Liverpool Vs Bournemouth

[Ryanj91]

No one has mentioned the flying kungfu kick from MacAllister at the end of the first half.

How was that not deemed a penalty?! Webb has said there will be more penalties this year for holding, but you can flying kick someone and it's deemed fine?!?

That more baffling than the handball IMHO.

 

[Runner Ref]

I disagree if we give those as handballs the game has gone

Is this genuine or were you on the wind up?

 

[GraemeS]

The VAR Review: Eze's disallowed goal; Senesi red card at Liverpool?

Looking at Eberechi Eze's disallowed free kick for Crystal Palace at Chelsea, and Marcos Senesi's possible red card against Liverpool.

www.espn.com

Oliver was too concerned with the first touch on the arm, which was clearly accidental and wouldn't be considered DOGSO, and didn't notice the actual second handball for the offence

As I suspected based on what was said at half time - the VAR just didn't look long enough to see the actual handball touch. Not a particularly impressive start to VAR this season - a major error within 13 minutes of the season starting!

 

[RustyRef]

The VAR Review: Eze's disallowed goal; Senesi red card at Liverpool?

Looking at Eberechi Eze's disallowed free kick for Crystal Palace at Chelsea, and Marcos Senesi's possible red card against Liverpool.

www.espn.com

As I suspected based on what was said at half time - the VAR just didn't look long enough to see the actual handball touch. Not a particularly impressive start to VAR this season - a major error within 13 minutes of the season starting!

That's just one person's opinion though, doesn't mean he was right. In that same article he has admitted he was wrong for previously saying that VAR couldn't get involved when a goal is scored and an attacking player is within 1m of the wall.

 

[bester]

That's just one person's opinion though, doesn't mean he was right. In that same article he has admitted he was wrong for previously saying that VAR couldn't get involved when a goal is scored and an attacking player is within 1m of the wall.

That is what he was told by the PGMO sources to justify previous non-VAR interventions for the same thing.

 

[RustyRef]

That is what he was told by the PGMO sources to justify previous non-VAR interventions for the same thing.

Has the named those sources? Rather than a conspiracy theory, perhaps he just misunderstood what they told him.

 

[bester]

Conspiracy theory? Where's that thought coming from.

He was told it's not under the remit VAR as it's an infringement at a restart which is down to the on field referee.
That's difficult to misinterpret.

He doesn't name sources.

 

[Runner Ref]

Has the named those sources? Rather than a conspiracy theory, perhaps he just misunderstood what they told him.

Weird. You normally love quoting Dale Johnson, and I’ve never seen him quote a source……

 

[RustyRef]

Conspiracy theory? Where's that thought coming from.

He was told it's not under the remit VAR as it's an infringement at a restart which is down to the on field referee.
That's difficult to misinterpret.

He doesn't name sources.

We don't know who told him, that's the problem, could be someone in PGMOL but equally might not be. My point is, and I've quoted the exact reason why previously in another topic, there is no way anyone could look at the VAR protocol bullet point that says offences by attacking players are checked after a goal is scored and logically say that this couldn't be checked. It just makes no sense.

 

[RustyRef]

Weird. You normally love quoting Dale Johnson, and I’ve never seen him quote a source……

I've said that he has clearly taken the time to understand the VAR protocol, but that doesn't mean he is always right and rather it is his interpretation of what happened based on his understanding of the protocol.

 

[bester]

there is no way anyone could look at the VAR protocol bullet point that says offences by attacking players are checked after a goal is scored and logically say that this couldn't be checked. It just makes no sense.

I've been making that point for 6 years, and finally gave up as infringements at restarts werent resulting in goals being chalked off across the World.
Certainly makes the VAR accuracy stats look less rosy.

 

[GraemeS]

That's just one person's opinion though, doesn't mean he was right. In that same article he has admitted he was wrong for previously saying that VAR couldn't get involved when a goal is scored and an attacking player is within 1m of the wall.

But his account is wholly consistent with what the commentator said live, with what Carragher stated at HT and (while I know these points aren't definitive) with the angles that were shown to us live that only showed the hand touch late in the review, and the speed of the review.

Conversely, if you want to believe the official account, we must accept that a lone VAR directing a replay operator managed to
* identify the first obvious arm contact
* rule it out as HB
* identify the second hand contact
* (incorrectly) rule it out as HB
* for some reason, then check and (incorrectly) rule out DOGSO despite already deciding it wasn't HB so there was no possible offence that could have been DOGSO anyway
* report to the ref that it came off his leg (without reporting that neither touch was not HB and it wasn't DOGSO anyway despite apparently checking all that) so check complete
All in about the same time as it took experienced sports broadcast directors to even find that second HB.

