| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
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?
Wouldn't surprise me if there was favouritism. VAR certainly hasn't levelled the playing field. The second Man City goal should have been chalked off yesterday unless the offside rule is even more of an ass than I thought
Well that evened things up!!!
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.Originally Posted by splott parker
Don’t matter now, Jesus on a Sunday.
Offside decisions are given which would never have been before (that goal being an example), but it’s always the correct decision because of the use of the technology. Other VAR decisions use technology, but then the call is made by officials interpreting what the technology is showing them.
Shocking marking from a corner by Man United - I was just going to say the keeper could have done better, but the replay shows he had no chance after the deflection.
Second Arsenal goal...if that had been our keeper (whichever one) we would be saying 'could have done better...)
Maybe, but there was a deflection that wrong footed him.
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
I think you’re pushing it a bit here. Never a penalty, not touched by the first player, on his way down before contact from the second player. No need for sixteen different angles, one was enough to demonstrate it clearly shouldn’t have been a penalty. Correct decision in the end.
Agree..
Agree.
The thing is, the remit of VAR has clearly gone from overturning clear and obvious errors to re-refereeing the game upstairs. Which is fine, but then if that's the criteria then we can't complain when VAR has the exact same biases and makes the same judgement calls that the referees on the field do.
To me, that was not a clear and obvious error. There was contact and Wan-Bissaka clearly clipped Havertz on the way through. It was soft and probably shouldn't have been a penalty in the first place, but to me I agree with Bob, that isn't what we were told VAR was being brought in for.
And yes, the Man City decision was a disgrace - again one of the smaller clubs on the wrong end of a VAR decision.
The penalty was var working at it's very best for me. Soft penalty award overturned correctly when proven that attacker was playing for a foul
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.
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.
As someone explained to me "offside is offside" so if they are (or are not) it needs to be checked
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!
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/stor...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.
Not a word to explain my original point in that link though. I’ve can’t remember one incident before where the referee is shown one angle of the incident at the exclusion of everything else and despite other shots making the decision to overturn look far more arguable, the one where it looks least a penalty holds sway over everything else.
The word “subjective” appears quite often in this thread and the justification of the VAR decision in the link comes over as completely subjective and nuanced to me and yet it’s supposed to be the justification for a decision that was deemed “a clear and obvious” error
I agree completely. Here's the conversation between the ref and VAR with Howard Webb commenting afterwards, its off the Match Officials mic'd up programme that comes up in Pont Blue's post.Not a word to explain my original point in that link though. I’ve can’t remember one incident before where the referee is shown one angle of the incident at the exclusion of everything else and despite other shots making the decision to overturn look far more arguable, the one where it looks least a penalty holds sway over everything else.
The word “subjective” appears quite often in this thread and the justification of the VAR decision in the link comes over as completely subjective and nuanced to me and yet it’s supposed to be the justification for a decision that was deemed “a clear and obvious” error
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJN_xHOpm88
It's interesting. I think VAR makes a subjective call on the contact way too early and pretty much makes up the ref's mind for him. I still can't see it's clear and obvious that Wan-Bissaka doesn't foul Havertz, or that the contact is 'really, really minimal'. Going at that pace only a slight touch could bring you down anyway, it's why ankle taps are effective in rugby (as someone says in the comments underneath). Wan-Bissaka doesn't complain and none of the United players confront Havertz when the penalty's given but VAR seems determined to overturn it.
I'm surprised Howard Webb is so happy with it but with Michael Owen as the host there's no chance of any difficult questions being asked. Surely it wouldn't have hurt even him to ask why the ref was only shown one angle of the incident.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote