one
RefChat Addict
I'm going to safely assume this is a rhetorical question.
Man City vs Fulham
- Thread starter Tim Punter
- Start date
Again calls into question the dynamics of VAR. We should assume Tony Harrington applied what he thought was the LOTG, but was he swayed by talking to a very senior ref, or other factors. Howard Webb needs to address these issues pretty quickly imo, as I can only see these spiralling out of control over the next few weeks, and really doesn’t help us at grassroots
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Nothing in the LOTG restricts where on the field the GK may be.
It still delayed the restart. Mind you, given how quickly Fulham equalised the first goal, it was his time he was wasting. (Or rather, everyone's time if it was added on!)
He made an action that prevented an opponent from being able to play the ball. Leno couldn't dive until he knew whether Akanji was touching it or not, so offside would definitely have been fully supportable in law.
I don't think that word is sufficiently defined
Problem being, if you have a forensic process like VAR, the wording has to be clearly defined in a format quite different to how the book is written
I'm not saying you're wrong BTW... If I was, we'd be in a disagreement that couldn't be resolved with the book as it is
Last edited:
Fair point, I just think that the "football expects" decision here is very much offside. For me Akanji's actions clearly prevented Leno from saving the ball, if he wasn't there jumping over the ball like that Leno would have comfortably saved it.
I suspect this one will end up on a PGMOL showreel of VAR mistakes, perhaps with a same explanation as used before in that it wasn't technically wrong but "the game expects".
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Why? Referee doesn’t have to wait for him to be in the PA to restart.
one
RefChat Addict
You can assume whatever you like, but only I know if it was a rhetorical question, and it wasn't.
Seriously, whatever the law says about where the GK can be, why is he in the centre circle? If the goal is disallowed, he has to go back to the PA to take the free kick *; if it's allowed he has to go back to the PA to fetch the ball for the kick-off. It's inevitably wasting time.
* OK, he doesn't, someone else could....
Dale Johnson, who seems to be an expert on VAR with some kind of hotline to them, says it was absolutely a mistake by VAR and he expects it to appear on the next Monday night football Howard Webb appears on. Which I believe is not long after the international break.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
I'm not really sure if I'd call Dale Johnson an "expert". He seems to be more of a PR conduit for PGMOL to defend decisions in most cases. I try to read some of his work on ESPN's website here in the US, and some of his explanations really make me scratch my head.
He's been right about almost every English VAR decisions he has commented on, and he certainly wasn't defending decisions today. He agreed that Ten Hag's complaints were groundless, but couldn't be more clear in that the non-offside against Man City was a howler.
Guy is probably the only journalist ever to attempt to understand the law and it's application.
From a referee stand point he is top class
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
This is why many of us on a US-based forum scratch our heads at some of the stuff Dale Johnson writes.
The VAR Review: Havertz penalty cancelled, Ten Hag rant, Akanji offside
In this week's VAR Review: Should Arsenal's penalty against Man United have been cancelled? And did Erik ten Hag really have any grounds for his complaints? Plus, how the VAR got it very wrong at Man City.
I simply have no idea how someone who claims to understand the law and its application can seriously justify not calling this a handling and saying it was wrong to not recommend a review. This is about as textbook of "unnatural position" as one can get. Yet he says that the arm has to be pointing upwards?
I'm really trying to justify this, but I simply can't.
This is why many of us on a US-based forum scratch our heads at some of the stuff Dale Johnson writes.
The VAR Review: Havertz penalty cancelled, Ten Hag rant, Akanji offside
In this week's VAR Review: Should Arsenal's penalty against Man United have been cancelled? And did Erik ten Hag really have any grounds for his complaints? Plus, how the VAR got it very wrong at Man City.www.espn.com
I simply have no idea how someone who claims to understand the law and its application can seriously justify not calling this a handling and saying it was wrong to not recommend a review. This is about as textbook of "unnatural position" as one can get. Yet he says that the arm has to be pointing upwards?
I'm really trying to justify this, but I simply can't.
View attachment 6814
As he explained, VAR's in this league has got a much higher threshold on handballs and they will only likely to get involved in overturning a referees decision if it's above shoulder height which is supportable by law. In any other league that would be sent for a review which would be more the right thing especially as I'm not convinced the referee even had the best view of it.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
He doesn't say that. He says if it "had been [...] pointing upwards," which is not the same thing. I'm also not sure he's really trying to justify not calling it handball, and he does say, "it could easily have been given on the field if seen."
I think he's more trying to give the reasoning for why VAR didn't intervene and for all we know, he may only be relaying what was given to him by his contact(s) inside the PGMOL.
His main point surely (and which is entirely correct) is that it, "comes down to expected position for his arms when jumping ..."
FWIW (not a lot probably) while I was a little surprised, having seen the replays, that this didn't go for an on field review, I can just about see that this might not reach the new, higher bar for VAR decisions that Webb has said he is trying to implement.