Interesting slant on that ‘handball’

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Lunny being a toe offside is not comparable to the decision at Villa.
One was the correct decision, one was not.

The Villa Park incident is the only one which Sheffield United can truly feel hard done by......
Every other type of decision/overturning of decisions has also impacted other clubs in the league this season.

To be honest, it was still not correct. The play should have been reset when the Spurs player headed the ball clear & we regained possession. Otherwise, how far back in time do you go to disallow a goal? It was a ridiculous decision on that basis.

I'm not claiming there's some big conspiracy by the way.
 

By itself the Villa no goal does not indicate , in total , how we have been affected by Var. However, there is a table ,as Bladesthorpe alludes to, available. In that we are shown to be at the bottom with minus 6 and Man Utd at the top with + 8 . That is to say that we have had 6 more decisions go against us than for us and Man Utd have had 8 more decisions go for them than against them. That is a differentialof 14 decisions between Blades and Man U. It is quite interesting as it gives every clubs' stats regarding for and against Var decisions and annotates which incidents were involved eg goals, offsides, red cards etc. Notably, Wolves are 2nd from bottom with Minus 5 and Brighton 2nd top with +7. Also, only 1 club, Bournemouth, have a score of 0 disproving the old adage of luck evening itself out. This week's decisions not included BTW. I would post a copy of the table but , sorry, don't know how to.
 
there seems to be a lot of people on here that cant differentiate between VAR & the rules
The rule book is what states the laws of the game that have to be abided by
VAR is a tool that (hopefully) means the rules are followed
The VAR ref could well ahve said to the on pitch ref 'FFS, this is ridiculous, the ball was blasted at his arm from 15cms, but the laws the law, no goal'
The failing, as with Lunnys toe, isnt VAR, its the rules that guide them
 
Well I can't help you if you fail to differentiate between bias and facts.

Kane's goal was from a handball, McGoldrick's goal was from an offside.
VAR is only supposed to check for offsides in the same phase of play. The ball was headed clear after Lundstram was offside which started a new phase of play.
 
It may be an unpopular opinion, but I actually don't mind this handball rule. I think it makes sense.

It seems like it's harsh on the attacking team, because they have what looks like a perfectly good goal ruled out.

However, think about the 2 situations where it's happened this season - the Snodgrass 'goal' for West Ham and then again with Moura yesterday. In both situations our defenders would've cleared the ball if it weren't for the players hand or arm getting in the way, enabling them to score. I realise it wasn't an intentional handball, but why should a team benefit from getting a goal via using their arm, even if accidental?

Currently the rule punishes the forward, but if it changes it just switches to punishing the defender, who otherwise would have made a good clearance.
 
I agree with the West Ham one but yesterday it didn't affect it at all.
 
It's ridiculous but not exactly surprising that no discussion was had about what VAR should do if Hawkeye failed.

I don't believe for one minute that at least one referee hasn't raised that scenario pre Villa.
 
By itself the Villa no goal does not indicate , in total , how we have been affected by Var. However, there is a table ,as Bladesthorpe alludes to, available. In that we are shown to be at the bottom with minus 6 and Man Utd at the top with + 8 . That is to say that we have had 6 more decisions go against us than for us and Man Utd have had 8 more decisions go for them than against them. That is a differentialof 14 decisions between Blades and Man U. It is quite interesting as it gives every clubs' stats regarding for and against Var decisions and annotates which incidents were involved eg goals, offsides, red cards etc. Notably, Wolves are 2nd from bottom with Minus 5 and Brighton 2nd top with +7. Also, only 1 club, Bournemouth, have a score of 0 disproving the old adage of luck evening itself out. This week's decisions not included BTW. I would post a copy of the table but , sorry, don't know how to.

Why do people continually post this 'evidence' about the VAR table, without knowing what it actually means?

That '-5' that puts Sheffield United level bottom with Wolves and West Ham and does not indicate that Sheffield United have been 'robbed' by VAR.

