VAR Thoughts?

[an tha]

7 minutes ago, No2 said:

That's 2 separate points. Tierney set out to screw us, he always does. I was more pissed off with all the tiny fouls rather the 2 big ones he done us over with. That doesn't change a player being pushed offside is still offside, we do it all the time on set pieces.

It pisses me off how VAR will intervene to rule that goal out - but won't intervene to correct the wrong call on our first disallowed goal.

 

It says it all about how they choose to use the tool - a tool that in the right hands and with good intentions could enhance the game, but sadly is used to ruin it.

 

 

[No2]

6 minutes ago, an tha said:

It pisses me off how VAR will intervene to rule that goal out - but won't intervene to correct the wrong call on our first disallowed goal.

 

It says it all about how they choose to use the tool - a tool that in the right hands and with good intentions could enhance the game, but sadly is used to ruin it.

 

 

Have to neg you for saying it could enhance the game.

[an tha]

Just now, No2 said:

Have to neg you for saying it could enhance the game.

Ha! Fair do's.

[derykw]

So the blatant and deliberate push on Salah is not a foul but Nunez not even touching the defender is a foul.

 

The upshot is two legitimate Liverpool goals are disallowed.

 

Officials involved: Coote and Tierney. Hmm.

[Barrington Womble]

23 hours ago, Trumo said:

"Mr Dermot" has said that the Odegaard one should be a penalty. The VAR (David Coote, the same knobhead who was so focussed on a marginal offside that he failed to noticed the reckless lunge by T-Rex that crippled Virg in the derby back in 2020) has said he thought Odegaard was making himself smaller. He was, while almost gathering the ball up!

 

He is also completely baffled by the Willy Boly sending off for 2 yellows in the Forest game as he doesn't think the challenge was even a foul. A bit like Diogo at Spurs, it would have been better to have been given a straight red as it can then be appealed against whereas there is no appeal for 2 yellows, no matter how fucked up the decisions were.

 

One of the worst things in football is this ridiculous punishing the player twice for shite refereeing. There should be no need to appeal, the referee should just put in his report "on review of TV footage, I got that one wrong". But they won't do that as it's a sign of weakness. Instead they'd sooner be an absolute laughing stock and corrupt the sporting outcome. 

 

16 hours ago, an tha said:

So to summarise tonight - VAR wouldn't overrule a wrong call for our 1st disallowed goal so it could stand, but do intervene to overrule and disallow our 2nd disallowed goal after it was originally given for an offside that it took them with VAR an age to rule out (and was ropey as fuck)


They really have got the wrong intentions with how they are going about this haven't they...

 

There's a simple explanation for this. As the saying goes, "once all impossible explanations have been ruled out, whatever explanation is left, no matter how unlikely, must be the correct one". The correct answer of course is they use VAR to get the outcome they want. 

 

14 hours ago, an tha said:

 

 

I refer to my previous post to @an tha

11 hours ago, No2 said:

You can't be giving penalties for the push on Mo, I guess how he got to be offside is irrelevant if it wasn't a foul. My issue with that decision is Mo had no impact on the keeper, he's not saving that in a million years. He's going the wrong way, Harvey is 8 yards out and powers it in, its a clear goal all day long.

 

Why can't you give a pen for that? It was 2 hands in the back. And I'm sure @VladimirIlyich can confirm (he is a ref right?) that if an offence is caused by another offence, the referee can just choose to let both offences go and the outcome is what happened, which is the goal. 

[No2]

4 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

One of the worst things in football is this ridiculous punishing the player twice for shite refereeing. There should be no need to appeal, the referee should just put in his report "on review of TV footage, I got that one wrong". But they won't do that as it's a sign of weakness. Instead they'd sooner be an absolute laughing stock and corrupt the sporting outcome. 

 

 

There's a simple explanation for this. As the saying goes, "once all impossible explanations have been ruled out, whatever explanation is left, no matter how unlikely, must be the correct one". The correct answer of course is they use VAR to get the outcome they want. 

 

 

I refer to my previous post to @an tha

 

Why can't you give a pen for that? It was 2 hands in the back. And I'm sure @VladimirIlyich can confirm (he is a ref right?) that if an offence is caused by another offence, the referee can just choose to let both offences go and the outcome is what happened, which is the goal. 

I'm a  referee myself, of course you can give a foul, technically it's a foul but if you go down that route we're in 40 penalties a match territory. The idea of offside in those scenarios is did the forward interfere, as in did his presence affect the keepers ability to save the shot. That's the only question that matters and he 99.9% did not, Tierney took the view that the 0.01% chance was enough.

[Barrington Womble]

8 minutes ago, No2 said:

I'm a  referee myself, of course you can give a foul, technically it's a foul but if you go down that route we're in 40 penalties a match territory. The idea of offside in those scenarios is did the forward interfere, as in did his presence affect the keepers ability to save the shot. That's the only question that matters and he 99.9% did not, Tierney took the view that the 0.01% chance was enough.

