Table looks wrong instantly just thinking back to the VAR decisions in Liverpool United game?
Reds, v Cityzens
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
- Status
I'm in China so zero chance of getting on Twitter, but I know Bobby emailed IFAB to ask what happens if a defending player accidentally handles then it is played long and his team scores. Their answer was that a goal should be allowed as the distance is too far to suggest that the handling contributed to the goal.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I'm getting a message that the page doesn't exist. Maybe he deleted it. Can you summarise what it said?
spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
Id love to know who and how they come to the results on that table.
Fans of all teams will have their own views but Everton were 2-1 up at Brighton when that penalty was given, if they dont make it 2-2 from the penalty then they maybe dont score an injury time winner either.
Fans of all teams will have their own views but Everton were 2-1 up at Brighton when that penalty was given, if they dont make it 2-2 from the penalty then they maybe dont score an injury time winner either.
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
I guess Liverpool would have gained two points from the Mane goal not being disallowed but would have lost two points form the Chelsea offside goal being allowed to stand?
As mentioned, you can't really do it because we've no idea what would have happened for the rest of the game. It's also possible some of the original on-field decisions without VAR might have been different if the system hadn't been in place. Who knows.
Fortunately, someone else screenshotted it:
So in line with this, was it the correct decision to just play on then? If TAA was to be penalised for handball, I assume the penalty would have been ruled out because of Bernados handball so what are we saying, TAA had a free hit? I don't fully understand how TAA would have been penalised in this circumstance
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
If, ITOTR TAA is HB then it should be DFK red.
If, ITOTR TAA is not HB then play on.
To say TAA was HB and play on would be an error in law wouldn’t it?
Riley and the pundits not helping here. I just watched an hour of the MLS VAR review show, apart from the couple of times the chief skirted a missing card it was great to see the decisions and hear them
Oh I agree completely on that point, it's also definitely not helped by the PL's recent insistence on immediately defending every decision on twitter - taking a complete guess at the reasoning, seemingly without getting the referee in question to comment!If, ITOTR TAA is HB then it should be DFK red.
If, ITOTR TAA is not HB then play on.
To say TAA was HB and play on would be an error in law wouldn’t it?
Riley and the pundits not helping here. I just watched an hour of the MLS VAR review show, apart from the couple of times the chief skirted a missing card it was great to see the decisions and hear them
I think the MLS and EPL are on a different planet from one another however. Just because an aspect of VAR might work over there, doesn't mean it will tick a box this side of the pondIf, ITOTR TAA is HB then it should be DFK red.
If, ITOTR TAA is not HB then play on.
To say TAA was HB and play on would be an error in law wouldn’t it?
Riley and the pundits not helping here. I just watched an hour of the MLS VAR review show, apart from the couple of times the chief skirted a missing card it was great to see the decisions and hear them
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
The point is that a senior official official explaining decisions on TV is great for making us appear human and rational and helps our credibility and control across the board (even if it is connected to VAR)
Just think what you can do if you REALLY want to prove a player was offside if you've more than 10 seconds to look at it!!!
That suits the US market, but over here, putting decisions (VAR) into words would likely inflame the hype further
Key points form an interview with Neil Swarbick who heads up VAR
Q&A: VAR chief on big talking points
Q&A: VAR chief on big talking points
- Communication: Shown an example of a clear decision broadcast to players and fans in rugby union, he said: "It took rugby union six or seven years to get to that position. That doesn't happen overnight. You've just got to give us time."
- Broadcasting decisions: Could fans watch or listen to VAR decisions, as in rugby or cricket? "You cannot use any referee communications like that because IFAB (football's lawmakers) protocols don't allow us to."
- Offside: Swarbrick said the one-pixel lines used by VAR were magnified for TV broadcast which could make decisions seem more marginal than they are. "We are held by the laws of the game. Once we have made that decision with the lines, there's no interpretation, no tolerance band. It's either onside or offside."
- Pitchside monitors: Referees in the Premier League have not tended to use the review screens. Will that change? "Quite possibly it will do. At the moment, the feedback we are getting back from the clubs, managers, players etc is they are quite comfortable in how we are operating."
5/10 interview, rabbit in headlights! Defending the indefensible
Seriously? Some random guy on twitter (with Utd in his username too! ) twists and distorts a screenshot and you're using it as evidence of....what exactly?
one
RefChat Addict
The point I am making is, the current wording of the law means if you think the TAA was handball, no matter what you do, it could well be an error in law or at least a conflicting situation.
- Can't play on.
- Can't give a pen (??? or can you)
- Can't give a defending free kick ( defenders have to commit an offence to get a FK ??? )
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
I think it's absolutely what they should be doing. Yes, there might be disagreement sometimes but if they provide transparency on their own terms then I think a lot of people would go for it.
There have been a few instances where referees have been mic'ed up and it's always had a very good response.
It wasn’t offside, let’s move on
- Status