It really is not difficult to understand this.

(Calling me a 'pig', when I don't support Wednesday, isn't helping anyone arguing against my point at all. You're just shutting down the debate because you can't argue against it.)
 
I thought the Hawkeye failing had been put to bed. They have 7 cameras at each end viewing the goals. They need 2 to see the ball clearly to fix its position. At Villa only 1 camera had a clear sight and so the system couldn’t give the goal. Unfortunately Hawkeye does not have the ability to say ‘haven’t got a clear view so can’t be certain’ so as there is no goal message it’s assumed by the ref that it’s no goal. Hawkeye failing that needs to be fixed or at least noted by VAR authorities so that can take it into account.
The Hawkeye system failed for whatever reason. Hawkeye have apologised to the club for that (see statement on PL website).
However the PL also say on their website that under the Protocols VAR could have intervened. They did not do so because the on field officials did not get a signal ( from Hawkeye) and because of this and the “unique” circumstances they did not intervene. However VAR is there to correct clear and obvious mistakes by the onfield officials. everyone of the millions watching on TV could see that the ball had completely crossed the line (nobody has argued to the contrary) so it was a clear and obvious mistake. What’s more as football is about scoring a goal allowing or disallowing a goal is the most fundamental decision that needs to be correct. It is ridiculous! The people who were operating VAR on the night should be Called to account and thePL should at least apologise like Hawkeye have.
 
To be honest, it was still not correct. The play should have been reset when the Spurs player headed the ball clear & we regained possession. Otherwise, how far back in time do you go to disallow a goal? It was a ridiculous decision on that basis.

I'm not claiming there's some big conspiracy by the way.

I just looked it up on the official VAR Premier League site, apparently:

The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession.

Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack.


I've come to the conclusion that it needs to be worded better.

"Not necessarily go back to when the team gained possession" could mean two things.

1. It does not have to include the whole length of time the attacking side had possession.

2. It could include before the side gained possession.


"Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack."

I guess VAR could argue that Sheffield United still had the full momentum of their attack. As the clearance by Spurs meant that Spurs neither were in possession of the ball, and were not able to reset properly.
 
Why do people continually post this 'evidence' about the VAR table, without knowing what it actually means?

That '-5' that puts Sheffield United level bottom with Wolves and West Ham and does not indicate that Sheffield United have been 'robbed' by VAR.

It really is not difficult to understand this.

(Calling me a 'pig', when I don't support Wednesday, isn't helping anyone arguing against my point at all. You're just shutting down the debate because you can't argue against it.)
Do you not find it interesting or notable at all that 2 smaller clubs near the top of the table are at the bottom and the team with the biggest financial pull is at the top?
 
Do you not find it interesting or notable at all that 2 smaller clubs near the top of the table are at the bottom and the team with the biggest financial pull is at the top?

Brighton?
 
The way i saw it was the player dived egan went to clear and start a counter attack . Player on the floor saw this and put his arm out to stop us a clear run at goal ;)
 
How many times?

They did not go 'against' you.
They were correctly overruled because they should not have been allowed in the first place.
I agree.

VAR table & decisions club-by-club

The VAR table shows that we've had many VAR decisions go 'against' us, (and a few 'for' us) and are near the bottom of the table for this.

I don't think it's a conspiracy though.


The McGoldrick goal vs Spurs/Lundstram offside is by far the most questionable, given 1. the phases of play and 2. how marginal it is with regards to the resolution of the technology. I can understand why this one is brought up as problematic. I think it brings to question not the integrity of the competition but more the fidelity of the technology.

The goal vs Villa is a clear mistake and is really the only evidence that something fishy is going on, given how badly they got it wrong.

But the table itself doesn't mean much, as the rest were all simply correct decisions, even if fine margins or harsh.
 

