No, the AVAR is there to assist the VAR, not to be the main voice on AR situations like offside. If the VAR is looking at something while play continues, AVAR will continue to watch live play, etc
City vs Liverpool
- Thread starter Joshref
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
- Status
it might not have been his fault, and I was referring to his ability to judge when a player is in an offside position anyway. I’m guessing he had the chat with CK, and they agreed together that he interfered with Donarumma
They also have to judge whether Robertson's position and movement affected the keeper's ability to play the ball. That's what I think is probably subjective, can we say for certain that he didn't delay his dive because he thought Robertson might be able to touch the ball?
Was it correct to disallow Liverpool equaliser?
Good analysis here. ‘13 seconds to decide to put his flag up’, needs explaining by somebody.
Good analysis here. ‘13 seconds to decide to put his flag up’, needs explaining by somebody.
With Comms I am quite content to accept 13 seconds - they had a chat with each having part of the jigsaw and together they considered offside & as far as I am concerned I am happy with the outcome.
It really doesn't, it is the referee and AR communicating to determine the position of players, that takes time. AR knows who was offside, referee knows the relative position of that offside player. If that was a game without comms it would involve a discussion on the touchline and that would take longer than 13 seconds.
one
RefChat Addict
The criteria is "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball". "clearly" is one of the key words used there intentionally. It's not "possibly impacts", or even "impacts" on its own, it's "clearly impacts". I don't think Donnarumma would have done anything differently had Robertson not been there.
I see this as a ref error. VAR was right not to intervene as it was not a clear and obvious error. AR did good by not raising flag immediately, use comms to confer with ref. He informs ref Robertson was in an offside position. It's ref's decision if it is an offence and ask AR to raise flag.
Did it change the outcome of the game? Not in my opinion. City were easily the better team on the day.
I see this as a ref error. VAR was right not to intervene as it was not a clear and obvious error. AR did good by not raising flag immediately, use comms to confer with ref. He informs ref Robertson was in an offside position. It's ref's decision if it is an offence and ask AR to raise flag.
Did it change the outcome of the game? Not in my opinion. City were easily the better team on the day.
That’s a reasonable point concerning ‘clearly’. Although I may be jumbling up Law, I just find it strange that there can be marginally tight active offsides from just inside the defending half whereby with VAR it is often accepted, but with a player in a clear offside position within the goal area, between the goal posts and on the same side the ball is travelling to where he has to duck to avoid the ball, whereby his sole intention was to hamper the goalkeeper's vision etc & there is a big debate (though debate is healthy).
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
If this one was offside, why wasn’t Stones’ vs Wolves?
I can’t say that I have seen it. However, I think it’s fair to say that Referees are not robots. The ruled out Liverpool goal was subjective based upon what the AR & Referee identified from their positions & VAR confirmed not a clear & obvious error. Although everyone would like clarity on what is and what isn’t offside, football & the Laws of the game were never designed to nail down every scenario.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Controversy! John Stones winner stands after VAR review to send Manchester City top
John Stones winner stands after VAR review to send Manchester City top.
Same referee
Thanks for posting. It does make me laugh when the quote at the place of the clip says controversy & involves Man City - so it’s controversial when a goal is given and when it’s not. However, being serious for a second there is certainly 1 main difference and 1 potential difference between the Wolves & Liverpool incidents. The main one is the flight of the ball whereby it was played into the roof of the net, so the goalkeeper’s view/vision was not blocked & I didn’t see any Wolves players appeal (though plenty of appealing from the Manager). I think there were some appeals from City players at the time of the incident yesterday.Controversy! John Stones winner stands after VAR review to send Manchester City top
John Stones winner stands after VAR review to send Manchester City top.www.skysports.com
Same referee
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
At which point was the goalkeepers cure blocked yesterday? I didn’t see any City players appealing
Fair point about the view of the goalkeeper yesterday, but I share the views of rusty ref on this matter. We can drill down into minutia of whether his view was blocked or not, but I would say that it can’t be guaranteed that with Robinson having to duck to get out of the way of the ball that it wasn’t.
I would agree with you, but again it’s inconsistency. Last season I remember a goal being allowed where the attacker was clearly blocking the goal keepers vision.
In this case, I could argue that the attacker made no difference to the keeper.
You’re saying you genuinely don’t see a difference between the 2?Controversy! John Stones winner stands after VAR review to send Manchester City top
John Stones winner stands after VAR review to send Manchester City top.
Same referee
Look my opinion is that on balance, this goal should stand, but I don’t see how that video is relevant in the argument. There are some very clear key differences (the most obvious of which is path of the ball in to the goal, over the top of Robertson in yesterdays case compared to the goalkeepers side of the offside attacker in the Man City vs Wolves game.
- Status