Newcastle v Man City

[socal lurker]

The subjective part is whether it impacted the opponents ability to play or challenge for the ball—if that defender had no ability to get to the ball, then the interference wouldn’t impact his ability to do so. That said, I think this is clearly OS.

 

[es1]

Many similarities with arsenal's opener tonight coincidentally (though I don't think they're the same)

 

[RustyRef]

Many similarities with arsenal's opener tonight coincidentally (though I don't think they're the same)

Agree, but the big difference is the defender, Guiu, is looking into the goal, has absolutely zero interest in play and is just trying to block the attacker. I get the argument that Thiaw didn't have much chance of blocking the shot last night, but Guiu had absolutely zero chance as he has no idea where the ball is.

 

[es1]

Agree, but the big difference is the defender, Guiu, is looking into the goal, has absolutely zero interest in play and is just trying to block the attacker. I get the argument that Thiaw didn't have much chance of blocking the shot last night, but Guiu had absolutely zero chance as he has no idea where the ball is.

That's my thinking too

 

[bloovee]

This would be less controversial but for (a) the Wirtz goal allowed that looked well offside and (b) people not understanding about needing two opponents nearer the goal-line.

There's also the problem of defenders pushing attackers into offside positions (or maybe in this case Haaland being held in an offside position). But the ball was close enough to Haaland that some thought it brushed his backside so if he hadn't been there the defender should have been able to play the ball - but if Haaland wasn't there where would the defender be? And but for a City player in front of the GK could the GK have got the cross anyway...

And a case that both the scorer and another City player were being fouled before the crucial "moment the ball was played".

Anyway (proper fan post), there's some satisfaction that City got their second goal in the time added for the VAR delay!

Knock yourselves out:

 

[DJIC]

This would be less controversial but for (a) the Wirtz goal allowed that looked well offside and (b) people not understanding about needing two opponents nearer the goal-line.

There's also the problem of defenders pushing attackers into offside positions (or maybe in this case Haaland being held in an offside position). But the ball was close enough to Haaland that some thought it brushed his backside so if he hadn't been there the defender should have been able to play the ball - but if Haaland wasn't there where would the defender be? And but for a City player in front of the GK could the GK have got the cross anyway...

And a case that both the scorer and another City player were being fouled before the crucial "moment the ball was played".

Anyway (proper fan post), there's some satisfaction that City got their second goal in the time added for the VAR delay!

Knock yourselves out:

I think the Wirtz goal is explained by the fact VAR & the broadcasters used two different frames for the point of contact.

Which is always the crucial part, who decides the point of contact?

 

[one]

Just a note on the time it took for VAR to make a decision. VAR protocol 1.6: "There is no time limit for the review process as accuracy is more important than speed."

Not saying I like it, just that it is what VAR follows.

 

[socal lurker]

As I recall, in early days of video review, the NFL tried a time limit system, where the monitor shut off automatically after a certain amount of time. (2 minutes?) Of course, that just added to controversy when they didn’t get to the clear evidence of the missed call in that time period.

 

[bloovee]

Just a note on the time it took for VAR to make a decision. VAR protocol 1.6: "There is no time limit for the review process as accuracy is more important than speed."

Not saying I like it, just that it is what VAR follows.

I've already agreed that (despite holding each other) there was a case that Haaland in an offside position may have prevented the defender from blocking the goalbound shot. But it's equally arguable that the defender had little chance of getting to such an unexpected shot.

So where was the C&O error worth an onfield review?

"The referee`s original decision will not be changed unless there was a ‘clear and obvious error’ (this includes any decision made by the referee based on information from another match official e.g. offside)."

 

[one]

But it's equally arguable that the defender had little chance of getting to such an unexpected shot.

So where was the C&O error worth an onfield review?

You may well be right. However being C&O itself is also a subjective decision. Obviously the VAR's view didn't agree with your view of 'little chance'.

 

[Big Cat]

C&O is a minor consideration when it comes to much of the VAR forensics. Of course, there was no C&O mistake WRT this Incident, even if it was arguably the correct decision. C&O was all just part of the 'minimal interference, maximum impact' ruse that FIFA used to blindside us all
As long as the Stadia are full and the TV Rights are worth a fortune, the game will remain broken. Eventually, Gen Z's (and later Gens) won't know any difference, by which time, God knows what VAR will look like

 

[RustyRef]

I've already agreed that (despite holding each other) there was a case that Haaland in an offside position may have prevented the defender from blocking the goalbound shot. But it's equally arguable that the defender had little chance of getting to such an unexpected shot.

So where was the C&O error worth an onfield review?

"The referee`s original decision will not be changed unless there was a ‘clear and obvious error’ (this includes any decision made by the referee based on information from another match official e.g. offside)."

I think it is just typically bad wording and it refers to a subjective offside, which are relatively few and far between. Otherwise it would be pointless going on to say this ...

For factual decisions, e.g. position of an offence or player (offside), point of contact (handball/foul), location (inside or outside the penalty area), ball out of play etc. a ‘VAR-only review’ is usually appropriate but an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) can be used for a factual decision if it will help manage the players/match or ‘sell’ the decision (e.g. a crucial match-deciding decision late in the game)

It describes factual decisions and includes the position of an offside players as one of them, so the actual offside position being missed is a factual error by the AR. There hasn't actually been a subjective error made as the AR didn't see the offside and there had therefore been no judgement made by either referee or AR as to whether there was any interference.

 

[bloovee]

I think it is just typically bad wording and it refers to a subjective offside, which are relatively few and far between. Otherwise it would be pointless going on to say this ...

For factual decisions, e.g. position of an offence or player (offside), point of contact (handball/foul), location (inside or outside the penalty area), ball out of play etc. a ‘VAR-only review’ is usually appropriate but an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) can be used for a factual decision if it will help manage the players/match or ‘sell’ the decision (e.g. a crucial match-deciding decision late in the game)

It describes factual decisions and includes the position of an offside players as one of them, so the actual offside position being missed is a factual error by the AR. There hasn't actually been a subjective error made as the AR didn't see the offside and there had therefore been no judgement made by either referee or AR as to whether there was any interference.

Thanks for that attempt to bring a logical explanation to a bizarre situation!

You may well be right. However being C&O itself is also a subjective decision. Obviously the VAR's view didn't agree with your view of 'little chance'.

But if the VAR thought there was more than a little chance of the defender stopping the shot, why suggest an onfield review?

(As you can imagine, trying to explain all this to City fans isn't an easy sell!)

 

[socal lurker]

But if the VAR thought there was more than a little chance of the defender stopping the shot, why suggest an onfield review?

Because it is mandatory for subjective decisions. Only objective decisions can be reversed without a review by the R.