Man Utd vs Man City

[Russell Jones]

There’s understandably and rightly a great deal of focus on the VAR side of the offside decision. Understandably because a system that was introduced to correct glaring howlers, has, in this instance, in fact created one! In that context, no surprise to see VAR and AVAR have been stood down from upcoming appointments.

HOWEVER. For me, this is also a significant on field error. Not the Haaland offside position judgement, that’s super challenging. But the failure to punish the FIRST offence, the Fernandez offside, is a highly surprising miss … penalise that and the Haaland judgement becomes irrelevant. Personally, I believe the Fernandez offence is obvious enough to be led solely by the AR .. but if not, clear comms between AR and Ref should quickly establish that he was both in an offside position and committed an offside offence.

Without in any way letting VAR off the hook, if the on field decision had been given against Fernandez, then the VAR check would have been a simple and easy check that this call was not a clear and obvious error ….

 

[socal lurker]

while I think it would have been nice for the AR to get this, I don’t think it is anything close to as big of an error as the VAR booth. The AR (incorrectly) has H off, and sees the ball is going to him. That is such a clear and easy call, I don’t think it is at a,l surprising that, to some degree, he got tunnel vision as to a player who was unable to reach the ball. OS under the “attempt” prong is very unusual.

 

[Big Cat]

There’s understandably and rightly a great deal of focus on the VAR side of the offside decision. Understandably because a system that was introduced to correct glaring howlers, has, in this instance, in fact created one! In that context, no surprise to see VAR and AVAR have been stood down from upcoming appointments.

HOWEVER. For me, this is also a significant on field error. Not the Haaland offside position judgement, that’s super challenging. But the failure to punish the FIRST offence, the Fernandez offside, is a highly surprising miss … penalise that and the Haaland judgement becomes irrelevant. Personally, I believe the Fernandez offence is obvious enough to be led solely by the AR .. but if not, clear comms between AR and Ref should quickly establish that he was both in an offside position and committed an offside offence.

Without in any way letting VAR off the hook, if the on field decision had been given against Fernandez, then the VAR check would have been a simple and easy check that this call was not a clear and obvious error ….

And yet the VAR spent time as an AR and is now a specialist VAR
I think that's right

Spurs need to find the net before they have all this complexity to worry about however!

 

[Russell Jones]

while I think it would have been nice for the AR to get this, I don’t think it is anything close to as big of an error as the VAR booth. The AR (incorrectly) has H off, and sees the ball is going to him. That is such a clear and easy call, I don’t think it is at a,l surprising that, to some degree, he got tunnel vision as to a player who was unable to reach the ball. OS under the “attempt” prong is very unusual.

Understand your POV .. but completely disagree . On field, this is not an either / or decision, you need to make both. And the Fernandez one happens first. In the 'non VAR' world that we inhabit, immediately deciding that Fernandez has committed an offence takes away all the pressure from having to attempt to judge the Haaland 'toenail' offside position.

Within the various 'Interferes with an Opponent' offside clauses, in many ways the "Attempts to play a ball that is close" is often the easiest to judge onfield ... and in this case, an attacker standing 3m offside has clearly done this with an impact on not just one but two defenders that is not complex to think through.

 

[RustyRef]

And yet the VAR spent time as an AR and is now a specialist VAR
I think that's right

Spurs need to find the net before they have all this complexity to worry about however!

If you mean Matt Donohue he definitely isn't specialist VAR, he's refereed several Championship games so far this season. I may be wrong but I don't recall him having been an EFL assistant, but he obviously would have assisted at some level even if just L4.

 

[socal lurker]

Understand your POV .. but completely disagree . On field, this is not an either / or decision, you need to make both. And the Fernandez one happens first. In the 'non VAR' world that we inhabit, immediately deciding that Fernandez has committed an offence takes away all the pressure from having to attempt to judge the Haaland 'toenail' offside position.

Within the various 'Interferes with an Opponent' offside clauses, in many ways the "Attempts to play a ball that is close" is often the easiest to judge onfield ... and in this case, an attacker standing 3m offside has clearly done this with an impact on not just one but two defenders that is not complex to think through.

It’s not demonstrable, but I would expect that below the professional level, this exact scenario gets missed more than it gets called. Not because it is conceptually hard, but because, in heat of the moment, the focus on the H player and getting that right.

I think challenging an opponent is by far the easiest (and most common) of the interference with an opponent categories. I would agree that “attempt” is the easiest of the other 3. But it’s not that common. To borrow a medical metaphor, an “attempt” offense is a zebra and interfering with an opponent is a horse. We look for horses first. It’s a lot easier to catch the zebra when not distracted by a horse.

All that said, just to be clear, I do agree that a professional AR should get this and it is a big miss at that level. And I think he would have got it if he had not (erroneously) had H as in OSP. And I’d like to think I’d get it. But I also know that when there are a lot of moving parts the things that are easy and obvious when I watch on TV aren’t as easy and obvious when they happen live on a field.

(I’d also dispute the idea that’s recognizing the diving attempt offense removes having to consider the close OS call. We don’t decide if a player had been in OSP when he plays the ball. We decide when the ball was played. So the AR has already had to make that very close call before the attempt was made. Indeed, having to have been so focused on that very close OSP decision is further explanation (not excuse) for being overly focussed on H. The more I think about it the more I think this makes a fantastic training clip for somewhat experienced Rs-especially if there are good images from more or less the AR’s vantage point.)

