Question about VAR.

[the other bob wilson]

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?

[PontBlue]

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

[splott parker]

Well that evened things up!!!

[NYCBlue]

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.

[the other bob wilson]

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.

[splott parker]

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.

Don’t matter now, Jesus on a Sunday.

[the other bob wilson]

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.

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.

[Maurice Swan]

Second Arsenal goal...if that had been our keeper (whichever one) we would be saying 'could have done better...)

[chrisp_1927]

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.

[The Lone Gunman]

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?

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.

[Maurice Swan]

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..

[jon1959]

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.

[LA Bluebird]

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.

[jon1959]

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.

[fugsyphil]

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

[the other bob wilson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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