 

I've absolutely no issue in awarding 40 penalties in a match for 2 hands in the back, because by the time you give the 2nd penalty , the players will stop doing it. It's that attitude that means players foul all the time and they shouldn't. 

 

I think Salah's presence clearly obstructs the keepers view. But it doesn't if he's not pushed, he's there only because the defender chooses to commit an offence. 

[TheHowieLama]

12 hours ago, No2 said:

 That doesn't change a player being pushed offside is still offside, we do it all the time on set pieces.

 

We do?

I can't remember an instance where we pushed a player into an offside position and it was called.

[manwiththestick]

We all know the refereeing fraternity didn't want VAR in the first place, it was as good as forced upon them.

 

The fact that every week they are making an absolute pigs ear of it and constantly contradicting every previous decision as the games go by is surely nothing more than coincidence.

 

 

[No2]

2 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

We do?

I can't remember an instance where we pushed a player into an offside position and it was called.

Watch the next one we face where our starting position is the 18 yard line. It's usually lads that start offside and we try push them forward to keep them there. 

[aws]

1 hour ago, No2 said:

Watch the next one we face where our starting position is the 18 yard line. It's usually lads that start offside and we try push them forward to keep them there. 

I agree that we do this all the time but aren’t we just trying to keep them in the offside position they’ve chosen to stand in? A bit different maybe to pushing someone who’s trying to stay onside offside. 

[Barrington Womble]

19 minutes ago, aws said:

I agree that we do this all the time but aren’t we just trying to keep them in the offside position they’ve chosen to stand in? A bit different maybe to pushing someone who’s trying to stay onside offside. 

And isn't this before the ball is back in play? 

[Jennings]

4 hours ago, No2 said:

if you go down that route we're in 40 penalties a match territory.

In your view as a ref, would it have been a free-kick, had the striker done the push then went on to score?

[polymerpunkah]

This is more akin to a defender pushing an attacking player into his own keeper.

 

I've seen that both called and not called a foul.

[aws]

32 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

And isn't this before the ball is back in play? 

Yes. Jostling for position as happens between a dozen or more players every set-piece. 

[Barrington Womble]

15 minutes ago, aws said:

Yes. Jostling for position as happens between a dozen or more players every set-piece. 

So it's not a foul anyway then is it?

[aws]

4 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

So it's not a foul anyway then is it?

Not unless the ball is in play as was the case when Mo was shoved offside. 

[dave u]

On 26/12/2023 at 15:10, an tha said:

Coote is on VAR tomorrow for the shite v abu dhabi.

 

What is the betting he intervenes to hand abu dhabi a soft as fuck penalty...

 

 

 

Almost spot on, but he didn't need to, the ref and linesman did it for him and he just backed up their bullshit decision.

[No2]

6 hours ago, Jennings said:

In your view as a ref, would it have been a free-kick, had the striker done the push then went on to score?

I don't think it's as black and white as that, Mo is pushed forward because he isn't expecting it, in a normal jostle he's not being moved as easily. 

[George Costanza]

12 minutes ago, dave u said:

 

Almost spot on, but he didn't need to, the ref and linesman did it for him and he just backed up their bullshit decision.

 

Its almost as if some of them are on the UAE payroll. Oh wait yes they are

[rubble-rouser]

They’re not even hiding in plain sight now, just fixing competitions in plain sight 

[Barnesey]

If mo had pushed a defender into a position that played an attacker onside, would a free kick have been given? I think so. 

[Redder Lurtz]

Name me one single sport that's as fucked up the hoop by its own rules and the utter confusion of how the laws of the game should be applied as premier league football. It's a fucking laughing stock.

 

The most lucrative league in the most lucrative game on the entire planet and it consistently contradicts itself. That's without the latent bias and perceived corruption, which, because of the way VAR can be applied, is really easy to get away with.

 

Watching Championship footy is actually a nicer experience as the opportunity for some non-footballing, biased, incompetent, traffic warden cunt in an office 200 miles away doesn't get to decide which way the game goes. 

 

It needs fucking binning. It’s completely fucked the game. 

 

 

[Scott_M]

Personally, based on penalties that have been given recently, I think it was a penalty for City last night.

 

Whether the rule fit for purpose is a different matter.

 

Pickford impacted the result more than the penalty. 

[Barrington Womble]

Just watched Gallagher on ref watch..so our two incidents he said he doesn't think there's enough evidence in the replay to say the ref was wrong. So VAR was right not to change Tierney's on field decision. He did say he didn't think it was a penalty. 

 

The offside he said the choice was offside or pen. And there wasn't enough in it to give a pen. He also said he didn't think this made it right, just the ref has no choice. 

 

The game is fucking mental. It's a century and a half old and we can have 2 goals ruled out that refs think should be goals, but the rules don't allow them to give it. Honestly, what's the point in going any more? Because next week they'll just give the same goals because it suits them and Gallagher will say we should praise the officials for getting to the right answer.