VAR

[Goal Machine]

Thought it was a great decision myself . Nothing that happened there was reason to chalk it off

Listening to Neville moaning about it was comedy gold

Just watched it for the first time. I think the correct decision was reached.

However... there was nothing clear and obvious about it, therefore original decision should have stood.

Too much VAR intervention is killing the game. The euphoria of celebrating your team scoring a big goal is the best thing in sport (perhaps in life?). That moment of delirium has been taken away.

As far as I'm concerned a 'clear and obvious' error happens perhaps 5 time a season (phantom goal / 5 yards offside scenario). These errors can be rectified with one 10 second replay. This is what I though we were signing up to. Not a micro analysis on every significant match moment.

 

[Dogburger]

The Professional Referees Organisation have now said the goal should have been disallowed. Oh, well. I'm over it.

But they didn't say the goal should have been disallowed .What they said was that they (VAR ) went beyond their remit in telling the ref to award the goal and that it should have been referred back to the ref for an on field review

We all know what that normally means .

 

[Dogburger]

Just watched it for the first time. I think the correct decision was reached.

However... there was nothing clear and obvious about it, therefore original decision should have stood.

Too much VAR intervention is killing the game. The euphoria of celebrating your team scoring a big goal is the best thing in sport (perhaps in life?). That moment of delirium has been taken away.

As far as I'm concerned a 'clear and obvious' error happens perhaps 5 time a season (phantom goal / 5 yards offside scenario). These errors can be rectified with one 10 second replay. This is what I though we were signing up to. Not a micro analysis on every significant match moment.

I hate VAR and would remove it from the game .But we have it and would disagree that it wasn't clear and obvious .
The original decision was offside against Halland which was a clear and obvious mistake .

The argument was whether City's Argie who was in an offside position stopped Utds Argie from playing the ball . That was a subjective decision so should have been referred back to an on field review

 

[Teddy Eagle]

But they didn't say the goal should have been disallowed .What they said was that they (VAR ) went beyond their remit in telling the ref to award the goal and that it should have been referred back to the ref for an on field review

We all know what that normally means .

I was paraphrasing because it's amusing when Man U get stuffed at home by an error. Palace getting away with one there would obviously be better but a 10 man Citeh team turning them over is pretty funny too.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I hate VAR and would remove it from the game .But we have it and would disagree that it wasn't clear and obvious .
The original decision was offside against Halland which was a clear and obvious mistake .

The argument was whether City's Argie who was in an offside position stopped Utds Argie from playing the ball . That was a subjective decision so should have been referred back to an on field review

Ref Watch will be entertaining today - Dermot Gallagher will be in full squirm mode trying to justify the decision.

 

[Willo]

Ref Watch will be entertaining today - Dermot Gallagher will be in full squirm mode trying to justify the decision.

I feel confident that Dermot Gallagher will be honest in his assessment of the incident.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I feel confident that Dermot Gallagher will be honest in his assessment of the incident.

Good to know there are some constants in life.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Unless he changes his tune I may owe Gallagher an apology. This is a unique and unwelcome development.

Verifying Device

 

[ASCPFC]

Unless he changes his tune I may owe Gallagher an apology. This is a unique and unwelcome development.

Verifying Device

Must be a Utd fan.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Must be a Utd fan.

An Irish Man U fan? Could happen I suppose.

 

[Willo]

Unless he changes his tune I may owe Gallagher an apology. This is a unique and unwelcome development.

Verifying Device

I look forward to hearing Dermot's assessment of the incident which has caused controversy.

 

[steeleye20]

Have to say Wayne I agree with you 100%:-

MSN ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=ba41913a426f4d52d75e5c30a3f193df&ei=10

😎

 

[park the bus]

VAR - a machine made of electronics, cables, computer chips etc created to assist the referees in making the correct judgement. And therein lies the problem - the people who administer VAR, the self same referees prone to error, arguably corrupt or incompetent - what possibly could go wrong?

 

[CrazyBadger]

I just don't see what VAR has brought to the game, apart from contraversy. It takes an age to come to a decision, and even then it's not guarenteed to be correct.
When it is correct it's often 'splitting hairs' where a toe is offside, which doesn't really matter or give any real advantage.

