VAR VAR

[SB_90]

I think the KDB one was handball.

that confirms my worries when var was brought in & the deliberate action of handball was removed because it becomes legal cheating. you cant punish people for natural reactions that common sense. if football is coming towards (may or may not hit) your face. then natural reaction is to protect it was nothing to with stopping the ball

 

[Bladesman]

For anyone who wants to see the farce of the Burnley v Bournemouth match:

 

[gordoncharles]

today is proof is needed that stockley park should only be allowed to advise zero power to overrule anything. referee should be told like normal. but to go over to the screen. i cant believe Garth crooks talked sense earlier they are abdication of their duties. as the saying goes if you give them an excuse to fail they will. get the referee back in charge of the game

less said about Jamie Redknapp the better cant believe he was seriously saying KDB was handball. worlds gone mad if you have to take a ball to face, as your not allowed to protect yourself.

I can't remember a single time when a referee has been asked to view the screen that he hasn't overruled his own decision. I'm going on matches I see elsewhere, mostly in Spain.

That's because if he goes over it's obvious the video ref thinks he was wrong. It takes balls to then say - no, you're wrong and I was right all along. Too many balls for most referees, and understandably so.

All going over to the screen does is add another minute to the fecking delay.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

There was an attack at the beginning of the Bunley Bournmouth match where the attacker looked to me to be offside. The linesman* didn't flag and I imagine that was on purpose because if the attacker scores then it goes to VAR anyway and is checked. If he flags, the ref blows and play stops but he was wrong, then he's stopped a possible scoring opportunity when it would be checked anyway, so why would he do that?
The attacker shot but it was saved, the ball rebounded into play and play went on. So here's my problem with it - if play goes on and it ultimately results in a goal, let's say after enough time and moves that this initial shot is not considered to be part of the same phase as the goal, then that means a goal is scored by the attacking side after an offside decision was deliberately not given because a goal would be checked by VAR, though ultimately it isn't.
So what does the linesman* do? Flag, risk being wrong when everyone will say wait for VAR, or don't flag but, well, what's the point in being there if you don't? Or should VAR always go all the way back to a possible offside no matter how long ago? Which would completely change the game. Or, should he flag if he thinks it's offside, the ref holds off blowing his whistle until the phase is finished and if a goal isn't scored he gives the offside? Which is complicated, difficult for the ref and means players have to completely ignore the lino's flag from now on. Is that what we were told after our play-to-the-whistle moment?

* I mean assistant referee person.

 

[SB_90]

I can't remember a single time when a referee has been asked to view the screen that he hasn't overruled his own decision. I'm going on matches I see elsewhere, mostly in Spain.

That's because if he goes over it's obvious the video ref thinks he was wrong. It takes balls to then say - no, you're wrong and I was right all along. Too many balls for most referees, and understandably so.

All going over to the screen does is add another minute to the fecking delay.

fully agree on this. for all this time the referee is man in charge & now he's as clueless as the rest. at least he would be able to explain his decision. ref needs to get back in charge

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

There was an attack at the beginning of the Bunley Bournmouth match where the attacker looked to me to be offside. The linesman* didn't flag and I imagine that was on purpose because if the attacker scores then it goes to VAR anyway and is checked. If he flags, the ref blows and play stops but he was wrong, then he's stopped a possible scoring opportunity when it would be checked anyway, so why would he do that?
The attacker shot but it was saved, the ball rebounded into play and play went on. So here's my problem with it - if play goes on and it ultimately results in a goal, let's say after enough time and moves that this initial shot is not considered to be part of the same phase as the goal, then that means a goal is scored by the attacking side after an offside decision was deliberately not given because a goal would be checked by VAR, though ultimately it isn't.
So what does the linesman* do? Flag, risk being wrong when everyone will say wait for VAR, or don't flag but, well, what's the point in being there if you don't? Or should VAR always go all the way back to a possible offside no matter how long ago? Which would completely change the game. Or, should he flag if he thinks it's offside, the ref holds off blowing his whistle until the phase is finished and if a goal isn't scored he gives the offside? Which is complicated, difficult for the ref and means players have to completely ignore the lino's flag from now on. Is that what we were told after our play-to-the-whistle moment?

