I thought there was a rule that if a goal was scored from an incorrect decision, or infraction then VAR would dismiss it. Their second goal came about from an incorrectly awarded free kick, why then did it need the offside rule to void it?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Liverpool's second disallowed goal
- Thread starter nickjhs
- Start date
Goes back to what is a 'clear and obvious' error and what isn't. The ref was fooled by the theatrics from what was a brilliant challenge, but if we get VAR looking at every free kick, we will end up with VAR looking at every throw-in & every corner decision before long (with the replay sponsored by Bet 365 of course). If they overrule that decision, it ends up setting a precedent, which they obviously don't want to do.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,592
VAR doesn't rule on free kicks. So any decision is based on the new passage of play.
It wasn't a free kick and I remember thinking how pissed I would be if they score. Thankfully it was ruled out.
VAR seems to be refereeing the game more and more now and it's annoying that a decision that got us a point today, however correctly judged, was the one that made me realise I'm starting to fall out of love with football at the moment.
It wasn't a free kick and I remember thinking how pissed I would be if they score. Thankfully it was ruled out.
VAR seems to be refereeing the game more and more now and it's annoying that a decision that got us a point today, however correctly judged, was the one that made me realise I'm starting to fall out of love with football at the moment.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,297
You don’t know that. I’m convinced most linos would have flagged Salah off. The Mane one, who knows...
But I hate VAR. And by your logic we’d have drawn at spurs etc etc etc...
el punal
Well-known member
A bit like VAR awarding Man Utd a penalty after ref has blown the final whistle . . . sort of
Gabbafella
Well-known member
- Aug 22, 2012
- 4,713
I was actually so pissed off about the free kick that I turned the game off and stormed off to do some DIY. Obviously I missed everything that followed, maybe I need anger management lessons.
Recidivist
Active member
Really?
Would have thought the other way round. Salah was only a toe (nail?) offside but Mane was clearly offside.
We were lucky to get the late penalty too.
Deserved break given the quality of our play but still very debatable in my view as Welbeck hadn’t got control of the ball anyway.
Still on the fence regarding VAR. Think it’s great when it goes our way, though, and we’ve had a number of decisions go our way since its introduction.
At least it’s a lot quicker now.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The game as we know it is being totally ruined by VAR and no one knows what is what any more. Something that was supposed to bring clarity, consistency and corrections of clear and obvious errors is being used to microscopically dissect the game, to the detriment of the flow of it and the knowledge among coaches and managers of what does and does not need overturning.
As for benefitting us, any decent linesman would have flagged both their "goals" but now they're told not to as their job is being done by a super computer in Heathrow. We got the benefit against Villa and with the pen yesterday (that is never, ever, a penalty by the way, the thing is making decisions it shouldn't) but there was nothing wrong with Connolly's penalty against big club Man U that VAR overturned and the ref missed Maupay's handball in the same game. All it's done is given us three points against Villa and taken three points off us against Man U, evening it out but giving a big club a result they didn't deserve.
drew
Drew
Where does it say in the rules that you have to have control of the ball before you can be fouled?
drew
Drew
What was totally ruining the game was the inconsistent decisions by poor referees. No way would 'any decent linesman' have flagged for both their goals. Maybe the Mane goal but certainly not the Salah goal. Some would some wouldn't. However, I would change VAR by using to look without the aid of digital technology. ie, look at again in a replay but make a judgement based on eyesight rather than putting lines on across the pitch. As for penalty decisions, I'd remove the reference to clear and obvious. If they look and there's a foul in the box then it's a penalty.
Sorry but both were offside. That's the linesman's job and we get supposedly the best in the business in the EPL. If you're telling me that they wouldn't have been flagged you might as well get rid of them and make technology make every line decision.
Indeed. Maybe it has something to do with my mental make-up, but I would rather have correct decisions and a bit of order than 'the spontaneity' of a random decision made quickly just to 'keep the game moving' and pander to the short attention spans of a few over-excitable supporters. I cringed last season when large numbers of our supporters chanted '***k VAR' just because a decision went (correctly) against us. Chavwittery at its worst.
Anyway, I have nothing to worry about. VAR is here for good. The rubric will doubtless change (I have banged on about that reperatedly and can't be arsed to repeat myself) but we will never go back to relying on the whims and caprices of the ref-of-the-day and their random decision making device (I swear they all carry one - probably a chip and screen on their Acme Thunderer).
drew
Drew
Who said we get the best officials? None of our officials were at the 2018 world cup. That tells you something.
As for these offside decisions I never said they weren't both offside but where it's been a hairs breadth between a toe being onside of off, officials cannot see that in real time hence some would give it and some wouldn't.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,297
Yep because he was miles ahead of Webster and White was 30-40 yards away. So more likely to flag that one 100%. Marne one more difficult with sudden movement of loads of players.
As covered in this thread, it makes no odds whatsoever if the player ‘has control’ of the ball. Not one bit. It was a clear pen - no ball and booted Welbeck’s foot. We’ve had some awful ones go against us - Pogba on Connolly wasn’t clear and obvious error yet overturned, Kane was possibly outside areas where ‘fouled me and prob wasn’t a foul either, the shambolic palace one that was never a pen and not even looked at...
No consistency at all.
Recidivist
Active member
Even GP and Welbeck admitted the penalty was soft and, if you look at the incident, you can see that Welbeck hadn’t even touched the ball when “fouled” by Robertson.
Am sure that the letter of the law is being applied correctly but......maybe we need to look at the laws or their application afresh in the light of VAR?
Certainly think the way handball law is being applied currently needs reviewing. Some of the decisions this season have been ridiculous!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where did this "control of the ball" nonsense actually come from?
It's never been in the rules but it seems to be a thing. Like a conspiracy theory thing. Chinese whispers and eventually people believe it.......
"I was certainly and most definitely in control of the ball. I know balls, trust me, yes.... Quite frankly if Joe Biden had been in charge of the ball then certainly and, I know quite possibly it would not have been a penalty. Penalties are something I understand, I'm a big expert on pelanties, my great friend, very great friend Chrissy Waddle explained to me how they work. He's an expert by the way. We're looking into this very closely and definitely and yes. But importantly and, of course yes. Obama's birth certificate did NOT have control of the ball!"
It's not a thing and it never has been. If you miss the ball and kick someone in the penalty area, it's a penalty. I think that's why they call it "the penalty area".
Totally agree re the handball rule. It is nonsense.
But you're barking up the wrong tree with the "touching the ball" "control of the ball" stuff.
Never been the rule VAR or not.
Recidivist
Active member
Calm down dear! I’ve already accepted that you’re right. Conspiracy theories are not necessary to convince me.
If it had happened the other side of the penalty area off the ball I think you might have felt it was a bit harsh even if it still counts as a penalty? My point was that Welbeck still had a lot to do to convert the chance.
Anyway I’m sure we’re both pleased that Albion got some justice for their excellent play yesterday........
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Indeed.