A&H

Man Utd v Aston Villa (FA Cup)

L

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
Anyone wondering why VAR didn't give a proper look on the challenge on Konsa in the penalty box just now?
Shaw not even looking at the ball.
Konsa would have likely got on the end if he never hit him, and enough to draw blood.
And not even a second look?
 
The Referee Store
Don't think it's offside Cavani was never getting anywhere near the ball so don't see how the defender can be challenging an opponent for the ball. Clear case of impeding though.
 
bester said:
Don't think it's offside Cavani was never getting anywhere near the ball so don't see how the defender can be challenging an opponent for the ball. Clear case of impeding though.
Click to expand...

I think he challenges for it without the block. He's a yard in advance (towards the goal line) of the villa attacker as the ball is played
 
The only circumstance which could possibly apply is "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball", and you'd be hard put to satisfy both "obvious" and "clearly".

But under the VAR protocol, aren't offsides a matter of fact and not for OFR? (No - see below!) So was it given as a foul? Pretty weird if so, given the wrestling defenders are getting away with in the PA (and the Shaw flailing arm).

Edit: "For subjective decisions, e.g. intensity of a foul challenge, interference at offside, handball considerations, an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) is appropriate"
 
Last edited:
I think it's offside, but like @es1 said, not good for VAR PR
Once the line was drawn on the screen, VAR must've naturally felt compelled to use it. Shame the decision was entirely subjective
 
bloovee said:
But under the VAR protocol, aren't offsides a matter of fact and not for OFR? So was it given as a foul? Pretty weird if so, given the wrestling defenders are getting away with in the PA (and the Shaw flailing arm).
Click to expand...
Was in the ground and Oliver raised his arm for IFK, and it was announced as VAR Check for offside, can only be offside.

I said the other day surely interfering with play is a subjective call and I think it’s shown today.

Dk about the offside but if he blocked Cavani then it’s fair, CAVANI was clearly getting there. Every other big call looked good though to me but will have to watch it on TV
 
Semantics but even if offside should be penalised under law 12.

"a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12
 
bloovee said:
But under the VAR protocol, aren't offsides a matter of fact and not for OFR? So was it given as a foul?
Click to expand...
No. At least it shouldn't be entirely.

There are three components involved for an offside decision. Being in offside position. Interfering with play. Interfering with an opponent. The former two are factual decisions. The latter is a subjective decision and unless the on field decision on this component is clearly and obviously wrong, VAR should not get involved (granted the other two components are correct).
 
That sort of block is going on all the time at corners and FKs.

But Villa's two attackers standing that far in an offside position - is their main purpose to block any defender running back? In which case, my sympathy is much less. But I'm not sure how much Cavani tried to avoid the collision either!
 
one said:
No. At least it shouldn't be entirely.

There are three components involved for an offside decision. Being in offside position. Interfering with play. Interfering with an opponent. The former two are factual decisions. The latter is a subjective decision and unless the on field decision on this component is clearly and obviously wrong, VAR should not get involved (granted the other two components are correct).
Click to expand...
Indeed - my post already edited.
 
bloovee said:
That sort of block is going on all the time at corners and FKs.

But Villa's two attackers standing that far in an offside position - is their main purpose to block any defender running back? In which case, my sympathy is much less. But I'm not sure how much Cavani tried to avoid the collision either!
Click to expand...

He has no obligation whatsoever to avoid an OSP player--if a defender has to avoid an OSP player, that is enough for OS (See @bester 's post above). It doesn't fit if you just look at the 4 main bullets on interference with an opponent, but the laws make clear in the subsequent bullets that just being in the way is interference with an opponent if it impacts the ability of a defender to get to the ball.

And no, I can't tell you why that isn't captured in the same place as the 4 main bullets other than to say, well, IFAB drafting can be, well, . . . .
 
socal lurker said:
He has no obligation whatsoever to avoid an OSP player--if a defender has to avoid an OSP player, that is enough for OS (See @bester 's post above). It doesn't fit if you just look at the 4 main bullets on interference with an opponent, but the laws make clear in the subsequent bullets that just being in the way is interference with an opponent if it impacts the ability of a defender to get to the ball.

And no, I can't tell you why that isn't captured in the same place as the 4 main bullets other than to say, well, IFAB drafting can be, well, . . . .
Click to expand...
...if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball...

Rather like impeding with contact, there's maybe an incentive for a defender to make sure there is contact (and thus it impacts etc).
 
I don’t feel like it’s clear and obvious upon watching it on TV. I think it’s the right call, but I don’t think it’s worth overturning. And that’s from a United fan.

At the very least I’d be gutted if that was given against my team. Although listening to the radio on the way home reminded me pundits really don’t know the laws in the slightest.

bloovee said:
...if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball...

Rather like impeding with contact, there's maybe an incentive for a defender to make sure there is contact (and thus it impacts etc).
Click to expand...
Are you telling me you honestly believe Ramsey didn’t impact Cavani being able to challenge for the ball?

Anyway back to my point. I think it’s the right call, but I’m unsure whether it’s C and O. And seeing as he was called over to the monitor and it’s a subjective call, I’m not sure if it’s a clear and obvious error.

I feel the consistency of C and O is a big thing though. Both this and City’s pen last week are a similar thing. Right Call in my opinion, not a clear and obvious error though. Meanwhile, Kane’s foul on Robertson is the textbook definition of red, but doesn’t get overturned.
 
I was so confused about it because the VAR replays were focused on the Ing's offside call, and then suddenly it was the Cavani/Ramsay incident.

Disappointing to see the pundits blaming conspiracies, 'trying to find an excuse to cancel the goal' and all that complete nonsense. Would it hurt them to learn the laws and have a debate on whether that law is a good idea or not rather than what they're trotting out right now? :(
 
RobOda said:
Disappointing to see the pundits blaming conspiracies, 'trying to find an excuse to cancel the goal' and all that complete nonsense. Would it hurt them to learn the laws and have a debate on whether that law is a good idea or not rather than what they're trotting out right now? :(
Click to expand...
You mean a healthy discussion that might possibly educate a few fans? Nope let’s peddle conspiracies that it’s about Varchester United. And just so people know I’m not just being biased towards my own team, yes, next week it will be Livarpool and Varchester City. It’s just really lazy punditry all the time and is just constant anti referee. It’s much easier to talk about a controversial decision than it is to analyse the game.

Should really be a referee expert to explain these calls on TV, one preferably not called Peter Walton.
 
The attacker lining up offside on a FK and blocking a defender has been a point of emphasis from UEFA and FIFA for a few years now. It's become less common then around 2017-19, but when it happens it should be called.
 
Mada said:
Are we sure this was given for the foul as the restart was an indirect free kick?

www.bbc.co.uk

Why exactly was Aston Villa's 'goal' disallowed? - BBC pundits explain

Aston Villa lose to Manchester United after a disallowed goal by VAR, Gary Lineker, Alan Shearer and Micah Richards explain why the goal was ruled out.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
It was given as Ramsey is offside and blocks Cavani.

forgetting c&o and what should and shouldn’t be reviewed on field. I had no problem with the way var was used during this.
understandable why the initial check too so long as to see if Watkins touches it before Ings.

then also liked the fact Oliver made the call about the offside, I do also appreciate he got both captains in to explain why.

only thing I would say, if the Cavani incident was checked first, the whole faff with the second touch is avoided and the full check becomed a minute instead of near 4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top