[Albion] Burnley VAR

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

This...

I thought there were actually 2 Burnley players offside when the ball was crossed in, one ran along the goal line, then behind the keeper before challenging for the ball (Wood i think) plus the one who stayed in front of the keeper, so it could have been given against both but obviously given against the one on the line from the freeze frame images shown during the highlights

We've had some like that ruled out this season too for offisde (Burn given offside whilst doing the same as the one in front of Ryan did for Burnley, if i remember correctly)

You can’t be offside from a corner kick.

Law 11 - No offence
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
a goal kick
a throw-in
a corner kick

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

The player in front of Ryan only becomes offside when Rodriguez touches the ball.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

As far as penalty is concerned right or wrong much prefer decision is made by ref when just an opinion if a foul. In general VAR going down this route and unless terrible error backs ref.
I am one of few who thinks we were lucky with disallowed goal. Cant see why off side when no where near line of ball and goal keeper had no chance of getting there even if attacker was not there

NSC us all about opinions and the better for it. For the sake of balance, mine differs on both counts. I genuinely believe VAR has been a considerable factor in our successful season, faults and all. We haven't had to put up with cheating Salah with his penalty area bum drops, Burnley as Sunday Rodriguez or previous blatant handball or Kane and his penalty area chicanery. I think VAR has helped us.

As for the disallowed goal, surely you can see that VAR simply confirmed an obvious offside? My view is that last season we would have had to rely on a referee to spot the obvious (which Samba showed they can't) whereas this season VAR tells the ref the obvious and he can't wriggle out of it.

 

[Alwaysblue]

Burnley fans complained about the penalty Murray got at the amex in our first season up and there wasn't any difference between the two

 

[drew]

If he was offside then it means the ball went forward from a corner. Which means we should have had a goal kick.

Don't think the ball has to be played forward for you to be offside. For example, you could be ahead of a team mate in an offside position and he plays the ball slightly backwards and behind you. You then check your run and move backwards to collect it. You'd still be deemed to have been offside.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Standard NSC - overanalysing a joke!

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Pretty sure you can also kick a ball forward from a corner kick without it going out of play. You don't have to place the ball on the line but in the D, so the ball can have room to move forward. I suspect this is why there is the specific rule about not being allowed to be offside from a corner.

FFS you CAN'T be offiside from a restart when the ball has left the field of play any sodding where.

 

[Wardy's twin]

On a side note.

20 penalties for United this season.

20!

Haven't seen them all so couldn't comment on the validity of the decisions.
But that is an extraordinary amount.

Not seen many of them either but when you have players running with the ball at feet into the box at speed which is their style then its less surprising. That said one of them on Fernandes was was clearly not a penalty and the foul should have gone the otehr way.

 

[Wardy's twin]

To me it look like Rodriguez ran across Stephens looking for the penalty ...

 

[Easy 10]

Don't think the ball has to be played forward for you to be offside. For example, you could be ahead of a team mate in an offside position and he plays the ball slightly backwards and behind you. You then check your run and move backwards to collect it. You'd still be deemed to have been offside.

Incorrect. The ball HAS to be played forward for you to be offside - you cannot be offside if you are behind the ball when it is played. If you score from this position - you are very much onside.

 

[Guinness Boy]

You can’t be offside from a corner kick.

Law 11 - No offence
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
a goal kick
a throw-in
a corner kick

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

The player in front of Ryan only becomes offside when Rodriguez touches the ball.

As anyone who's ever coached / reffed / lineod under 11s up should know. Not the under 11s themselves though, who will be claiming offside from all three restarts having spent three minutes up the other end standing twenty yards offside with a finger up a nostril, even if you have spent six weeks solid on the offside rules.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Burnley fans complained about the penalty Murray got at the amex in our first season up and there wasn't any difference between the two

I don't doubt it for a second, however the referee was fairly consistent throughout the game and didn't give free kicks for many slight contact offences, that we see given in Premier league games.
There were a couple from inside our half that I expected a free kick to be given, but nothing.

As long as the ref is being consistent, players should be able to gauge what is and isn't acceptable and adapt accordingly.


Not generally a fan of Mr Moss. but thought he was excellent on Sunday.
He allowed the play to flow and it made for a better game.

I'm sure his decision on the penalty was deliberate, based on what had gone before and not an error.

 

[Acker79]

Incorrect. The ball HAS to be played forward for you to be offside - you cannot be offside if you are behind the ball when it is played. If you score from this position - you are very much onside.

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside No mention of the direction of the ball being played

The direction the ball is played is irrelevant because you don't have to receive the ball to commit an offence. For example, the goal yesterday wasn't disallowed because the Burnley player received the ball, it was disallowed because he impeded an opponent.