* I mean assistant referee person.

It's horseshit.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

It's horseshit.

That's what I said. Only with a lot more words.

 

[Bladesman]

VAR in Premier League: Referee 'made the wrong call' on Lo Celso - BBC Sport

The VAR "made the wrong call" in failing to send off Tottenham's Giovani lo Celso against Chelsea, says a member of the body that oversees officials.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Bladesman]

 

[Proper Blade]

Am I right in thinking that if Gordon had put the ball in the net, it would have automatically been given as handball?

But because he squared it for someone else to tap in, it came down to intention/unnatural position and all that bollocks?

 

[Bladesman]

Am I right in thinking that if Gordon had put the ball in the net, it would have automatically been given as handball?

But because he squared it for someone else to tap in, it came down to intention/unnatural position and all that bollocks?

Who fucking knows, they make it up as they go along anyway.

 

[Bell4]

Am I right in thinking that if Gordon had put the ball in the net, it would have automatically been given as handball?

But because he squared it for someone else to tap in, it came down to intention/unnatural position and all that bollocks?

Yes you are correct .

 

[ekke287]

I don’t see how he can keep it in play with his hand but it’s irrelevant as he passed to someone else?

His hand has affected the play, intentionally or not, it’s a free kick.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Yes you are correct .

Was it in any way different to the Burnley goal disallowed the other night for Berge’s handball? I didn’t get a chance to see that one (I was away), but from what I read it seemed similar.
From my view of Gordon’s handball at the time (behind the goal on the Kop), I thought his hand and arm were in a natural position for a player dribbling… at basketball.

 

[Bell4]

Was it in any way different to the Burnley goal disallowed the other night for Berge’s handball? I didn’t get a chance to see that one (I was away), but from what I read it seemed similar.
From my view of Gordon’s handball at the time (behind the goal on the Kop), I thought his hand and arm were in a natural position for a player dribbling… at basketball.

Not saying i agree for one moment - its a plain daft rule , but it's the rule

 

[Greystones Blade]

Was it in any way different to the Burnley goal disallowed the other night for Berge’s handball? I didn’t get a chance to see that one (I was away), but from what I read it seemed similar.
From my view of Gordon’s handball at the time (behind the goal on the Kop), I thought his hand and arm were in a natural position for a player dribbling… at basketball.

Gordon didn’t move his hand to the ball but Berge did move his arm…just..

 

[SirNibletsO'Korne]

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Gordon didn’t move his hand to the ball but Berge did move his arm…just..

Thanks for that. If VAR is judging intention, then we are in cloud cuckoo land. Gordon may not have moved his arm, but as the ball was bouncing slowly, he could have made an effort to get his hand out of the way. As this meant he kept the ball in play and controlled it, that was very ‘convenient’. Machines cannot get inside players’ heads - somebody, somewhere has to be responsible for having the knowledge of football to make a sensible decision. It will not be scientific proof, but would be an opinion based on experience and knowledge. There would be disagreements, but it would be better than the present pretence that decisions can be made objectively by technology. Total reliance on technology leads to Gordon getting away with that, and a Villa goalie sitting in the back of the net with the ball, and nobody authorised to say ‘That is a goal.’

 

[Flippity Gibbert]

Thanks for that. If VAR is judging intention, then we are in cloud cuckoo land. Gordon may not have moved his arm, but as the ball was bouncing slowly, he could have made an effort to get his hand out of the way. As this meant he kept the ball in play and controlled it, that was very ‘convenient’. Machines cannot get inside players’ heads - somebody, somewhere has to be responsible for having the knowledge of football to make a sensible decision. It will not be scientific proof, but would be an opinion based on experience and knowledge. There would be disagreements, but it would be better than the present pretence that decisions can be made objectively by technology. Total reliance on technology leads to Gordon getting away with that, and a Villa goalie sitting in the back of the net with the ball, and nobody authorised to say ‘That is a goal.’

