Man Utd vs Man City

[bloovee]

Really? So that would make Peter Drury and Gary Neville part of the 0.001% as they didn't have a clue what was going on even though they had access to the VAR audio, yes they'd have got the offside correct but not for the correct reason. For at least 5 minutes Neville, who in his defence is one of the better pundits at understanding the difficulties of refereeing decisions, was laser focused on Haaland being offside and he couldn't or didn't look beyond that. I said immediately that Dorgu's trailing leg was almost certainly playing him onside and the debate was over Fernandez. Granted I didn't get the full picture straight away as I assumed they were looking at whether Fernandez touched the ball as that would have put Haaland offside, but I was still a good 4 minutes ahead of the supposed football experts.

Its a bad mistake and I'm pretty sure there will be consequences for the VAR officials, but mistakes happen. The issue here wasn't the video feeds the VAR officials had, rather it was they misinterpreted what they saw, and dare I say also misinterpreted the law.

Sky were awful (during and after). MotD commentator, presumably listening to the feed, says they established that Haaland was onside and the issue was Fernandez "who is offside and does go for it - but he's nowhere near it".

So how close is "close"? Merely attempting to play the ball is not enough. And the GK is not in two minds over what Fernandez might do, he's covering his near post against a direct shot and was never getting into a good position to face Haaland's shot.

Just on the technicality of the VAR protocol, even if needs a subjective decision about "close" and "impact", doesn't it still have to be a C&O error to recommend an onfield review?

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Just on the technicality of the VAR protocol, even if needs a subjective decision about "close" and "impact", doesn't it still have to be a C&O error to recommend an onfield review?

Because they awarded the later (wrong) offside offence, Haaland's, they have implicitly made a no offside decision against Fernandez. This is part of the APP so automatically reviewable once it has been determined that Haaland was factually not offside. The VAR and ref should communicate about what happened and the ref decides whether an on-field review is needed for a potential C&O error.

 

[JamesL]

Sky were awful (during and after). MotD commentator, presumably listening to the feed, says they established that Haaland was onside and the issue was Fernandez "who is offside and does go for it - but he's nowhere near it".

So how close is "close"? Merely attempting to play the ball is not enough. And the GK is not in two minds over what Fernandez might do, he's covering his near post against a direct shot and was never getting into a good position to face Haaland's shot.

Just on the technicality of the VAR protocol, even if needs a subjective decision about "close" and "impact", doesn't it still have to be a C&O error to recommend an onfield review?

The GK was impacted, you see him make an instinctive reactionary movement as the ball goes past Fernandez.
The fact he probably couldn't get to it anyway is neither here nor there, it's not the standard, the standard is impact and opponent and that I think that is pretty undeniable.

Offside is factual. So Haaland is onside. That is checked always and c&o doesn't come into it.

We then have to look at APP for an offence. One clearly and obviously occurs in the APP. That's missed. Had that been identified then Michael Oliver would have to come to the screen to judge the subjective element of the decision.
.

 

[bloovee]

Am I right in thinking we have no indication yet as to whether the on-field officials gave an explanation regarding Fernandez's interference, either on their own initiative or being asked by the VAR?

If they did then this feels like a subjective situation, that Webb very recently said should be left on the field.

Premier League: Howard Webb on VAR ahead of new season

Howard Webb, Chief Refereeing Officer for Professional Game Referees (Pro Ref) says that VAR should only interfere when there is a 'clearly wrong situation' and leave the subjective decisions to the on field referee.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[bloovee]

The GK was impacted, you see him make an instinctive reactionary movement as the ball goes past Fernandez.
The fact he probably couldn't get to it anyway is neither here nor there, it's not the standard, the standard is impact and opponent and that I think that is pretty undeniable.

Offside is factual. So Haaland is onside. That is checked always and c&o doesn't come into it.

We then have to look at APP for an offence. One clearly and obviously occurs in the APP. That's missed. Had that been identified then Michael Oliver would have to come to the screen to judge the subjective element of the decision.

If he "couldn't get to it anyway" it can't have been "close", can it? If the ball is not close, impact on opponent is not relevant at all. An "instinctive reactionary movement as the ball goes past an attacker" (who may or may not have been close to the ball) sounds quite deniable about any impact it had.

 

[one]

So how close is "close"? Merely attempting to play the ball is not enough. And the GK is not in two minds over what Fernandez might do, he's covering his near post against a direct shot and was never getting into a good position to face Haaland's shot.

Just on the technicality of the VAR protocol, even if needs a subjective decision about "close" and "impact", doesn't it still have to be a C&O error to recommend an onfield review?

That clause of the offside law was put in there precisely for this kind of play when the big change in offside law came in several years ago.

 

[Paul_10]

I actually thought MO and his team did ok on the whole, but it is VAR that is both undermining and failing in its role.

