The VAR Thread

[Tucker]

VAR in the bin please. Other than this being a terrible decision, it's just not worth the loss of moments of pure joy like you can see amongst the travelling fans.

Was it offside or a foul? Looked like both to me. Normally a keeper would be saving that kind of shot imo. He clearly goes off side and pushes the keeper.

Correct decision imo.

 

[LeSoupeKitchen]

Was it offside or a foul? Looked like both to me. Normally a keeper would be saving that kind of shot imo. He clearly goes off side and pushes the keeper.

Correct decision imo.

Don't think he's offside.

Foul is subjective and definitely not clear and obvious imo. It's just not the sort of thing VAR should be getting involved with.

 

[Tucker]

Don't think he's offside.

Foul is subjective and definitely not clear and obvious imo. It's just not the sort of thing VAR should be getting involved with.

It’s exactly the sort of thing VAR should be getting involved in. A foul that affects whether a goal is scored or not. That’s their job, that’s why it was brought in. It’s unlikely a ref would have seen that in real time among the melee of a corner kick/free kick.

Yes it’s subjective, but having watched it himself the ref decided it was a foul.

 

[luRRka]

Don't think he's offside.

Foul is subjective and definitely not clear and obvious imo. It's just not the sort of thing VAR should be getting involved with.

Offside apparently

 

[LeSoupeKitchen]

It’s exactly the sort of thing VAR should be getting involved in. A foul that affects whether a goal is scored or not. That’s their job, that’s why it was brought in. It’s unlikely a ref would have seen that in real time among the melee of a corner kick/free kick.

Yes it’s subjective, but having watched it himself the ref decided it was a foul.

With the psychology of being sent to the screen to view it, the ref's decisions are always heavily biased in favour of changing their mind.

Sounds like this is an agree to disagree sort of situation though!

 

[theShiznit]

The foul/offside decision was so poor.

They (Uefa) made a rod for their own backs by declaring it was for a foul (which it never was)
then about ten minutes later it's like they realized ;well actually it's offside so there doesn't need to be significant contact on the keeper to be interference' and said that "offside was the decision"

Just made the whole thing look so dodgy after being informed by VAR officials that it was a foul.

 

[LeSoupeKitchen]

The foul/offside decision was so poor.

They (Uefa) made a rod for their own backs by declaring it was for a foul (which it never was)
then about ten minutes later it's like they realized ;well actually it's offside so there doesn't need to be significant contact on the keeper to be interference' and said that "offside was the decision"

Just made the whole thing look so dodgy after being informed by VAR officials that it was a foul.

It doesn't do itself any favours. Clearly wasn't disallowed at the time for offside. Still would want to see the lines to confirm it actually was!

 

[theShiznit]

It doesn't do itself any favours. Clearly wasn't disallowed at the time for offside. Still would want to see the lines to confirm it actually was!

They did put the lines up later on ViaPlay and it was (marginally) off.

But say that from the start and there's no problem.

 

[Yid-ol]

It was both a foul and offside.

He is beyond the last defender when the ball is kicked and Infront of the ball also, so offside. If he doesn't go Infront of the keeper and push him with his arm the keeper would have had a better chance of saving it ( not saying he would have, but a fair chance at it)

Keepers always get more protection, so pushing his forearm into the keeper to push him back will always be a foul.

So it's ruled off correctly for offside, foul or interference anyway.

If he had done that against an outfield players, fine, it's a goal. But you can't do that against keepers. Soft foul to give away and stupidly done.

 

[theShiznit]

It was both a foul and offside.

He is beyond the last defender when the ball is kicked and Infront of the ball also, so offside. If he doesn't go Infront of the keeper and push him with his arm the keeper would have had a better chance of saving it ( not saying he would have, but a fair chance at it)

Keepers always get more protection, so pushing his forearm into the keeper to push him back will always be a foul.

So it's ruled off correctly for offside, foul or interference anyway.

View attachment 133359

View attachment 133360

If he had done that against an outfield players, fine, it's a goal. But you can't do that against keepers. Soft foul to give away and stupidly done.

Sorry, that is not a foul.
Keepers are not untouchable and nor should they be.

Why do you think they later changed the stated decision? Because they knew full well it wasn't a foul.

 

[Yid-ol]

Sorry, that is not a foul.
Keepers are not untouchable and nor should they be.

Why do you think they later changed the stated decision? Because they knew full well it wasn't a foul.

But they are, they always have been.

It's a soft foul, but a foul and offside anyway. So rightly ruled off.

Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
holds an opponent
impedes an opponent with contact
bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object
See also offences in Law 3

pushes
impedes an opponent with contact

Both of these above are within the rules for a free kick being given.

 

[theShiznit]

But they are, they always have been.

It's a soft foul, but a foul and offside anyway. So rightly ruled off.

And wrongly ruled a foul, thus the change.

 

[Yid-ol]

And wrongly ruled a foul, thus the change.

It's still a foul by the letter of the laws. See above for pushes & impedes an opponent with contact.

 

[theShiznit]

It's still a foul by the letter of the laws. See above for pushes & impedes an opponent with contact.

It wasn't a foul. He barely touched him.

If Uefa felt they could stand by that decision, they would not have looked further and seen it was actually offside and changed it to that instead.

Also there is no letter of the law that says you cannot touch or go near a goalkeeper.

 

[Yid-ol]

It wasn't a foul. He barely touched him.

If Uefa felt they could stand by that decision, they would not have looked further and seen it was actually offside and changed it to that instead.

Also there is no letter of the law that says you cannot touch or go near a goalkeeper.

But you admit he did touch him? Doesn't matter if it's barley or a full shove, he still did it.

You can't push or impede a player, both things the Scottish player did.

 

[theShiznit]

But you admit he did touch him? Doesn't matter if it's barley or a full shove, he still did it.

You can't push or impede a player, both things the Scottish player did.

I repeat, you can touch a goal keeper.


The replays show any touch was minimal, you will never convince me otherwise.
And i can find no law stating you cannot touch a goalkeeper.

 

[Yid-ol]

Also it's getting very liverpool for this now. Even seen people on Facebook/chats saying they want audio of VAR ect and it's a cover up!

 

[Yid-ol]

I repeat, you can touch a goal keeper.


The replays show any touch was minimal, you will never convince me otherwise.
And i can find no law stating you cannot touch a goalkeeper.

I have shown you 2 rules of why it's a free kick. It's ot just a touch, but a push and impeding.

 

[Tucker]

I repeat, you can touch a goal keeper.


The replays show any touch was minimal, you will never convince me otherwise.
And i can find no law stating you cannot touch a goalkeeper.

I think it can be argued that it is a subjective foul. Some will think it is, some will think it isn’t. He was offside though, and that’s not something that can be argued. The fact he interferes with the keeper in an offside position makes this an open and shut case.

The goal was rightly disallowed. People need to get over it.

 

[theShiznit]

Also it's getting very liverpool for this now. Even seen people on Facebook/chats saying they want audio of VAR ect and it's a cover up!

They absolutely should have the audio for that.

THEY CHANGED THE DECISION.

How bad does that look that they changed it from a foul (which Uefa announced the goal was ruled out for) to then offside about 10 minutes later.