Obviously Egan deliberately handled the ball the other week.

 

[loyalblade95]

Just read this from Dermot Gallagher about that handball and I'm still baffled as to how it can be allowed to stand.

"Dermot Gallagher on Anthony Gordon handball" https://www.sheffieldunited.news/ne...andball-against-sheffield-united-wasnt-given/

Edit: The gist I got from it was that it's allowed to stand because he didn't score the goal, which still doesn't make any sense.

If that was one of our players it's a definite penalty.

 

[KiwiBlabe]

Obviously Egan deliberately handled the ball the other week.

Exactly this. These nonsense decisions result in penalties and goals every week. Then the Burnley goal disallowed and this one stands.

I didn't think it was possible, but VAR has got worse since we were last here.

Having said all that, the victim mentality on the kop yesterday needs to stop. It is getting a bit embarrassing how every decision means the PL or refs are corrupt. They are just shit.

 

[spikeachu]

Why such a complex set of rules for something that should be so simple?

Accidental or not, if an unfair advantage was gained by handling the ball any goal in that phase of play should be ruled out.

It's just common sense.

 

[LBA_Blade]

https://www.premierleague.com/news/...itoring,card incidents; and mistaken identity.

The above is what VAR is looking at from the official source, although I don't agree with it, from the parameters they have set VAR up for is "clear and obvious errors" or "serious missed incidents" in four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity" -

For me for what it matters (1 goal) it is a clear and obvious error that has had a match-changing situation - Goal - The referee would have to have the bollocks to own up and say he isn't sure if the goal should stand because of the handball though which if he didn't do VAR should have got involved.

 

[SB_90]

what i thought between 1-0 & 2-0 is what is the difference between rice handball that was disallowed in 2019 & h
Gordon 1 yesterday

but these are sorts of decisions that VAR was brought in for & like ive always said with it. they are too focused on stuff that doesnt matter & not enough on the stuff that does

 

[Chimpan-A]

Why such a complex set of rules for something that should be so simple?

Accidental or not, if an unfair advantage was gained by handling the ball any goal in that phase of play should be ruled out.

It's just common sense.

Just read this from Dermot Gallagher about that handball and I'm still baffled as to how it can be allowed to stand.

"Dermot Gallagher on Anthony Gordon handball" https://www.sheffieldunited.news/ne...andball-against-sheffield-united-wasnt-given/

Edit: The gist I got from it was that it's allowed to stand because he didn't score the goal, which still doesn't make any sense.

If that was one of our players it's a definite penalty.

Dermot Gallagher agrees with the final decision given? Well, that’s a turn up for the books.

 

[ATL Recs]

Gordon didn’t move his hand to the ball but Berge did move his arm…just..

Berge was running in a straight line - are players now supposed to run forward at pace with arms stuck to their sides

 

[Bladesman]

 

[Tezza1889]

Thanks for that. If VAR is judging intention, then we are in cloud cuckoo land. Gordon may not have moved his arm, but as the ball was bouncing slowly, he could have made an effort to get his hand out of the way. As this meant he kept the ball in play and controlled it, that was very ‘convenient’. Machines cannot get inside players’ heads - somebody, somewhere has to be responsible for having the knowledge of football to make a sensible decision. It will not be scientific proof, but would be an opinion based on experience and knowledge. There would be disagreements, but it would be better than the present pretence that decisions can be made objectively by technology. Total reliance on technology leads to Gordon getting away with that, and a Villa goalie sitting in the back of the net with the ball, and nobody authorised to say ‘That is a goal.’

Putting in in less words, if that's us it's, a handball...

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Putting in in less words, if that's us it's, a handball...

That was not what I was trying to say. The fundamental flaw is that it is pretending that an objective truth can be reached about a player’s intention. We can use VAR as evidence, but a human-being has to make the decision. The possibility of human bias has not been eliminated. In my view, we were badly done to with Gordon’s handball, but despite his theatrical fall, he should have had a penalty.

 

[Bladesman]