VAR

[Smithy]

I disagree, but that's okay, it's a game of opinions :-)

My personal view is that the ref saw the collision in real-time, deemed it wasn't a foul, which it obviously wasn't - but when shown JJ was offside it immediately became "interference", where the threshold is much lower than for a foul.  The ref didn't see it on the monitor and then think "I got that wrong, it WAS a foul", he saw JJ was offside (which is why the first view they gave him off the incident was side on)

We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.

I agree that it can be interpreted that way, in much the same way you could interpret the Leicester one as correct, and the man city one but the point is that the laws of football are all about the refs interpretation and the precedent, in the premier league, is a different interpretation than the ones given in all 3 cases so why is it decisions that have a negative impact on us have so often involved a reinterpretation of an obscure law?

If this was the first time it had happened I'd be much more willing to agree with your view but this is 3 or 4 (depends on your view of the trez penalty) times in a couple of years now.

My personal view - based on nothing more than a gut feel, is that we've had far more VAR decisions go against us since its introduction, than for us.  But then other fans will point to the Sheff Utd goal-line incident and say "you're taking the piss mate".

EDIT: I just looked up the stats around "beneficiaries" from VAR last season, and my guy was WAY off. Only 5 clubs did better in net terms of decisions for and against. Those claret and blue glasses are pretty strong. We were +2 across the season for VAR decisions in our favour.  There were 138 VAR overturns in the season (for goals and pens and red cards).  Joint bottom were Liverpool and Arsenal at -6, which kind of goes against the narrative that the big guys always get the benefit.  The top club was Burnley at +4.  Man Utd were zero, as many for as against.  Man City +1.

[Ad@m]

I disagree, but that's okay, it's a game of opinions :-)

My personal view is that the ref saw the collision in real-time, deemed it wasn't a foul, which it obviously wasn't - but when shown JJ was offside it immediately became "interference", where the threshold is much lower than for a foul.  The ref didn't see it on the monitor and then think "I got that wrong, it WAS a foul", he saw JJ was offside (which is why the first view they gave him off the incident was side on)

We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.

I agree that it can be interpreted that way, in much the same way you could interpret the Leicester one as correct, and the man city one but the point is that the laws of football are all about the refs interpretation and the precedent, in the premier league, is a different interpretation than the ones given in all 3 cases so why is it decisions that have a negative impact on us have so often involved a reinterpretation of an obscure law?

If this was the first time it had happened I'd be much more willing to agree with your view but this is 3 or 4 (depends on your view of the trez penalty) times in a couple of years now.

My personal view - based on nothing more than a gut feel, is that we've had far more VAR decisions go against us since its introduction, than for us.  But then other fans will point to the Sheff Utd goal-line incident and say "you're taking the piss mate".

EDIT: I just looked up the stats around "beneficiaries" from VAR last season, and my guy was WAY off. Only 5 clubs did better in net terms of decisions for and against. Those claret and blue glasses are pretty strong. We were +2 across the season for VAR decisions in our favour.  There were 138 VAR overturns in the season (for goals and pens and red cards).  Joint bottom were Liverpool and Arsenal at -6, which kind of goes against the narrative that the big guys always get the benefit.  The top club was Burnley at +4.  Man Utd were zero, as many for as against.  Man City +1.

I'd take those sorts of stats with a pinch of salt.  They only count decisions specifically looked at by VAR.  In any game there are plenty more examples where VAR doesn't even look at it which won't get captured.

[Smithy]

As I said last night,I believe Cavani was guilty of gamesmanship and the goal should have stood ,then Cavani booked.

Cavani was lazy and lost his man, realised he'd fucked up and ran into JJ to buy a free kick, as evidenced by him lying on the floor and appealing for the foul. I don't care if there's a way of twisting the rule to justify it, everyone (other than Man U fans and our neighbours) who saw that knows it was wrong, just like the Ramsey goal at Leicester, just like the Man City goal last year, just like the Trez penalty against Brighton, over and over again in the last 2 1/2 years we've had to put up with bad decisions going agianst us being justified by "but the law says..." as if people aren't aware of exactly what the 'normal' interpretation of those laws are.

I get why Gerrard doesn't want to say anything but I'd fucking love Purslow to make a statement about this shit happening so often, not a sulk but a question of why it's always us that seems to be on the wrong side of these. At the same time I'd love him to raise the fact that the threshold for yellow cards against us seems to be really high right now, with some players (Shaw last night) commiting multiple fouls that could've been bookings without even a meaningful warning.

I have no doubt Cavani tried to get the foul, but he didn't get it (it wasn't given as a foul). He got lucky that JJ was stood in an offside position when the ball was kicked, because if he wasn't, that doesn't get given as offside.

There are times when it's right to complain and question VAR, the Man City goal - definitely (it led to a clarification and confirmation it would be disallowed in future), the Leicester disallowed goal - definitely - and again led to clarification but the rules were clear, just not well understood.  But last night I think was the right decision, reached in a poor way, and repeatedly claiming VAR got it wrong makes us look small time.

VAR took too long, DEFINITELY.  VAR handled it badly, DEFINITELY.  VAR should be everywhere or nowhere in the FA Cup, DEFINITELY.  VAR got the decision wrong? No, unfortunately, they didn't.

Nope, I disagree, they've managed to justify the decision after the fact, just like with previous ones that have gone against us, but no referee ever gives that as an offside live in play and if that was the only thing to check VAR wouldn't have got involved. For me it was a case of VAR had wasted 3 minutes checking things that were fine so they felt the need to justify the time by finding something to ask him to review. Also being annoyed at having a goal ruled out doesn't ever make anyone 'small time' and the repeated use of that term on here to kill an argument is fucking annoying.

