Man Utd vs Man City
- Thread starter WillH
- Start date
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Ever seen the video with the gorilla? It’s easy to get focussed on something and brain freeze on something else. Here, they properly identified the call made on the field was an error. They properly checked whether the actual OSP interfered with play. They missed the boat on interfering with an opponent by attempting to play the ball. It’s a miss. It’s a bad miss. But it is hardly such a bad miss that we should be throwing that kind of disparagement around. They are working under time pressure and a message that VAR is supposed to only get involved for bad misses. This is a poor performance, but still an understandable failure.
Don't think it's understandable, explainable (weakly) sure but that's as bad as 'good process' all over again
No, it's literally their salaried job. There is no excuse for missing something so obvious unless they actually have a vision problem. The decision that needed checking was "is this goal offside, or not" and they woefully failed in that respect.
99.999% of footballers, fans, and referees in this country could have sat in that chair and made the right decision today. Yet time and time again we end up with absolutely bonkers calls from Stockley Park.
At this point I would 100% advocate the "VAR" role being taken off professional referees, and given to people who are specifically trained in video analysis. Because something isn't right with the current setup. Let the analysts say what they can see, and let the actual referee make the decision.
I think I'm saying I'm not that bothered.
deusex
RefChat Addict
Well we both know that's not true.
Just wanted to see how far your bias went. Got my answer.
A gentle reminder, we do not allow fan posts on here and some posts are going down that route. Make an opinion on the decision by all means, but at least justify your reasoning under the law.
I knew there would be an apology, but thought it would be at least tomorrow, the fact it has happened on a Sunday night, just hours after the game ended, just shows how much of an error the VAR officials made. I suspect there will be ramifications from this and it may well be the straw that broke the camel's back, pretty sure there will be a scapegoat and it may be career ending.
I knew there would be an apology, but thought it would be at least tomorrow, the fact it has happened on a Sunday night, just hours after the game ended, just shows how much of an error the VAR officials made. I suspect there will be ramifications from this and it may well be the straw that broke the camel's back, pretty sure there will be a scapegoat and it may be career ending.
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.
Or hopefully - at the very least - career-limiting.
I come back to my earlier comment about taking the VAR role off professional referees - at present they have attained that role and progressed through the ranks on the strength of their on-pitch performances. Let them go back to what they're good at.
Drawing a parallel to the aviation industry, you wouldn't plonk an A380 Senior Captain into the Heathrow Approach Controller's seat at Swanwick after just a few weeks training because "it's all planes and the same rules and that" and you trust the guy who can put a 500 tonne aircraft on a runway in gusting crosswinds to be able to manage coordinating a few dots on a screen.
Yes there may be some crossover in the skills and abilities that make a good pilot a good air traffic controller - but it's far from a given, and clearly the same is true when it comes to professional referees acting as VAR.
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.
And at the same time, make it so that if you're onside when you receive the ball or interfere with play, you're onside; you're only offside if you were both in an offside position when the ball was played and also in an offside position when you received it or interfered with it.
There's very little advantage to be had coming back from an offside position to receive the ball, because your momentum's going the wrong way. It's a stupid anomaly that should be fixed IMO.
That's comparing apples with oranges. An air traffic controller doesn't need to know how to fly a plane as they will never have to do it, likewise a pilot doesn't need to know how to operate ATC as they are never going to be in that position. A VAR official needs to have experience of making decisions the likes of which they are potentially overruling, and they certainly need to know the laws to which the referees are applying.
And today probably validates that. We have a VAR with very little experience of refereeing EPL games and not a huge amount of experience in VAR, and for reasons only Pro Ref knows they partnered him with a very inexperienced EPL assistant as AVAR. Do we think the same mistake would have happened had it been, for example, Jarred Gillett and Neil Davies in the VAR room? I very much doubt it.
FinalWhistle
Armchair Referee
In cases like this where the refs have admitted that they made a mistake in a game changing decision, then the outcome should be adjusted to reflect the correction. In this case, the final score would be 0-0, a point each, the other stats and the table positions adjusted.
I believe that the current rules don't allow this as I've never seen one of these adjustments made.
www.bbc.co.uk
I believe that the current rules don't allow this as I've never seen one of these adjustments made.
Referees body admits error of judgement over Erling Haaland derby winner
The Premier League refereeing body Pro Ref admits an error of judgement in awarding Erling Haaland's winner in the Manchester derby.
www.bbc.co.uk
From a cognitive point of view though, it's really not comparing apples and oranges.
You don't need to be a top referee to run VAR. I would genuinely argue you don't even need to be a referee.
You need to be able to analyse what's going on on a series of TV screens, correlate different angles, apply a set of rules to what you're looking at, and tell the actual referee what's happened in common language, and let them make the decision.
It's a very different more analytical skillset than refereeing a match in person, in real-time, with no replays.
Could be consequences for Matt Donohue as this is the second occasion where it's possible that he's misapplied the laws as a VAR(Palace v Chelsea the other game).
I mean it's hard to say if he's misapplied the laws here or he just genuinely did not believe a possible subjective offside offense has taken place. We will only know whether he took in any account of the impact of Fernandez positioning if Pro Ref release the audio on this on the mic'd up show, something they very conveniently didn't do in the Palace Chelsea game despite Webb stating we will show incorrect incidents on the show as well.
I do agree with Neville on one thing he mentioned on his podcast, the graphic for the offside has to be shown much quicker than it does atm and I believe it's down to the broadcaster to show it but does the broadcaster get the graphic right away or do they have to wait from the folks of Stockley Park to give them the image? Either way it felt a while before we managed too see the graphic but maybe it wasn't as long as I thought?
one
RefChat Addict
While the case (coming 'back' from offside position) is the most common case of the offence when interfering in an onside position it is not the only one. For example a well timed movement of a defender can put a forward moving attacker offside at the time of the pass kick but the defender not taking a risk puts the attacker back onside at the time of the receive. We don't want to punish a good piece of defending. A blanket allowing of the 'onside receive' will have unintended consequences. And in true fashion of IFAB they hardly ever think of unintended consequences when they make a change.
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.
If they did then this feels like a subjective situation, that Webb very recently said should be left on the field.
Last edited:
