Question about VAR.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Question about VAR.

No one is answering my point about why only the view that looked least like a penalty though. I’ve not seen that before - the referee usually has different views of an incident before making a final decision. Also, whatever we may think of the rights and wrongs of it, penalties are given forincidents like today’s -Ten Hag’s got some brass neck moaning about the angle a camera is at for their disallowed goal and about penalties they didn’t get after today’s decision and the shocking one in their game against Wolves.

Thought Man United were very negative today. Much has been made of their poor away record against the top sides, so I suppose setting up like they did was worth a try, but they still look a long way off the level of their neighbours and don’t seem to be making much forward progress.

[WJ99mobile]

Re: Question about VAR.

Only caught the second half, that offside was incredibly tight. In shock that arsenal managed to score 3, they looked utterly toothless. Sakas shot from 6 yards was beyond pathetic.


That marking for the rice goal was unbelievable. Must have had about 4/5 seconds and 4 metres just given to him.

I think when there’s that little difference the benefit should be given to the attacker.

Perhaps the lines should be wider and if they cross the goal stands.

Too many goals have been chalked off because of a few inches

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Re: Question about VAR.

Don’t know if anyone’s watching the Arsenal v Man United game, but why was Anthony Taylor continually only shown one view (the one that made it look least like a penalty) of that penalty he originally gave? There were other views where it looked more like a foul, yet he wasn’t shown those - Man United being treated differently from other clubs again perhaps?

Well, 1st thing I don't think it was ever a pelanty, but my argument with VAR deciding pelanties and red cards is that it's just another bloke a couple of hundred miles away forming his own interpretation of something that happened in real time just yards from the referee.

[waynekerr55]

Re: Question about VAR.

Not really. The offside was "clear and obvious". I didn't see anything on the awarded penalty replays to suggest that the referee's decision should be overturned.

As someone explained to me "offside is offside" so if they are (or are not) it needs to be checked

[Loramski]

Re: Question about VAR.

Don’t know if anyone’s watching the Arsenal v Man United game, but why was Anthony Taylor continually only shown one view (the one that made it look least like a penalty) of that penalty he originally gave? There were other views where it looked more like a foul, yet he wasn’t shown those - Man United being treated differently from other clubs again perhaps?

It was certainly odd. As you say, the second angle clearly shows Wan-Bissaka fouling Havertz, the first angle doesn't. My guess would be that the VAR guy gets fixated on the initial challenge (which doesn't touch Havertz) and either forgets or doesn't realise that there's a follow through a split second later that brings Havertz down. It's pretty shocking if the VAR did miss it but it's hard to explain otherwise, the MOTD commentator picked up on it straight away.

Ironically, the first angle should have helped Havertz. It shows he doesn't dive after the first 'challenge' and shows he doesn't look for the contact off Wan-Bissaka either. I'm not sure how he normally reacts but Wan-Bissaka looked like a batsman who knows he's got an edge to the keeper but hopes no one noticed. Maybe they should bring in Snicko to help the VAR guys out? There'd have been quite a spike when Wan-Bissaka's knee clipped Havertz. Certainly not a clear and obvious error.

[Father Dougal]

Re: Question about VAR.

It was certainly odd. As you say, the second angle clearly shows Wan-Bissaka fouling Havertz, the first angle doesn't. My guess would be that the VAR guy gets fixated on the initial challenge (which doesn't touch Havertz) and either forgets or doesn't realise that there's a follow through a split second later that brings Havertz down. It's pretty shocking if the VAR did miss it but it's hard to explain otherwise, the MOTD commentator picked up on it straight away.

Ironically, the first angle should have helped Havertz. It shows he doesn't dive after the first 'challenge' and shows he doesn't look for the contact off Wan-Bissaka either. I'm not sure how he normally reacts but Wan-Bissaka looked like a batsman who knows he's got an edge to the keeper but hopes no one noticed. Maybe they should bring in Snicko to help the VAR guys out? There'd have been quite a spike when Wan-Bissaka's knee clipped Havertz. Certainly not a clear and obvious error.

Snicko. For penalties. That's genius sir!

[Father Dougal]

Re: Question about VAR.

But yes. VAR should only be used for incidents where 99 people out of 100 wood agree. Eg Henry handball v Ireland. Or suarez handball v Ghana. Or Zidane headbut in WC final. Those kind of things and that's it.

That's what it was for but now it's just a mess. Makes celebrating anything very difficult as plenty of goals and penalties disallowed now.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Question about VAR.

