The VAR Thread

[theShiznit]

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

Have you?

You haven't shown me shit.

You have written a few things down.

I am not a Donald Trump supporter so don't just believe anything that is said.

 

[Yid-ol]

Have you?

You haven't shown me shit.

You have written a few things down.

I am not a Donald Trump supporter so don't just believe anything that is said.

 

[theShiznit]

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.

That is the crux of it.

and that should have been the finding straight away.
then none of this matters.

But again, they have muddied the waters by changing why the goal was ruled out.

 

[robotsonic]

 

[mightyspur]

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.

I don't think it looks bad. It was a foul. It was also offside. Offside offence occurred before the foul, therefore it's changed to say disallowed for offside. They are humans, watching something and trying to make a decision as quickly as possible. Should they have said it was offside and not make the ref come to the screen etc, yeah of course, but they make mistakes. They corrected that mistake, so what's the problem?

 

[theShiznit]

Are you showing me another "rule"

 

[Yid-ol]

Have you?

You haven't shown me shit.

You have written a few things down.

I am not a Donald Trump supporter so don't just believe anything that is said.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

The stuff 'written down' is from the fa website. I can't find a UEFA one so basing it off those rules.

And to flip it, you haven't shown anything other than your opinion, but then have a pop at others for theirs? But hypocritical there trump

 

[Tucker]

But again, they have muddied the waters by changing why the goal was ruled out.

I don’t think that’s really happened to be honest. It could have been disallowed for either reason, and the truth is it was probably both. If he’d not interfered with the keeper he might have been considered not interfering with play. So the foul, soft or not makes him offside too.

They got the decision correct. Nothing else is relevant.

 

[razor1981]

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

Because the offside offence happened first.

The VAR spotted that a Scotland player was in an offside position when the ball was played but, as he didn't play the ball, its up to the referee to determine whether he was interfering with play. Thats why the ref is called to look at the monitor.

Having watched the replay, the referee decided that the goalkeeper had been impeded/fouled. He therefore signals a foul and restarts the game.

The VAR then clarifies for the broadcasters that the player who impeded the goalkeeper had been in an offside position when the free-kick was taken, so technically that is the correct reason for disallowing the goal.

There's no controversy.

 

[theShiznit]

https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

The stuff 'written down' is from the fa website. I can't find a UEFA one so basing it off those rules.

And to flip it, you haven't shown anything other than your opinion, but then have a pop at others for theirs? But hypocritical there trump

For a start you seem to be implying i think it should have been a goal, when i clearly state from basically my first post that it was offside. impeding is/can be minimal in that instance as any touch is interfering.
For the "foul", if you look at the actual moving image replay, the keeper is not in any way fouled, just as every week for every corner a player goes and stands right in front of the keeper, and blocks him and it is rarely (if ever) given as a foul.

 

[theShiznit]

I don’t think that’s really happened to be honest. It could have been disallowed for either reason, and the truth is it was probably both. If he’d not interfered with the keeper he might have been considered not interfering with play. So the foul, soft or not makes him offside too.

They got the decision correct. Nothing else is relevant.

OK, so at worst, ten minutes after the goal was ruled out for a foul, they then showed the lines and announced it was actually ruled out for offside.

Whichever was you slice it, that's not great.

 

[Yid-ol]

For a start you seem to be implying i think it should have been a goal, when i clearly state from basically my first post that it was offside. impeding is/can be minimal in that instance as any touch is interfering.
For the "foul", if you look at the actual moving image replay, the keeper is not in any way fouled, just as every week for every corner a player goes and stands right in front of the keeper, and blocks him and it is rarely (if ever) given as a foul.

The difference in that scenario is the player stands there before the ball comes in, so not impeding as the ball isn't played. If they player then stands still after the ball is played or goes for the ball he isn't classed as impeding.

What happened in the Scotland game is the ball came over, the Scottish player moved towards the ball (while being offside) and pushed his arm into the keeper. Yes minimal contact, but different situations so rules applied differently.

 

[Tucker]

OK, so at worst, ten minutes after the goal was ruled out for a foul, they then showed the lines and announced it was actually ruled out for offside.

Whichever was you slice it, that's not great.

Did the get the decision correct?

 

[theShiznit]

Did the get the decision correct?

Ten minutes later yes.

 

[Tucker]

Ten minutes later yes.

Don’t be ridiculous. The goal was disallowed fairly quickly.

 

[Timbo Tottenham]

Because the offside offence happened first.

The VAR spotted that a Scotland player was in an offside position when the ball was played but, as he didn't play the ball, its up to the referee to determine whether he was interfering with play. Thats why the ref is called to look at the monitor.

Having watched the replay, the referee decided that the goalkeeper had been impeded/fouled. He therefore signals a foul and restarts the game.

The VAR then clarifies for the broadcasters that the player who impeded the goalkeeper had been in an offside position when the free-kick was taken, so technically that is the correct reason for disallowing the goal.

There's no controversy.

This explains it succinctly.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

This is not a VAR issue, but it does call into question officiating, and what recourse teams have (or don't have) for blatant errors:

 

[Timbo Tottenham]

This is not a VAR issue, but it does call into question officiating, and what recourse teams have (or don't have) for blatant errors:

That is a very well worded statement.

 

[Marty]

Hope the PL follows suit

 

[Timbo Tottenham]

Hope the PL follows suit

I’m glad that they didn’t do it this season though, we would’ve missed one of the biggest meltdowns in football history.