For the record, I didn't mean to cause offence with the "small time" comment. I was furious with the decision at the time, and I still am angry, but I understand why they made it. 

I meant small time in the context of I don't want us looking like those plucky losers you see focusing on "if only it wasn't for VAR" - because it detracts from the fact that for large chunks of that match we battered them. We SHOULD have won, VAR or not. THAT should be the takeaway, for me. I actually think we played better last night than in our 1-0 win earlier in the season.   VAR eventually got to the right decision, in a very poor way.  I'm actually more angry about them not taking another look at when Ollie hit the bar with Lindelof having a handful of his shirt.

[astonvilla82]

We need someone to start asking questions lik" I couldn't understand why VAR was not involved, especially when blood was coming from Konsa" and "  why were they looking at offside and couldn't find anything wrong, seems they were looking for a reason to disallow the goal", remember Alex Ferguson he was a mouthy  so and so

[chrisw1]

I think the Konsa thing is a red herring.  It wasn't a pen and it dilutes the argument when we cry foul over incidents like that.  I do think the Watkins pull back is a better shout and I can't help thinking our players should have made far more of a meal of it after the incident.  Schmeichel made it impossible for VAR to ignore his claims and maybe we should do the same - cause a fuss and delay so VAR will feel obliged to at least have a look.

[LeonW]

The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it? 

[chrisw1]

The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it? 

The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error.  I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.   

[LeonW]

The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it? 

The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error.  I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.

What was the first thing that was reviewed?

[chrisw1]

The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it? 

The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error.  I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.

What was the first thing that was reviewed?

I don't want to sit here and defend the decison as I think it was bullshit.  But there's been a few posts above explaining what happened, take a look Smithy explains it pretty well.

I am just adding the point re clear and obvious for offsides as it is often missed.

[paul_e]

For the record, I didn't mean to cause offence with the "small time" comment. I was furious with the decision at the time, and I still am angry, but I understand why they made it. 

I meant small time in the context of I don't want us looking like those plucky losers you see focusing on "if only it wasn't for VAR" - because it detracts from the fact that for large chunks of that match we battered them. We SHOULD have won, VAR or not. THAT should be the takeaway, for me. I actually think we played better last night than in our 1-0 win earlier in the season.   VAR eventually got to the right decision, in a very poor way.  I'm actually more angry about them not taking another look at when Ollie hit the bar with Lindelof having a handful of his shirt.

Again though my argument is more about precedence and how the rule has been applied previously, have you ever seen a player given offside for being run into before? That's my issue with it, yet again we're on the wrong end of a decision that has required people to sift through the laws to justify when alomst every football fan in the world would tell you that the decision would go the other way if they saw it once. How can an overruling be 'clear and obvious' if people have to double check the laws to explain why it's been given. I don't like it when refs get things wrong from the middle of the pitch but you accept those decisions as one of those things but these calls are someone going out of their way to justify a game-changing decision to overrule the referee.


The 3 we all know, no one bats an eyelid if the man city goal is disallowed, no one cares if Ramsey and Ings goals stand, all 3 original decisions were reasonable by the ref int he middle and wouldn't have been considered remotely controversial. By overruling them the ref and VAR officials become the talking point of the games, not the teams/players. It's bullshit and we can't be so accepting of it happening to us 3 times in less than a year.

[Simon Page]

I have no doubt they came to a correct decision. What irritates me beyond belief is the very existence of VAR. A quest for perfection in decision-making sounds unarguably good in theory. In reality, it just diminishes the major pleasure of the game. I'll take refereeing errors any day over tedious delays while they slo-mo the shit out of my will to live. I even prefer managerial moaning in post-match interviews to having Gary Lineker read out rule 17b, Subsection VIII, Sub-clause Z at baffled pundits. Can the game not be enjoyably imperfect? It shouldn't attempt to be live-action FIFA.

[LeonW]

The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it? 

The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error.  I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.

What was the first thing that was reviewed?

I don't want to sit here and defend the decison as I think it was bullshit.  But there's been a few posts above explaining what happened, take a look Smithy explains it pretty well.

I am just adding the point re clear and obvious for offsides as it is often missed.

.
I watched the game on Television and on the coverage I watched, the first thing that it showed that VAR was reviewing was a potential Ings hand ball - not an offside. The rule quoted on offside also talks about "impacting on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball." Smithy may have discussed this earlier, but are we saying that we think Cavani had a chance to play or challenge for the first ball that was delivered into the box? Because from memory, he was nowhere near it.

[frank black]

I’m staying off Twitter as it’s driving me nuts, with people debating whether Ramsey fouled Cavani.

[chrisw1]

I think people forget how angry we got about wrong decisions before VAR.

In theory, it should be a check and measure against a ref having a stinker or worse...   Notwithstanding that I think they are implementing it terribly and also that we have had some incredibly poor decisons against us, I suspect that overall they are still getting more decisions right than they used to.

I remain an advocate of the principal of VAR, but fuck me they are trying their best to kill it with incompetence.

[frank black]

I think people forget how angry we got about wrong decisions before VAR.

In theory, it should be a check and measure against a ref having a stinker or worse...   Notwithstanding that I think they are implementing it terribly and also that we have had some incredibly poor decisons against us, I suspect that overall they are still getting more decisions right than they used to.

I remain an advocate of the principal of VAR, but fuck me they are trying their best to kill it with incompetence.

I would rather VAR disappeared. But it’s not going to and they really must improve the VAR experience for those poor sods in the stadium. It’s made football less enjoyable for me at the match.