Brentford Vs Liverpool

[Mooseybaby]

Busy night for VAR Darren England in the first half with 2 Brentford goals disallowed for offside. Brentford finally get a 2nd goal that counts...thanks to goal line technology.

Who was it that said football is boring?

 

[GraemeS]

Honestly was a little surprised their 1st wasn't chalked off as well! We saw one VAR replay that suggested it hit an attackers hand before hitting the defender for the OG, but no further indication that the hand contact was confirmed or otherwise investigated further.

 

[es1]

Good uses of var (for once) and glt (as always)!

 

[JamesL]

Honestly was a little surprised their 1st wasn't chalked off as well! We saw one VAR replay that suggested it hit an attackers hand before hitting the defender for the OG, but no further indication that the hand contact was confirmed or otherwise investigated further.

Haven't seen it disclaimer: but if it was an OG accidently handling by the attacker wouldn't necessarily mean the goal had to be ruled out as the player who handled hasn't scored the goal.

 

[RustyRef]

Honestly was a little surprised their 1st wasn't chalked off as well! We saw one VAR replay that suggested it hit an attackers hand before hitting the defender for the OG, but no further indication that the hand contact was confirmed or otherwise investigated further.

Would have been in previous seasons, but now it has to be the player that handles that scores the goal, it hit Mee's arm but then Kounate scored in his own goal.

 

[santa sangria]

Honestly was a little surprised their 1st wasn't chalked off as well! We saw one VAR replay that suggested it hit an attackers hand before hitting the defender for the OG, but no further indication that the hand contact was confirmed or otherwise investigated further.

I am still confused about this. Accidental handball, deflection off defender, goal - what does the LotG say?

 

[RustyRef]

Haven't seen it disclaimer: but if it was an OG accidently handling by the attacker wouldn't necessarily mean the goal had to be ruled out as the player who handled hasn't scored the goal.

I would go a step further and say it can't be ruled out. The use of "their hand / arm" is very clear, it has to be the player that handles it that scores for it to be disallowed.

 

[santa sangria]

Does Konate’s touch if it’s not a deliberate play?

It’s not in the book.

A goal is fair enough I think.

 

[es1]

Not sure how I feel about that tbh as it's not a controlled touch by konate. Without the handball it probably doesn't go in...but goal seems right/correct

 

[JamesL]

I would go a step further and say it can't be ruled out. The use of "their hand / arm" is very clear, it has to be the player that handles it that scores for it to be disallowed.

View attachment 6268

I was open to the possibility of making body unnaturally bigger, having not seen it, see disclaimer

 

[GraemeS]

Not sure how I feel about that tbh as it's not a controlled touch by konate. Without the handball it probably doesn't go in...but goal seems right/correct

Yeah this was my thinking - definitely accept it might not be disallowable in law, but then it begs the question of why they were trying to determine if there was contact or not!

Yet another example of how access to the VAR comms would massively enhance its credibility. Assuming the process was carried out correctly of course.

 

[santa sangria]

I think Konate kicks the turf there. Good goal. Ref does not help by starting to raise the whistle.

Some odd decisions in this match but this not one of them.

 

[deusex]

I think Konate kicks the turf there. Good goal. Ref does not help by starting to raise the whistle.

Some odd decisions in this match but this not one of them.

I'd love another look but looked like his heel gets stood on to me.

 

[santa sangria]

Fabinho wants a yellow there (and a long holiday- i don’t remember a player fall off a cliff as he has)

 

[one]

I think Konate kicks the turf there. Good goal. Ref does not help by starting to raise the whistle.

Some odd decisions in this match but this not one of them.

He kicked the turf because that foot made contact with the attacker immediately prior. But footballing contact for me and agree a good goal.

First goal, the law is ambiguous at best. But I thing it was in the spirit of this law to 'not count' a deflection of a defender, similar to offside.

Yet another example of how access to the VAR comms would massively enhance its credibility. Assuming the process was carried out correctly of course.

Massive assumption. I think the reason VAR audio is not accessible is that this assumption is often not true. 6 out of 42 good decisions overturned and an unspecified number of non-clear errors reviewed as well.

On a seperate note, 4 (I think) reviews in one game makes me think if the stats of 42 reviews in the 150 or so previous games were correct.

 

[GraemeS]

Massive assumption. I think the reason VAR audio is not accessible is that this assumption is often not true. 6 out of 42 good decisions overturned and an unspecified number of non-clear errors reviewed as well.

Why can rugby, cricket etc have people capable of running the processes correctly and yet somehow the assumption is that we can't? Running the process to the level where you can defensibly say "we carried out each step correctly" is a minimum requirement, if they can't get that right there are bigger issues here than anyone thinks.

You're citing stats regarding judgement calls as a reason not to broadcast audio, which isn't the point. If the VAR says "I think we have a C&O error here" and is wrong in that judgement then we can debate it but at least the process is being followed. What you're implying is that they don't actually ask that question in reality - which would be a strong reason for PGMOL et al to not want to broadcast audio, but would suggest the process in reality is very different to what is laid out in theory, and is also being carried out by people incapable of following a basic flow chart.

On a seperate note, 4 (I think) reviews in one game makes me think if the stats of 42 reviews in the 150 or so previous games were correct.

It felt like a lot watching the game, I certainly wouldn't accept anyone trying to argue that 4 significant interventions per game is anywhere near routine.

Also, how are we defining these, was it actually 4? Brentford had I think 2 disallowed by VAR (plus/including one which was flagged offside on-field and then confirmed by VAR, not sure if this qualifies as a review?), Liverpool had 1, plus there were also quick but definitely present "confirmatory" reviews on both the Brentford 1st (for the accidental handball discussed above), the Brentford 3rd (for the possible foul on Konate) and the Liverpool goal (for a possible offside) - so depending what you're counting, I think it was either 2, 3, 6 or 7 reviews?

This is a common theme when discussing VAR involvement - people love to complain about the long difficult reviews, but ignore the positive effect of sky-ref quietly confirming what could otherwise be very contentious decisions. I don't want to be too VAR-evangelical, but 10 years ago, 3 of the 4 goals in this game would have been extremely controversial and 3 more goals would have been incorrectly allowed - all of which would have caused the temperature of the game to rise significantly.

 

[santa sangria]

Why can rugby, cricket etc have people capable of running the processes correctly and yet somehow the assumption is that we can't? Running the process to the level where you can defensibly say "we carried out each step correctly" is a minimum requirement, if they can't get that right there are bigger issues here than anyone thinks.

You're citing stats regarding judgement calls as a reason not to broadcast audio, which isn't the point. If the VAR says "I think we have a C&O error here" and is wrong in that judgement then we can debate it but at least the process is being followed. What you're implying is that they don't actually ask that question in reality - which would be a strong reason for PGMOL et al to not want to broadcast audio, but would suggest the process in reality is very different to what is laid out in theory, and is also being carried out by people incapable of following a basic flow chart.


It felt like a lot watching the game, I certainly wouldn't accept anyone trying to argue that 4 significant interventions per game is anywhere near routine.

Also, how are we defining these, was it actually 4? Brentford had I think 2 disallowed by VAR (plus/including one which was flagged offside on-field and then confirmed by VAR, not sure if this qualifies as a review?), Liverpool had 1, plus there were also quick but definitely present "confirmatory" reviews on both the Brentford 1st (for the accidental handball discussed above), the Brentford 3rd (for the possible foul on Konate) and the Liverpool goal (for a possible offside) - so depending what you're counting, I think it was either 2, 3, 6 or 7 reviews?

This is a common theme when discussing VAR involvement - people love to complain about the long difficult reviews, but ignore the positive effect of sky-ref quietly confirming what could otherwise be very contentious decisions. I don't want to be too VAR-evangelical, but 10 years ago, 3 of the 4 goals in this game would have been extremely controversial and 3 more goals would have been incorrectly allowed - all of which would have caused the temperature of the game to rise significantly.

Which I would have been fine with TBH. I think the officials would have caught the deflected goal with comms - and Darren Cann did catch the weird coming back from inside the goal offside. I think he would have flagged Darwin’s offside without VAR as well.

I think last night’s match did not benefit from VAR’s involvement. GLT absolutely. But VAR no.

With an assistant as good as Cann the drawbacks of VAR outweigh the potential benefits.

 

[GraemeS]

Which I would have been fine with TBH. I think the officials would have caught the deflected goal with comms - and Darren Cann did catch the weird coming back from inside the goal offside. I think he would have flagged Darwin’s offside without VAR as well.

I think last night’s match did not benefit from VAR’s involvement. GLT absolutely. But VAR no.

With an assistant as good as Cann the drawbacks of VAR outweigh the potential benefits.

What's the plan then? Clone Cann 19 times and make the Cann-clones run every line every matchday until their legs fall off? You can't build a system based on how excellent at his job one man is, when at an absolute minimum, each match requires two of them!

 

[one]

Why can rugby, cricket etc have people capable of running the processes correctly and yet somehow the assumption is that we can't? Running the process to the level where you can defensibly say "we carried out each step correctly" is a minimum requirement, if they can't get that right there are bigger issues here than anyone thinks.

You're citing stats regarding judgement calls as a reason not to broadcast audio, which isn't the point. If the VAR says "I think we have a C&O error here" and is wrong in that judgement then we can debate it but at least the process is being followed. What you're implying is that they don't actually ask that question in reality - which would be a strong reason for PGMOL et al to not want to broadcast audio, but would suggest the process in reality is very different to what is laid out in theory, and is also being carried out by people incapable of following a basic flow chart.

I think you are misreading my post as I think lack of comms is right. On the contrary I would love for the comms to be public. I am saying they are not public for the precise reason of the assumption you made is not true. As you say the process is "being carried out by people incapable of following a basic flow chart", and they know this, hence no public comms. I am sure once they have sufficient confidence on VAR people being able to have far less errors when they attempt to fix referee errors, they would make the comms public. But until then, we wont have comms.

 

[GraemeS]

I think you are misreading my post as I think lack of comms is right. On the contrary I would love for the comms to be public. I am saying they are not public for the precise reason of the assumption you made is not true. As you say the process is "being carried out by people incapable of following a basic flow chart", and they know this, hence no public comms. I am sure once they have sufficient confidence on VAR people being able to have far less errors when they attempt to fix referee errors, they would make the comms public. But until then, we wont have comms.

OK, but I don't understand how that can possibly be the case? Football has access to multiple times more funding than for example cricket, yet the approach to their use of 3rd umpire is sensible, methodical and structured.

If you've ever seen them doing a LBW review, I can tell you the process off the top of my head: use video to determine if the ball has touched the bat or pad - if it's close, ask for hot-spot/snickometer graphics, once that's cleared up or if it's not close, ask for the ball tracking graphic, then confirm the decision required and tell the umpire when they're on screen. And that's the case in internationals, but I also remember seeing the exact same careful standardised method used in the hundred, in a few big-bash and IPL clips I've seen, and by local 3rd umpires when they were being used during the height of covid.

Like....maybe I'm just underestimating football's incompetence, but I'm not expecting the world here - I'm asking for something that has been achieved to a good standard in other less-well-financed sports. It should be a really simple box to tick and if everything we're being told about VAR is true, it should be happening already in reality.