I thought Howard Webb would be great but starting to lose confidence in him now…

Yeah I thought he had an reasonable game also and he made a "brave" decision of sending a player off in the first half in a huge game and whilst in some ways I think yellows for both would feel the better outcome(as I'm not convinced Foden's kick out was violent, it was more petulant and I'm not convinced it was with studs either), the red card does not feel clearly wrong either.

As for Howard Webb, I think he's doing a reasonable job in terms of how he wants VAR to operate and despite how the media report on it, VAR in the PL is much less controversial than elsewhere and when I watch the Scottish VAR review, it feels it's implementation is much clearer than it is in Scotland. For example we had an referee go over to the monitor to overturn the on field decision of offside because they couldn't draw offside lines and that is despite the VAR could not 100% be sure it was offside(it did look offside but we can't be absolutely certain), I mean that would never happen in the PL and it would remain with the on field decision. Either way this is week 4 of the new season and this weekend feels like it's the first major controversy surrounding VAR in multiple games.

 

[deusex]

And the GK is not in two minds over what Fernandez might do, he's covering his near post against a direct shot and was never getting into a good position to face Haaland's shot.

Just stop

 

[Archer]

Think Bruno's been on the forum, staring at my avatar.

Might have to change it.

 

[BCMilan]

This takes me back to the Manchester derby a few years ago when Rashford was in an offside position, but let it run through to Fernandes who scored. There was talk then of him not actually touching the ball. Was he affecting an opponent, though ? All very messy now

 

[one]

Multi-event VAR checks seems to be one of the weaknesses of Pro Ref. Webb should put it high on the agenda on the list of things to do.

One of the earlier ones I remember is the SFP on VVD by Pickford a few years ago where all the focus went to a critical offside decision.

It is partly caused by the pressure to get the check done quick but it shouldn't be an excuse. The protocol places correctness over being quick.

 

[Big Cat]

'Pro Ref'
Who on earth came up with that?
I'd forgotten about this rebranded blatant 'open goal' and certain 'own goal'
It would be funny if it wasn't unfunny? Or is it 'unfunny if wasn't funny', or even 'funny if it wasn't funny'? Or the lesser spotted 'unfunny if not unfunny'?
Or all of the above? It might take me all day to consider

 

[Archer]

'Pro Ref'
Who on earth came up with that
I'd forgotten about this rebranded blatant 'open goal' and certain 'own goal'. It would be funny if it wasn't unfunny

Total crap isn’t it? Like the Core rebrand.

Someone’s kid is clearly doing GCSE design and textiles or some such nonsense.

 

[bester]

@Big Cat Badly copied from MLS, Webb's previous manor.
PRO (Professional Referee Organization)

 

[Big Cat]

@Big Cat Badly copied from MLS, Webb's previous manor.
PRO (Professional Referee Organization)

Yeh well, MLS and EPL are obviously different kettles of fish
EPL AI Bar VAR - Within a decade - Game Dead
EPL No Bar VAR - Fairly imminent - Game Over
EPL High Bar VAR - Game Over
EPL Low Bar VAR - Game Over
EPL No VAR - Game On - Will never happen - Game Over
They all involve selfish blame deviating complaints every week, just pick the least worst. There's only one tolerable option, which is why I'm happy to slip down the leagues as far as necessary

 

[one]

I like the sound of "EPL bar VAR" much better.

 

[Big Cat]

I like the sound of "EPL bar VAR" much better.

EPLAIBVAR
EPLNBVAR
EPLHBVAR
EPLLBVAR
EPLNBAR
EPLBVAR
Yeh, your acronym is the easiest to swallow
Stick it on the acronyms page

 

[socal lurker]

Make it any attempt to make a deliberate move towards the ball, or to impede or attempt to impede the movement or vision of a defending player. e.g. if you're in an offside position and don't want to commit an offence, stop and put your hands up and walk away from the goal.

That’s pretty much how it used to be—decades ago. The Game wanted fewer goals called back where the OSP player didn’t have any real impact. We’ve spent decades trying to decide what real impact is and narrow OS. (That’s why the Laws have long had the provision about a player being permitted to step off the field to show he is not involved in play so as to not be OS—which has long been totally irrelevant given how OS has called. I think it is still in there but didn’t check as it is so irrelevant I dont’t remember where it is (possibly was) in the Laws.)

 

[The Gump]

Having made my first trip down to St Mary's at the weekend and watched VAR-free football in person for the first time in a while, it's joyful.

I think the only purpose VAR is serving now is giving us Sunday referees something to coalesce with coaches and players around!

 

[BCMilan]

The hammers fans are saying the same thing. They're really enjoying the celebration of scoring a goal, rather than having to wait whether VAR has chalked it of, or not !