 

[Archer]

This'll popup on a LOTG monthly quiz in a couple of years and everyone will still be like "how the hell did I get 93%"

 

[Russell Jones]

I think challenging an opponent is by far the easiest (and most common) of the interference with an opponent categories. I would agree that “attempt” is the easiest of the other 3. But it’s not that common. To borrow a medical metaphor, an “attempt” offense is a zebra and interfering with an opponent is a horse. We look for horses first. It’s a lot easier to catch the zebra when not distracted by a horse.

You're right. For simplicity, I find it easier to consider 'Challenging for the Ball' along with 'Playing the Ball' but it is the easiest clause in Opponent Interference.

All that said, just to be clear, I do agree that a professional AR should get this and it is a big miss at that level. And I think he would have got it if he had not (erroneously) had H as in OSP. And I’d like to think I’d get it. But I also know that when there are a lot of moving parts the things that are easy and obvious when I watch on TV aren’t as easy and obvious when they happen live on a field

I'm totally with you that hindsight makes everything far easier! Getting decisions correct on ANY field is tricky. Getting decisions correct in a Manchester Derby with 100's of millions watching is unbelievably pressurised. But we also agree that it's an 'expected' decision at this level.

(I’d also dispute the idea that’s recognizing the diving attempt offense removes having to consider the close OS call. We don’t decide if a player had been in OSP when he plays the ball. We decide when the ball was played. So the AR has already had to make that very close call before the attempt was made. Indeed, having to have been so focused on that very close OSP decision is further explanation (not excuse) for being overly focussed on H. The more I think about it the more I think this makes a fantastic training clip for somewhat experienced Rs-especially if there are good images from more or less the AR’s vantage point.)

To be clear, I agree that the necessity to make an immediate judgement on the Haaland position remains. However, having made that judgement, a subsequent switch of focus to the clear offence committed by the attacker in an obvious offside position, would take away the necessity to 'go public' with the choice made on Haaland. The free kick would instead be given in the centre of the penalty area rather than out where Haaland was.

 

[socal lurker]

. The free kick would instead be given in the centre of the penalty area rather than out where Haaland was.

as if the location of OS in the PA ever has anything to do with where the kick is taken in professional games.

 

[Johnson]

MO’s very far away from the red card incident. He’s still in the middle third of the field when Fernandes kicks Foden. I really think he has to be getting wider there, especially given it’s the side opposite the AR. He’s also quite slow getting to the incident and ends up just flashing the red card in the general direction of Foden. I’m normally all for flashing a card but in this case it is possible that the card could be for Fernandes or Foden. I would separate the player first in that case. I like that he avoids getting surrounded by just walking away or off the touchline. In terms of the decision itself, I don’t think anything less than a red card would be supportable for Foden due to a clear kick out. I’m then asking myself if I can support a red card for Fernandes for balance. Yes, you can, as the action could be viewed as deliberately kicking an opponent on the ground. Therefore, I would have showed a red card to both players. Ideally, Fernandes first for game management reasons as he was the instigator. For the other KMIs, Enzo obviously interferes with an opponent. Enzo was cautioned for the incident with Maguire, presumably for simulation, so that has to be an indirect free kick coming out.

 

[one]

I'm not too keen on finding a reason to send a player off for balance (or game management). Giving free kicks in a non critical area or even a caution is often acceptable but sending a player off and giving penalties are just a step too far.

Let's say Foden did not kick out at Fernandes. If Fernandes was send off for his actions there would have been uproar. With Foden kick out, sending Fernandes off would just be to even things out which for me is not a thing.

 

[one]

How many people thought in the Maguire v Fernandez MO actually stopped the game for Maguire's actions only. There was no diving there and Fernandez did nothing wrong. Then he realised the ball is still in play and he didn't want to give a penalty. So he had to make up something to make it a defensive free kick.

 

[socal lurker]

Graham Scott wrote a pretty detailed column about how the process should have gone forward in the VAR booth and where he thinks the failures were. It’s behind a paywall, butnI believed this shared link will let people read it. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/75...hared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta

 

[deusex]

How many people thought in the Maguire v Fernandez MO actually stopped the game for Maguire's actions only. There was no diving there and Fernandez did nothing wrong. Then he realised the ball is still in play and he didn't want to give a penalty. So he had to make up something to make it a defensive free kick.

100%. Said at the time this was a penalty.
The ball is in play and brain dead Maguire decides to push an opponent in the box.

 

[Big Cat]

If you mean Matt Donohue he definitely isn't specialist VAR, he's refereed several Championship games so far this season. I may be wrong but I don't recall him having been an EFL assistant, but he obviously would have assisted at some level even if just L4.

I was going off the EFL site. However, I don't know anything about him, so guessing this info below is incomplete or too brief

 

[one]

100%. Said at the time this was a penalty.
The ball is in play and brain dead Maguire decides to push an opponent in the box.

I think it would have taken one brain dead and two brain farts for a penalty. Luckily the second person only had one brain fart and recovered before making the final decision.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

If VAR had not been introduced into the Premier League, what would the outcome have been?

 

[Paul_10]

If VAR had not been introduced into the Premier League, what would the outcome have been?

Disallowed goal with most people thinking Haaland strayed offside going by the camera angle(as Neville was so adamant that was the case).

One thing I have found slightly amusing in Carraghers analysis last night was the Foden red card. Pundits have been criticizing refs for not making on field decisions anymore and relying on VAR too much yet we hear Carragher saying Oliver was too quick getting the red card out and it was one of those he should of just let VAR check whether it should be a red. Refs iust can't win at times!

 

[one]

If VAR had not been introduced into the Premier League, what would the outcome have been?

3 pages of this thread instead of 6 pages.

 

[Big Cat]

3 pages of this thread instead of 6 pages.

Ross has got shares in Pro Ref (and VAR)