VAR

[Risso]

I think the rule is a good one personally.

[paul_e]

I think the rule is a good one personally.

Me too and I thought Howard Webb did a good job of explaining why. The ball accidentally hitting a hand anywhere else on the pitch has no material impact on the game but if it hits the arm of a striker and falls at his feet for him to score then it has clearly altered the game and therefore should be subject to stricter rules. I see nothing controversial about it.

[LeeB]

The one I thought it was a bit of an ass for was the Bournemouth 4th goal where the players arm comes down in motion and unintentionally clips the ball and doesn't give him any advantage as he was going to score anyway

[paul_e]

The one I thought it was a bit of an ass for was the Bournemouth 4th goal where the players arm comes down in motion and unintentionally clips the ball and doesn't give him any advantage as he was going to score anyway

Yeah, there could be a bit of leniency some times but a strict black and white rule probably makes sense for this specific subject. I'm not sure I'd want refs having to consider hypotheticals in that situation.

[Risso]

The one I thought it was a bit of an ass for was the Bournemouth 4th goal where the players arm comes down in motion and unintentionally clips the ball and doesn't give him any advantage as he was going to score anyway

Yeah, there could be a bit of leniency some times but a strict black and white rule probably makes sense for this specific subject. I'm not sure I'd want refs having to consider hypotheticals in that situation.

Was just going to make the same point, at least this rule is black and white, and they don't have to go through all sorts of mental gymnastics in a split second over arms in a natural position and body shape etc.

[Bad English]

Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.

(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)

[tomd2103]

Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.

(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)

Even then it was an element of guess work as the technology couldn't pinpoint the exact moment McGinn played the ball.

[Somniloquism]

Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.

(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)

Even then it was an element of guess work as the technology couldn't pinpoint the exact moment McGinn played the ball.

TBH Bailey was well off compared to some decisions so I'm not sure why it too 4 minutes to prove it. Surely they should just look at incidents in order to see if one rules out anything afterwards. I wonder if they were looking whether Lenglet was fouling the Everton player to keep him playing everyone onside, which if that is a plan from MacPhee, is a stupid one with VAR around as we already found out with Ramsey doing a similar trick against Sheffield Utd.

[edgysatsuma89]

Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.

(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)

Even then it was an element of guess work as the technology couldn't pinpoint the exact moment McGinn played the ball.

TBH Bailey was well off compared to some decisions so I'm not sure why it too 4 minutes to prove it. Surely they should just look at incidents in order to see if one rules out anything afterwards. I wonder if they were looking whether Lenglet was fouling the Everton player to keep him playing everyone onside, which if that is a plan from MacPhee, is a stupid one with VAR around as we already found out with Ramsey doing a similar trick against Sheffield Utd.

Yeah... it was offside, so I have no issue with the decision. Why on God's green fucking earth it a) took that long and b) they carried on to see whether Lenglet was blocking the keepers vision, which must have been what they was doing as they was showing the shot from behind the goal. Why? It was after the bastard offside. Completely baffled me.

[Scratchins]

From The Laws of the Game.

"Being in an offside position is not an offence in itself, but a player so positioned when the ball is played by a teammate can be judged guilty of an offside offence if they receive the ball or will otherwise become "involved in active play", will "interfere with an opponent", or will "gain an advantage" by being in that position. Offside is often considered one of the most difficult-to-understand aspects of the sport"

Did this apply to Bailey?

[Duncan Shaw]

No, Bailey was offside when he received the ball back, and it was he who passed it to Moreno.  Should have been dealt with in 30 seconds.  I'm cross with Bailey for not getting himself back onside quicker.

[Somniloquism]

No, Bailey was offside when he received the ball back, and it was he who passed it to Moreno.  Should have been dealt with in 30 seconds.  I'm cross with Bailey for not getting himself back onside quicker.

They were relying on Lenglet to stop the Everton player from moving out so fast but I also think the ball was supposed to go back to Luiz and not Bailey from the reaction of both players when McGinn played it. As I mentioned, if Lenglets actions were a call from MacPhee, he (and the players) needs to remember that VAR is around otherwise the odds are we get the goal ruled out anyway (like with Sheff Utd).

[LeeB]

Bailey looked offside in real time, and then from the second they showed the replay. It was close but you could see it from the pitch lines in an instant, what the fuck were they doing?

[The Edge]

Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.

(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)

Even then it was an element of guess work as the technology couldn't pinpoint the exact moment McGinn played the ball.

Spot on. It's always been my biggest gripe with var and I've probably said it on here dozens of times. If you're going to try and be forensically accurate and call offside for a nasal hair then you have to apply the same level of accuracy as to when the ball has actually left the passing players boot. I mean who decides which frame is the most accurate to use on screen? Forward just ONE frame and a player can be offside. Go back just ONE frame and the same player becomes onside. It's blindingly bleeding obvious but it's a point that no one seems willing to address. It is the elephant in the room.

[LeeB]

Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.

(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)

Even then it was an element of guess work as the technology couldn't pinpoint the exact moment McGinn played the ball.

Spot on. It's always been my biggest gripe with var and I've probably said it on here dozens of times. If you're going to try and be forensically accurate and call offside for a nasal hair then you have to apply the same level of accuracy as to when the ball has actually left the passing players boot. I mean who decides which frame is the most accurate to use on screen? Forward just ONE frame and a player can be offside. Go back just ONE frame and the same player becomes onside. It's blindingly bleeding obvious but it's a point that no one seems willing to address. It is the elephant in the room.

It's the grey area where they can apply their bias.