Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

VAR Thoughts?


Lee909
 Share

Recommended Posts

Var is very inconsistent, but Allison didn't need to get that close, he has been rushing out all over the place lately, he just needs to calm down a bit, he is so good he puts off strikers anyway - like with the two pens against us recently where they completely missed the target. 

 

You cant make contact anymore and he should know that by now.  We need to be very careful with Kane and son's bullshit this Thursday. However, our front 3 and Thiago should be making them think too - we have to be clever and cute.  Suarez would get a pen a half in this league.

 

I would have a challenge system or scrap it. It has ruined the game, football is about the joy of scoring goals and over  here a tackle or goal line clearance is just as important. You need momentum in a game to help the crowd fuel the players. 

 

We are killing the game and need to save it asap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making it up as they go along again! Not really VAR but ref have 'decided' the offside will be interpreted differently after city's offside goal against Villa was allowed to stand. They're still trying to hide behind 'little known' interpretation of the law but it is quite clear in my opinion. That is an offside players shouldnt be able to benefit from being offside. How come that 'interpretation' only popped up once in about 100 years since offside was introduced? Fucking incompetence by fat Moss, that's why.

 

Maybe we should have a thread called 'Ref watch' where we can record clear and obvious errors made by refs? Id imagine it would rocket over 1000 pages rather quickly!

 

And city fans were bleating last season one where the rules change mid season isnt valid and should be null and void!

 

Guidance has been added around the offside rule – which would have rendered Manchester City's controversial goal against Aston Villa offside in a move which has been described as a 'face-saving exercise'.

Urgent talks were held after outrage followed Bernardo Silva's opener at Villa Park, which saw City midfielder Rodri come from an offside position to steal the ball from Tyrone Mings and set up the Portugal man to break the deadlock in an eventual 2-0 win for the home side. 

Mings himself branded the decision 'nonsense' while his manager, Dean Smith, was sent off for overstepping the mark with his protests against the VAR-referred goal to the referee. 

Red-faced refereeing body Professional Game Match Officials Ltd said the goal had been allowed under a littleknown law that reads: 'A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.' 

They also released a statement via the Premier League outlining why the goal stood. 

However, it can be revealed that PGMOL subsequently held a summit with rule-makers the International Football Association Board and UEFA to discuss the issue. 

And Sportsmail can disclose that they have agreed on guidance which will be given to referees and which would see the goal disallowed if it was to happen in the future. 

n plain terms, that means that from now on, players repeating Rodri's trick would be penalised. However, goals such as that scored by Villa's Ollie Watkins, in which he came from an offside position to seize on an attempted clearance by Newcastle's Fabian Schar earlier this month, would stand as he did 'not impact Schar's ability to play the ball'. 

A source at a top flight club lambasted the move. 'Once again they are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted,' they said. 

'Why they could not have just held their hands up and admitted it was the wrong decision in the first place is beyond me. Instead they have chosen to carry out a face-saving exercise.'

However, goals such as that scored by Villa's Ollie Watkins, in which he came from what may have been an offside position to seize on an attempted clearance by Newcastle's Fabian Schar earlier this month, would stand if Watkins had been deemed offside as he did 'not impact Schar's ability to play the ball'.

A source at a top-flight club lambasted the move and claimed that PGMOL were trying to mask their own error.

'Once again they are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted,' they said. 'Why they could not have just held their hands up and admitted it was the wrong decision in the first place is beyond me. Instead they have chosen to carry out a face-saving exercise.'

PGMOL, however, remain adamant that the right call was made at the time but have welcomed the clarification.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9188433/Premier-League-referees-change-offside-rule-controversial-Bernardo-Silva-goal.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skend04 said:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12199339/referees-told-to-alter-offside-decisions-after-controversy-in-man-city-vs-aston-villa-game

 

Offside rule altered by the FA. I think I'm going to bin the remainder of the season off, this is just farcical. Handballs, offsides, yellow cards, red cards, the whole shebang is fucked and the best the authorities can do alter a rule until it too becomes unworkable due to the sheer incompetence of the PGMOL.

"...while this new advice does not constitute a change in the law, the goal would have been ruled out under the new guidance"

 

The law hasn't changed but the decision would be different. Just awful management.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

...Professional Game Match Officials Ltd said the goal had been allowed under a little known law that reads: 'A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.' 

 

What a terrible interpretation of that shitty rule. Rodri 'received the ball from his opponent' in the same way that one might receive a bonus from their employer by simply taking cash from the till. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are really making it up as they go along. This season especially has been a shambles for the PGMOL.

 

Incidents which were offside earlier are no longer offsides, as they now spend less than a few seconds checking by VAR. Compared to before when almost 3 minutes was spent checking if Mane's arm was offside at Goodison.

 

Earlier in the season, there were penalties for every other handball and now they have reined it in a bit and only the occasional handball is punished. It's a fucking joke, the number of inconsistencies. City now have the benefit of scoring a goal which would be disallowed for any other team in the same season. Incredible. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, aws said:

Interesting change of tactics from the authorities. Usually they wait for us to be stiffed by a stupid rule/interpretation/campaign before quitetly changing it. Now they wait for cIty to benefit before openly changing it. 