It was certainly odd. As you say, the second angle clearly shows Wan-Bissaka fouling Havertz, the first angle doesn't. My guess would be that the VAR guy gets fixated on the initial challenge (which doesn't touch Havertz) and either forgets or doesn't realise that there's a follow through a split second later that brings Havertz down. It's pretty shocking if the VAR did miss it but it's hard to explain otherwise, the MOTD commentator picked up on it straight away.

Ironically, the first angle should have helped Havertz. It shows he doesn't dive after the first 'challenge' and shows he doesn't look for the contact off Wan-Bissaka either. I'm not sure how he normally reacts but Wan-Bissaka looked like a batsman who knows he's got an edge to the keeper but hopes no one noticed. Maybe they should bring in Snicko to help the VAR guys out? There'd have been quite a spike when Wan-Bissaka's knee clipped Havertz. Certainly not a clear and obvious error.

That was my argument exactly, I've not seen Match of the Day, but, from what I saw, Sky just went by the one angle Anthony Taylor was told to take a look at in their post match discussion - taking the cricket analogy further, it was the like the third umpire giving an LBW based on an ordinary replay of the appeal without bothering to use the other technology available to them.

[WJ99mobile]

Re: Question about VAR.

It was certainly odd. As you say, the second angle clearly shows Wan-Bissaka fouling Havertz, the first angle doesn't. My guess would be that the VAR guy gets fixated on the initial challenge (which doesn't touch Havertz) and either forgets or doesn't realise that there's a follow through a split second later that brings Havertz down. It's pretty shocking if the VAR did miss it but it's hard to explain otherwise, the MOTD commentator picked up on it straight away.

Ironically, the first angle should have helped Havertz. It shows he doesn't dive after the first 'challenge' and shows he doesn't look for the contact off Wan-Bissaka either. I'm not sure how he normally reacts but Wan-Bissaka looked like a batsman who knows he's got an edge to the keeper but hopes no one noticed. Maybe they should bring in Snicko to help the VAR guys out? There'd have been quite a spike when Wan-Bissaka's knee clipped Havertz. Certainly not a clear and obvious error.

I personally thought Havertz started his descent before someone made contact

Thought the other one seemed more of a penalty against Garnacho

[BLUETIT]

Re: Question about VAR.

He was tripped, pelanty, end of !!!!!!

They can show as many angles as they like, he was tripped and nudged by 2 Manure players

[Rjk]

Re: Question about VAR.

But yes. VAR should only be used for incidents where 99 people out of 100 wood agree. Eg Henry handball v Ireland. Or suarez handball v Ghana. Or Zidane headbut in WC final. Those kind of things and that's it.

That's what it was for but now it's just a mess. Makes celebrating anything very difficult as plenty of goals and penalties disallowed now.

it should be an appeals system like in cricket- each team gets 2 appeals per game

[poc]

Re: Question about VAR.

it should be an appeals system like in cricket- each team gets 2 appeals per game

the system in cricket is far from perfect though

[Rjk]

Re: Question about VAR.

the system in cricket is far from perfect though

it works a lot better than football though

same with tennis isn't it too?

[Loramski]

Re: Question about VAR.

That was my argument exactly, I've not seen Match of the Day, but, from what I saw, Sky just went by the one angle Anthony Taylor was told to take a look at in their post match discussion - taking the cricket analogy further, it was the like the third umpire giving an LBW based on an ordinary replay of the appeal without bothering to use the other technology available to them.

There's an article here covering the VAR incidents from the weekend, including the Havertz one. It has some input from the Premier League and match officials so isn't entirely independent.

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/38297757/the-var-review-havertz-penalty-cancelled-ten-hag-rant-akanji-offside

Looks like the decision was overturned because VAR thought Havertz had moved his leg into Wan-Bissaka but that's so marginal to me (the still the article uses to 'prove' this does exactly the opposite). I don't get why Havertz would do that anyway as he had a free run in on goal, if he'd wanted a penalty then surely he would've just fallen over Wan-Bissaka's leg when he stuck it right in front of him a split second before?

I was thinking of the Simpson incident at QPR last season. Does nothing wrong at all, stays goal side of Armstrong as he chases an overhit pass that he had no chance of reaching. But when Armstrong falls over, Simpson gets a red card and concedes a penalty. Wan-Bissaka sticks a leg in front of Havertz as he's running through on goal, then brings him down with his knee but gets away with both. It's a funny old game.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

Re: Question about VAR.

it works a lot better than football though

same with tennis isn't it too?

No decisions in tennis or cricket are subjective. Almost every decision in football is subjective. VAR won’t work because of this. Also, it doesn’t help the law makers are ruining the games with their awful handball and offside rules