There was no VAR protocol to intervene/have anything to do with Hawkeye.
Like you say, there was no expectation for this issue to arise.
I'd only disagree with the point about some of the more marginal calls. In the Lundstram one, I'm unconvinced the tech is good enough to make such a close call. The frame they used, the ball had already left the foot of the passer. Lundstram's foot was in motion and as such is shown as blurred. The absolute accuracy to the inch of the pitch measurement is also unlikely to be accurate to that degree making any line drawing have a degree of error to boot. I'd say the tech is ok when full appendages are offside but for fractions of body parts, it simply isn't accurate enough.
 
To be honest, I do quite like the completely black and white nature of this rule, despite it obviously being cobblers in a footballing sense.

I can see why they've done it, because it's infuriating when goals like Llorente's against Citeh are allowed to stand, and to be honest, I can't see them reversing it, they could add context to it, but then it makes it subjective and would lead to even more bellyaching.

I actually think this was one of the clearer ones. Not like a minor brush of the arm that does nothing to the flight of the ball. The fortunate ricochet to Kane was directly caused by striking Lucas’ arm and gave them a clear advantage.
 
I'd only disagree with the point about some of the more marginal calls. In the Lundstram one, I'm unconvinced the tech is good enough to make such a close call. The frame they used, the ball had already left the foot of the passer. Lundstram's foot was in motion and as such is shown as blurred. The absolute accuracy to the inch of the pitch measurement is also unlikely to be accurate to that degree making any line drawing have a degree of error to boot. I'd say the tech is ok when full appendages are offside but for fractions of body parts, it simply isn't accurate enough.
Also with the VAR offside lines they are judging where to put the set point usually from behind and at an angle, so the perspective could be well out. They should have at least a forward facing camera behind the goal, that is synced up with the touchline cameras, so that they can at least get all 3 axis right for the line they are trying to draw, anything else is best guess.
 
I actually think this was one of the clearer ones. Not like a minor brush of the arm that does nothing to the flight of the ball. The fortunate ricochet to Kane was directly caused by striking Lucas’ arm and gave them a clear advantage.

I think that should be the thing they ask when they're deciding stuff.

If the handballee wasn't there what would have happened?

In this case, the ball would have gone out for a throw or been collected on the far side of the pitch near the centre circle.

West Ham one, the ball would have gone across Rice and he wouldn't have been able to play the pass.

The shitty ones are when it brushes a finger on its way in or something. If it hasn't obviously significantly altered the trajectory, then play on.

Problem is, asking the refs to make that call is asking for trouble.
 
I think that should be the thing they ask when they're deciding stuff.

If the handballee wasn't there what would have happened?

In this case, the ball would have gone out for a throw or been collected on the far side of the pitch near the centre circle.

West Ham one, the ball would have gone across Rice and he wouldn't have been able to play the pass.

The shitty ones are when it brushes a finger on its way in or something. If it hasn't obviously significantly altered the trajectory, then play on.

Problem is, asking the refs to make that call is asking for trouble.
Exactly - we’ve been sold a meme of technological certainty. Trouble is, the technology is far from certain and even when it is, what it shows can still be interpreted dozens of ways. It’s not AI, it’s a tool like a watch or whistle. The longer it’s here, the more I think the primary function should be pitch side monitors for the ref to have another look at something. The VAR is just another dissenting voice, convoluting the whole thing. Put the man in the middle in charge of everything.
 
We've had several ridiculous situations go against us this season due to new rules and refereeing practices. I'd not expect fans of other clubs to be informed enough to make such strong arguments.

1. Villa ghost goal
2. McGoldrick 'offisde' goal
3. Newcastle goal where the lino flagged but the ref didn't blow the whistle
4. Man City goal where the ref tackled Fleck
 
I still think that VAR could & should have intervened on your Villa 'goal'.
They must be sitting there watching the whole game. They knew that something had or hadn't happened, at that moment.
I get that 'hawkeye-wise', it was an unprecedented occurrence but it was still a disgrace that VAR 'chose' to not get involved.
 