 

if we finish one or two points behind City then it's the same thing anyway.

 

Looking at the wording of that rule, it's always been that way and the meaning of it is you can't be offside if, say, a defender plays a backpass to you.

 

It was never designed for players to be allowed to benefit from a defender touching an attempted forward pass from one of your team-mates.

 

That's something stupid they brought in recently for whatever stupid fucking reason. The first time I even knew about that was when Kane won a penalty for being offside on a through ball that was touched by Lovren.

 

Whoever tried to mess around with what was a perfectly fine law needs executing. No trial, no jury. Straight to execution.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Kane penalty situation was itself an extended interpretation of the offside law which said that the striker was onside if a defender played the ball.  That was supposed to mean deliberately passing or kicking the ball (I.e. Something clear, understandable and in accordance with the spirit of the game) but was now idiotically ruled to mean any touch by a defender except a purely unconscious deflection.

The City decision extended the idiocy to allow an attacker to chase back and pressure a defender from an offside position on the basis that he wasn't seeking an advantage if the defender then misplayed the ball. The decision was wrong but rather than admit it they've now changed the interpretation again.  But Kane would still be onside if it happened again as he was just goal hanging rather than closing a defender down.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the pundits cared about footy at all, they'd be hammering the PGMOL for it relentlessly.

 

Footballers practice daily. Arcing runs. Timing passes. Relentless self improvement. Officials just rock up and want to be celebrities. 

 

1st rate sports men playing a game ruined by 3rd rate officials.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jennings said:

If the pundits cared about footy at all, they'd be hammering the PGMOL for it relentlessly.

 

Footballers practice daily. Arcing runs. Timing passes. Relentless self improvement. Officials just rock up and want to be celebrities. 

 

1st rate sports men playing a game ruined by 3rd rate officials.

Just creates multiple talking points as far as the media are concerned and that’s good for business, fuck the good of the game eh. Small part of me wants to see football implode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jennings said:

...and another thing while I am on one! Don't fucking call me over to you, Billy-Big-Bollocks.

You wanna talk? Come to me. Otherwise apply the law then get about your business.

 

Sanctimonious megalomaniacal twats.

Particularly if it is in the later stages of a game you are chasing znd they assume nobody has anything better to do than watching them patronise some poor bastard for 30 seconds.

 

On the wider point of these changes / reinterpretations it always brings to mind the saying ' A camel is a horse designed by a committee '.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, skend04 said:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12199339/referees-told-to-alter-offside-decisions-after-controversy-in-man-city-vs-aston-villa-game

 

Offside rule altered by the FA. I think I'm going to bin the remainder of the season off, this is just farcical. Handballs, offsides, yellow cards, red cards, the whole shebang is fucked and the best the authorities can do alter a rule until it too becomes unworkable due to the sheer incompetence of the PGMOL.

I remember a rule being changed about grappling in penalty area after City lost to Stoke and conceded two penalties a few years back. Corrupt bastards,the lot of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw reference to one of City's goal's last night being described as controversial, so I checked it out. Sian Massey (who is usually spot on) flags for offside. West brom defenders stiop. City play on, put it in the net. VAR decides it was onside - goal given. You couldn't make it up. No, wait - that's exactly what they are doing! It no longer matters what is contained in the letter or the spirit of the law, feels like every decision these idiots do is now discretionary. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jennings said:

I don't know where to fucking start tonight!

 

Grrr!!!

Even though it went our way, I still hate those fucking toenail offsides.

 

The other one, was, of course, correct.  The ball touched Bobby's arm, when he was at home making a sandwich three days before the goal, so it has to be disallowed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Even though it went our way, I still hate those fucking toenail offsides.

 

The other one, was, of course, correct.  The ball touched Bobby's arm, when he was at home making a sandwich three days before the goal, so it has to be disallowed.

With Bobby's handball, does the fact Dier was holding him and impeding him come into it? Genuinely don't know what the rule is on being fouled causing a handball. 

 

Also the ball comes off Dier's forearm into Bobby's 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Remmie said:

With Bobby's handball, does the fact Dier was holding him and impeding him come into it? Genuinely don't know what the rule is on being fouled causing a handball. 

 

Also the ball comes off Dier's forearm into Bobby's 

Seems to boil down to whether Bobby's handball is considered deliberate. PGMOL said Moss and Atkinson considered it such but I think that is arse-covering bollocks. If it was considered accidental or, you know punched onto his arm , it would only disallowed if it went into the net off it or immediately led to a chance that was scored.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Remmie said:

With Bobby's handball, does the fact Dier was holding him and impeding him come into it? Genuinely don't know what the rule is on being fouled causing a handball. 

 

Also the ball comes off Dier's forearm into Bobby's 


It was one of the most ridiculous decisions I have ever seen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...