If it offered certainty and an universally accepted decision, like the implementations in cricket and tennis, then it could be backed. right now, it's doing more harm than good.

 

[palace99]

Thought it was a great decision myself . Nothing that happened there was reason to chalk it off

Listening to Neville moaning about it was comedy gold

Do you understand football?

If a player is standing in the middle of the area and dives in front of the keeper to get to the ball he must be interfering with play. Surely that's an obvious. Whether he touched it or not is irrelevant as his actions put the defender off (who moved away from Haaland to try and challenge) and the keeper, who was set up for the header.

The second point is that it was given offside on the pitch. Now, some have said that was for Haaland and he was proven to be onside by a few millimetres, however, how do we know who the linesman was flagging for?

If it wasn't a clear and obvious error surely the on field decision stands.

The whole thing stinks - we now have jobsworths on VAR who don't understand the rules.

 

[BromleyMonkey]

I feel confident that Dermot Gallagher will be honest in his assessment of the incident.

He’ll be honest, but he’ll
Probably be wrong

 

[Phil’s Barber]

Do you understand football?

If a player is standing in the middle of the area and dives in front of the keeper to get to the ball he must be interfering with play. Surely that's an obvious. Whether he touched it or not is irrelevant as his actions put the defender off (who moved away from Haaland to try and challenge) and the keeper, who was set up for the header.

The second point is that it was given offside on the pitch. Now, some have said that was for Haaland and he was proven to be onside by a few millimetres, however, how do we know who the linesman was flagging for?

If it wasn't a clear and obvious error surely the on field decision stands.

The whole thing stinks - we now have jobsworths on VAR who don't understand the rules.

I think Dogburger must have been on a wind up mate.

No one can ever look at that move and say that Enzo was not offside (according to the current offside laws and explanations re interpretation).

 

[steeleye20]

'If he's not interfering, what's he doing on the pitch...'

Brian Clough

😎

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I just don't see what VAR has brought to the game, apart from contraversy. It takes an age to come to a decision, and even then it's not guarenteed to be correct.
When it is correct it's often 'splitting hairs' where a toe is offside, which doesn't really matter or give any real advantage.

If it offered certainty and an universally accepted decision, like the implementations in cricket and tennis, then it could be backed. right now, it's doing more harm than good.

As previously observed players have to take throw-ins or get off the pitch within 10 seconds to keep the game flowing while VAR can take 4/5 minutes to fart around getting the wrong decision.

 

[Dogburger]

Do you understand football?

If a player is standing in the middle of the area and dives in front of the keeper to get to the ball he must be interfering with play. Surely that's an obvious. Whether he touched it or not is irrelevant as his actions put the defender off (who moved away from Haaland to try and challenge) and the keeper, who was set up for the header.

The second point is that it was given offside on the pitch. Now, some have said that was for Haaland and he was proven to be onside by a few millimetres, however, how do we know who the linesman was flagging for?

If it wasn't a clear and obvious error surely the on field decision stands.

The whole thing stinks - we now have jobsworths on VAR who don't understand the rules.

The VAR confirmed the lino flagged for Halland not the Argie so the on field decision was wrong so couldn't stand .
VAR had to then look at the 'goal' as they do with any other for anything amiss
Where they went wrong was deciding a subjective decision on whether the Argie was interfering with play
As they correctly admitted they should have told the ref to look at the monitor to make the decision on any interference not what they did do in telling the ref the goal was good
Those were the facts of the matter .

Its subjective whether he put the defender off . Martinez of course is going to say he was but its debatable .
The keeper had a better claim of interference as he dived for the non header and was in no place to attempt to save the Halland shot . Again debatable but would likely have seen the ref side with utd

I'm not going to give anyone a history of my time and roles in the game but yes I understand it quite well ,especially the part that says Utd get the tight calls and soft decisions at home so I'm still giving the goal if only for reasons of Karma 😉

VAR needs throwing out of our game ,the offside law needs returning to the days when the lino flagged for players in offside positions ,they rarely got it wrong .