnatural position and will be given as a penalty, its tucked into his body, not sure where he's supposed to try and move it.

Okay so daylight between all the body/upper body or what? if its all body then you'll get the discussion is a fraction of his boot still in line with the defender etc

Then bring back the definition of “seeking to gain an advantage”, that way you can say that’s offside as they are a body width ahead of their marker. 

Having your toe or shoulder slightly ahead of the player is not seeking to gain an advantage.

[Maesknoll Red]

19 hours ago, hodge said:

So you want him to move his arm from a natural position to an unnatural position to try avoiding the ball, but if it then still catches his arm its now in an unnatural position and will be given as a penalty, its tucked into his body, not sure where he's supposed to try and move it.

Okay so daylight between all the body/upper body or what? if its all body then you'll get the discussion is a fraction of his boot still in line with the defender etc

The whole body, limbs, hands, feet, whatever, clear daylight and it’s offside.  What could be simpler?

[Lrrr]

3 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

The whole body, limbs, hands, feet, whatever, clear daylight and it’s offside.  What could be simpler?

As said, if there's the smallest part of a boot or hand in line or not and still gets flagged offside