EDIT: Glen Murray's offside in our own half as another example. He was ahead of the ball when it was played, came back into our half to collect it when it was played backwards. He was ahead of the ball when it was played, so was offside, he committed an offence by playing the ball, and because that offence took place in our half, that's where the free kick was.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Incorrect. The ball HAS to be played forward for you to be offside - you cannot be offside if you are behind the ball when it is played. If you score from this position - you are very much onside.

I think you might be forgetting that players are allowed to move. If you come back to the ball from an offside position then you are offside whatever direction the ball was played in.

As for the VAR, they were all correct. Offside obviously because standing in the way of the goalkeeper is interfering, even if he wasn't going to get near. Was it over the touchline, who cares. There's never any point getting excited about half an inch either way on the touchline. Rodriguez penalty? Under the rules as applied at the moment it should have been given because there was contact and the forward fell over. Normally, that's a penalty. For Man United, that's a penalty. VAR when Man United are playing will look at every angle and see if they can see the tiniest touch and if it's there, penalty. I hate this rule about "tag a defender and fall over, and it's a foul by the defender even if he hasn't moved". It stinks. But if it's the rule, then it should be the rule for all.

 

[dsr-burnley]

deleted because I completely misread the post above.

 

[haardman]

Did anyone else think Connolly's overhead kick on 23 mins (just before the drinks break) was goalbound until it hit a Burnley arm. I thought it was handball in realtime. Ref seemed to give a goal kick and then blew up for drinks.
Commentary said that VAR were reviewing a potential handball. Replays showed it brushing the arm which was close to the body - fair enough not a penalty - but surely at least a corner? No, restart by goal kick.

On the whole I think VAR will be of benefit after 2-3 teething seasons, but some of the decisions this season have been baffling .

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Burnley fans complained about the penalty Murray got at the amex in our first season up and there wasn't any difference between the two

Also didn’t get a penalty when he was punched off the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Acker79]

Did anyone else think Connolly's overhead kick on 23 mins (just before the drinks break) was goalbound until it hit a Burnley arm. I thought it was handball in realtime. Ref seemed to give a goal kick and then blew up for drinks.
Commentary said that VAR were reviewing a potential handball. Replays showed it brushing the arm which was close to the body - fair enough not a penalty - but surely at least a corner? No, restart by goal kick.

On the whole I think VAR will be of benefit after 2-3 teething seasons, but some of the decisions this season have been baffling .

Goalkicks can't be reviewed by VAR. Possible penalties are, it's a case of in checking for a penalty they can see it comes off a defender last, but they can't advise the ref to change it because that falls outside the purview of VAR.

 

[haardman]

Goalkicks can't be reviewed by VAR. Possible penalties are, it's a case of in checking for a penalty they can see it comes off a defender last, but they can't advise the ref to change it because that falls outside the purview of VAR.

Ah OK - that explains the glossing over that it received. It should be like cricket though, shouldn't it? If in reviewing one thing they notice another then it should be corrected. Anything else is nonsense. If it's there in glorious technicolor for all to see then give the ref the opportunity to correct the decision. IMHO the VAR should be able to offer the ref the opportunity to review any incident (if deemed game changing) just like in rugby. Then the onfield ref should use the pitchside monitor to review.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Did anyone else think Connolly's overhead kick on 23 mins (just before the drinks break) was goalbound until it hit a Burnley arm. I thought it was handball in realtime. Ref seemed to give a goal kick and then blew up for drinks.
Commentary said that VAR were reviewing a potential handball. Replays showed it brushing the arm which was close to the body - fair enough not a penalty - but surely at least a corner? No, restart by goal kick.

On the whole I think VAR will be of benefit after 2-3 teething seasons, but some of the decisions this season have been baffling .

I don’t think he gave a goal kick. I think he gave a free kick to Burnley for dangerous play (Connolly’s high foot)

 

[Acker79]

Ah OK - that explains the glossing over that it received. It should be like cricket though, shouldn't it? If in reviewing one thing they notice another then it should be corrected. Anything else is nonsense. If it's there in glorious technicolor for all to see then give the ref the opportunity to correct the decision. IMHO the VAR should be able to offer the ref the opportunity to review any incident (if deemed game changing) just like in rugby. Then the onfield ref should use the pitchside monitor to review.

I think, based simply on how long it has taken to introduce and how it has been implemented, there are still people within football governance who are reluctant to embrace VAR/technology, and are fighting it all the way. Or at the very least, various faction each stubbornly resisting anything that goes how they want it (FIFA want refs to look at pitch-side monitors, premier league are against it, I think it only happened once this season on the back of a lot of calls following a controversial decision, and some european fixtures in which it was done).

I think those contradictions are a part of why it is such a mess and there is such dissatisfaction with it.