We've had several ridiculous situations go against us this season due to new rules and refereeing practices. I'd not expect fans of other clubs to be informed enough to make such strong arguments.

1. Villa ghost goal
2. McGoldrick 'offisde' goal
3. Newcastle goal where the lino flagged but the ref didn't blow the whistle
4. Man City goal where the ref tackled Fleck

Egans header at Brighton going in when it brushed his arm.
 
Egans header at Brighton going in when it brushed his arm.
Aye, I didn't include the stupid handballs or minuscule offsides because all teams have had them.

We have had a collection of unique, shocking decisions which have cost us a few points and made some games farcical.
 
I'd only disagree with the point about some of the more marginal calls. In the Lundstram one, I'm unconvinced the tech is good enough to make such a close call. The frame they used, the ball had already left the foot of the passer. Lundstram's foot was in motion and as such is shown as blurred. The absolute accuracy to the inch of the pitch measurement is also unlikely to be accurate to that degree making any line drawing have a degree of error to boot. I'd say the tech is ok when full appendages are offside but for fractions of body parts, it simply isn't accurate enough.
Totally agree that the VAR technology just isn't up to the job. As I said on another thread, VAR uses a frame rate of 50 FPS which is pitifully slow. It's like trying to measure the speed of light using a torch and a stopwatch.

This graphic explains it well.
RqfDK0El.jpg
 
Leicester, not Wednesday.
I don't suffer from the delusional bias that United/Wednesday fans have on either side of the debate about your club.

Hence I give huge amounts of credit to Wilder and the team......
But refuse to add credit to the argument that VAR's purpose this season has been to put Blades outside the top 4.


Bit of a problem in Leicester, hope you're safe.

Had a relative lived in Oadby.

Have people been saying that? I certainly don't but, last time I looked, we were bottom of the ESPN league for who has benefited most/least from VAR turnovers with a -6.
Who was top with a plus of about +10? Oh yes, Manure! ;)
 
Wondering if this is a possibility. I'm not wise as to how it functions and the technicalities of Hawkeye but could the incident be re-enacted ie player & ball positions as it crosses the line. Is it repeatable??........have we seen proof the system was actually on and functioning??
(not that I doubt peoples honesty & integrity in the slightest)
 
I think that should be the thing they ask when they're deciding stuff.

If the handballee wasn't there what would have happened?

In this case, the ball would have gone out for a throw or been collected on the far side of the pitch near the centre circle.

West Ham one, the ball would have gone across Rice and he wouldn't have been able to play the pass.

The shitty ones are when it brushes a finger on its way in or something. If it hasn't obviously significantly altered the trajectory, then play on.

Problem is, asking the refs to make that call is asking for trouble.
Completely agree.

And in the case you mention, McBurnie's goal vs Man U should still have counted, even if it had brushed his arm, since the flight of the ball was under his control and he was preparing to take the shot. Luckily it's moot as he managed to move his arm out of the way.
 

I agree.

VAR table & decisions club-by-club

The VAR table shows that we've had many VAR decisions go 'against' us, (and a few 'for' us) and are near the bottom of the table for this.

I don't think it's a conspiracy though.


The McGoldrick goal vs Spurs/Lundstram offside is by far the most questionable, given 1. the phases of play and 2. how marginal it is with regards to the resolution of the technology. I can understand why this one is brought up as problematic. I think it brings to question not the integrity of the competition but more the fidelity of the technology.

The goal vs Villa is a clear mistake and is really the only evidence that something fishy is going on, given how badly they got it wrong.

But the table itself doesn't mean much, as the rest were all simply correct decisions, even if fine margins or harsh.

Interesting that the table doesn't take into account the incidents that VAR should pick up on and didn't even review.

The leg breaking tackle on Norwood at Bournemouth and the blatant handball in the box by Southampton at the lane.
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom