A&H

Brig v Man Utd

Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s a binary decision though, and the assistant went IN. Boils my piss when commentators bang on about a referee or lino “not being sure...” so they “couldn’t have given” or whatever. They were sure. It either was or wasn’t a foul, in/out, offside, goal etc.

Sure, they can be wrong... but no one’s guessing.
 
The Referee Store
So, here we are, the two things I think are the pertinent points. There's no set time limit, or event. Merely what appears to be guidance.

An offence by the team that scored the goal in the attacking phase that
ended with the scoring of a goal, including.....
Ball out of play prior to the goal

For decisions/incidents relating to goals........... it may be
necessary to review the attacking phase of play which led directly to the
decision/incident; this may include how the attacking team gained
possession of the ball in open play.

You could argue it both ways I suppose but for me it marginally falls on the side of correctly not reviewed, on the basis that the incident did not lead directly to the goal, and Brighton also touched the ball in between so is that a new attacking phase? Probably. There doesn't appear to be any clear guidance so would need to know the inner teachings, and once again, having read through it, is poorly drafted in line with the lotg.
 
There is a very relevant section in the VAR handbook most of which found its way into the LOTG but some didn't due to sheer volume of it. I would say this still applies. The red text is the answer
Screenshot_20200702-010814__01.jpg
 
There is a very relevant section in the VAR handbook most of which found its way into the LOTG but some didn't due to sheer volume of it. I would say this still applies. The red text is the answer
View attachment 4388
Makes sense. At what point does the 'subsequent play' end though?
How long can a subsequent play last?
It's grey matter as usual and is left open for debate.
You could argue this one both ways so I'm not going to have a debate about what should have happened.. You would need an absolute nailed on angle that the ball was out though to be able to call it anyway, I am not sure I saw that. I saw what appeared to be the ball out of play but not concrete, the angle shown wasn't really the one you would want. The proper angle you want probably doesn't exist without hawkeye
 
It is probably badly written laws again. To me it is very likely that checking ball out of play by VAR relates to the goal line, not the touch line as it would be very rare the latter would lead directly to a goal, whereas the latter is quite likely.
 
They quite happily went back 2 phases of play to check whether Lunstrams toe was offside at Thfc v Sufc to rule it out, why aren’t big teams immune to this and seem to benefit from bad line calls??
 
Time isn't relevant, but phase of play is. If Brighton had control of the ball (I don't think just a touch would be enough necessarily) or United were passing it sideways around their midfield, I think that resets it.
 
I *think* attacking phase of play goes back to the moment that the team that "scored" gained possession. I don't believe that static passing by that team at midfield resets.
 
@rusty Ball out of play is ball out of play, stop guessing / summizing that it only means the goal line, it’s clearer than clear what it means!
another duff call that’s perfectly correctable but yet again they failed in their basic duty. They really have no point being there!
 
Makes sense. At what point does the 'subsequent play' end though?
How long can a subsequent play last?
Maybe it could be clarified in the same way that a handball leading to a goal has been clarified this season (i.e. “immediately” before)
 
@rusty Ball out of play is ball out of play, stop guessing / summizing that it only means the goal line, it’s clearer than clear what it means!
another duff call that’s perfectly correctable but yet again they failed in their basic duty. They really have no point being there!

But you are ignoring the actual rules and guidance. As @one has posted, VAR can only get involved if the ball goes out of play and the subsequent play results in a goal, penalty or VAR incident, and it clearly didn't here.
 
They’re making this sh1t up as they go along!!

genuine question, do you actually enjoy watching football? I do sometimes feel that your general criticisms and opinion of the game seem to be more of a discussion point than actual refereeing these days.

This VAR decision is correct in line with how it’s supposed to be used
 
genuine question, do you actually enjoy watching football? I do sometimes feel that your general criticisms and opinion of the game seem to be more of a discussion point than actual refereeing these days.

This VAR decision is correct in line with how it’s supposed to be used

Exactly that. As this is a refereeing forum anyone replying shouldn't just disagree they should offer suggestions for improvement. There is no problem with disagreeing, but anyone doing so should be saying why it is wrong under the current laws. I understand that it is totally different to the laws of the 1970s/80s but that is irrelevant and therefore posts referring to that will likely get deleted.
 
So you admit it’s badly worded law to which I express an optnion that’s different to yours and suddenly you’re right, in your opinion and I’m totally wrong and I’m a dinasaur from the 80s?
you need to stop having Personal opinions and an agenda about me and just be a moderator that’s unbiased. All opinions are valid, even yours occasionally! Peace!
 
So you admit it’s badly worded law to which I express an optnion that’s different to yours and suddenly you’re right, in your opinion and I’m totally wrong and I’m a dinasaur from the 80s?
you need to stop having Personal opinions and an agenda about me and just be a moderator that’s unbiased. All opinions are valid, even yours occasionally! Peace!
But do you not see what he is saying? Your comment was ‘they are making this s**t up as they go along’ despite it because a totally correct decision based on VAR protocol. We all disagree with certain elements of the LOTG and the decisions referees make, but we discuss why we believe it’s wrong. You just seem to say lines like the one above which isn’t productive or insightful, it’s a one line comment which is factually inaccurate because you simply don’t like VAR.
 
The whole problem here exists because VAR was set up to pander to people who were panicking over the idea of there being "too much VAR". There's no other possible reason for why we are now discussing if this is "reviewable" or not. That's the reason for the restriction that only incidents leading up to a goal can be reviewed, and when IFAB then go on to poorly define what that actually means....you end up here.

It's another reason why I'm personally in favour of a challenge system - either the manager chooses to challenge this, in which case it's reviewable, or he doesn't, in which case it's not. No faffing around with "phase of play" discussions, take that question entirely out of the refereeing team's hands.
 
The whole problem here exists because VAR was set up to pander to people who were panicking over the idea of there being "too much VAR". There's no other possible reason for why we are now discussing if this is "reviewable" or not. That's the reason for the restriction that only incidents leading up to a goal can be reviewed, and when IFAB then go on to poorly define what that actually means....you end up here.

It's another reason why I'm personally in favour of a challenge system - either the manager chooses to challenge this, in which case it's reviewable, or he doesn't, in which case it's not. No faffing around with "phase of play" discussions, take that question entirely out of the refereeing team's hands.
I have also been a long time Advocate of a review system.
Although, it would still seem unjust if a team were out of reviews, particularly if the lost reviews were subjective decisions, where, say you and I had a differing opinion on what offence, if any was committed.
I really don't think there is a perfect system.. Whatever protocol is in place, there would be some fault with it, where some team or other would face unjust consequences.
I agree with all your sentiments though, but, whilst the current debacle is avoidable by changing the system, any alternative systems I have seen suggested tend to have their own difficulties and challenges (no pun intended) as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top