That's simply not realistic IMO - it seems far more likely and in line with the evidence we have that he did the first two steps, then rushed to conclude the check rather than scrolling through the rest of the incident.

 

[RustyRef]

But his account is wholly consistent with what the commentator said live, with what Carragher stated at HT and (while I know these points aren't definitive) with the angles that were shown to us live that only showed the hand touch late in the review, and the speed of the review.

Conversely, if you want to believe the official account, we must accept that a lone VAR directing a replay operator managed to
* identify the first obvious arm contact
* rule it out as HB
* identify the second hand contact
* (incorrectly) rule it out as HB
* for some reason, then check and (incorrectly) rule out DOGSO despite already deciding it wasn't HB so there was no possible offence that could have been DOGSO anyway
* report to the ref that it came off his leg (without reporting that neither touch was not HB and it wasn't DOGSO anyway despite apparently checking all that) so check complete
All in about the same time as it took experienced sports broadcast directors to even find that second HB.

That's simply not realistic IMO - it seems far more likely and in line with the evidence we have that he did the first two steps, then rushed to conclude the check rather than scrolling through the rest of the incident.

I'm not saying he isn't right, rather that he isn't saying it from any position of official authority. I'd guess this one will be on the next Mic'd Up show and if so we'll find out what happened then.

 

[Runner Ref]

I can see why VAR said they couldn't get involved.

are you saying this as a matter of fact from a position of authority?

 

[RustyRef]

are you saying this as a matter of fact from a position of authority?

If you'd quoted my entire post, rather than a selective bit after a comma, I'd given an explanation as to why I thought VAR might not be able to get involved.

No position of authority, but saying "I can see why" really doesn't claim to be making it from a position of authority, rather is just my opinion.

 

[Runner Ref]

If you'd quoted my entire post, rather than a selective bit after a comma, I'd given an explanation as to why I thought VAR might not be able to get involved.

No position of authority, but saying "I can see why" really doesn't claim to be making it from a position of authority, rather is just my opinion.

Your message infers VAR said they can’t get involved. You don’t know they said that.

But I’ll leave it at that. I’ve no time for bullies. It’s just a shame fellow mods allow you to get away with it

 

[GraemeS]

I'm not saying he isn't right, rather that he isn't saying it from any position of official authority. I'd guess this one will be on the next Mic'd Up show and if so we'll find out what happened then.

Sure, I just thought we could apply a smidge of critical thinking and infer whether we think it is likely if those at the top of our profession are being honest with us or not.

Based on the evidence we see so far, balance of probability is that it took 13 minutes of the season for our top officials to make a mess out of a big call, and 45 minutes for them to lie to us to try and cover it up.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

I think they missed the handball but it's not DOGSO so VAR shouldn't be getting involved no?

Control is questionable, distance even more so, defenders as well as there is another not far away.

 

[GraemeS]

I think they missed the handball but it's not DOGSO so VAR shouldn't be getting involved no?

Control is questionable, distance even more so, defenders as well as there is another not far away.

From the Dale article, screenshot at the moment the ball hits the defenders hand - I'm not buying that the other defender is remotely relevant there. Distance is irrelevant if there is room to run into, which there is - take the handballing defender out (who handballs because he's off balance and isn't set to run in the way Ekitike is) and it's trivial for a PL striker to run 30 yards with a ball and take a 1-on-1 OGSO.

The only reasonable question is control, and then it comes does to what extent we "ignore" the fouling defender. You obviously should ignore the handball touch, which is specifically what flicks it away from Ekitike and causes him to lose control. So that aside, do we think that he'd be able to control a ball that has been popped up in front of him, exactly in the direction he wants to go? I'm saying yes on that. Or do we ignore that touch as well, in which case the ball would have just rolled into his path quite happily.

 

[RustyRef]

Sure, I just thought we could apply a smidge of critical thinking and infer whether we think it is likely if those at the top of our profession are being honest with us or not.

Based on the evidence we see so far, balance of probability is that it took 13 minutes of the season for our top officials to make a mess out of a big call, and 45 minutes for them to lie to us to try and cover it up.

Given Webb has released audio and video before that has completely chucked the match officials under the bus I'm struggling to see why anything would be covered up, he's certainly the most open and transparent head of the PGMOL. Have to see whether this one features on the show I guess.