Wolves 1-1 Man Utd - Monday 19th August, 2019

[Bluewolf]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

No it's not.

It's for potential red card incidents too. 

It was a bog standard tackle though.... not even yellow card worthy

[Stan]

Just now, Bluewolf said:

It was a bog standard tackle though.... not even yellow card worthy

I know. But it's checked purely incase any official might have missed something else untoward.

[Inverted]

7 minutes ago, Stan said:

No it's not.

It's for potential red card incidents too. 

So VAR gets criticised for taking too long, then when it checks something very quickly it also gets criticised. It can't fucking win can it?

But it wasn't very quick. The game was paused to check if something was offside, which clearly wasn't. It actually was a tremendously long time compared to the difficulty of the question. 

Is a backwards pass offside? Any moderately informed football fan can give you the answer in one second. 

So anyone who knows the rules can look back at that goal and be sure it's legit in far less time than it would take for United to get to the centre circle and kick-off. The check could be concluded well before the Wolves players had even finished celebrating. 

There's no need to wait until they're ready to kick off, stop the game further, and then tell everyone the goal is being checked, if its possible to make the check instantly and uncontroversially without anyone knowing. 

VAR should just be working in the background, and make itself known if a mistake has been made, or there's an extremely difficult call to be decided. 

When an obviously fine goal is scored, there's no reason to kill the celebrations and force everyone to sit and watch the refs take 20 seconds decide that a backwards pass wasn't offside. 

 

[LFCMadLad]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

I know. But it's checked purely incase any official might have missed something else untoward.

And that's why its pissing so many people off. Absolutely no need whatsoever to check that tackle. Absolutely no need to check EVERY goal neither to be honest..

It's becoming a farce. 

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

And that's why its pissing so many people off. Absolutely no need whatsoever to check that tackle. Absolutely no need to check EVERY goal neither to be honest..

It's becoming a farce. 

So then how do you decide which goals are checked and which aren't ? That just leads to more ambiguity and confusion during a game. 

 

[Guest]

I hope VAR gets binned but if we don't have a choice, I would at least tone it down for clear and obvious decisions. Such as handball goals or if they are blatantly offside. Right now it's being used in the most minimal errors that there is genuinely no passion in the game anymore.

[Rick]

That non offside took far too long to sort out though. One quick glance and you can see he's not offside, so do it as soon as the goal goes in the net and your check is done while the team are still celebrating. Not 10 slo-mo replays to check for an offside in a back pass! Fucking overkill.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just FYI everybody, Paul Pogba has missed more penalties in the prem since the start of last season than any other player in the league.

[Lucas]

If only Pogba had reverted back to his two minute stuttered run up like the showpony cunt he is, he'd have bored Patricio to death and rolled it in.

[Stan]

1 minute ago, Grizzly21 said:

I hope VAR gets binned but if we don't have a choice, I would at least tone it down for clear and obvious decisions. Such as handball goals or if they are blatantly offside. Right now it's being used in the most minimal errors that there is genuinely no passion in the game anymore.

But it has to be checked before you figure out if it's 'blatantly offside'. Otherwise you have replays after play has restarted and you'd be like 'ah that should have been checked'. 

What's 'blatant' as well? Define it. Is it a specific measurement? A specific distance between player and defender? Daylight between the 2? Ask yourself those and in order to get the answer, it has to be checked.

The rule for offside (not VAR) is that if you're 1mm offside, you're offside. If you're level and/or behind the defender, you're onside. There's no such thing as 'blatant offside' in the rules and that's the case before VAR. If you check an offside through VAR, you can't give a goal just because the striker was only 1mm offside. It literally negates the idea of having a review in the first place let alone the actual laws of the game.

 

[Stan]

1 minute ago, Lucas said:

If only Pogba had reverted back to his two minute stuttered run up like the showpony cunt he is, he'd have bored Patricio to death and rolled it in.

Did you see Lyle Taylor's penalty for Barnsley for Charlton?! Very slow. Slower than a VAR check

[LFCMike]

4 minutes ago, Stan said:

But it has to be checked before you figure out if it's 'blatantly offside'. Otherwise you have replays after play has restarted and you'd be like 'ah that should have been checked'. 

What's 'blatant' as well? Define it. Is it a specific measurement? A specific distance between player and defender? Daylight between the 2? Ask yourself those and in order to get the answer, it has to be checked.

The rule for offside (not VAR) is that if you're 1mm offside, you're offside. If you're level and/or behind the defender, you're onside. There's no such thing as 'blatant offside' in the rules and that's the case before VAR. If you check an offside through VAR, you can't give a goal just because the striker was only 1mm offside. It literally negates the idea of having a review in the first place let alone the actual laws of the game.

 

As already pointed out by others though, there was no need for the Wolves goal to be reviewed at such length. It was immediately obvious it wasn't offside

[Burning Gold]

14 minutes ago, Inverted said:

But it wasn't very quick. The game was paused to check if something was offside, which clearly wasn't. It actually was a tremendously long time compared to the difficulty of the question. 

Is a backwards pass offside? Any moderately informed football fan can give you the answer in one second. 

So anyone who knows the rules can look back at that goal and be sure it's legit in far less time than it would take for United to get to the centre circle and kick-off. The check could be concluded well before the Wolves players had even finished celebrating. 

There's no need to stop the game further and tell everyone the goal is being checked, if its possible to make the check instantly and uncontroversially without anyone knowing. 

If it's to a player in an offside position, yes

Clearly there was something in it if they had to stop the game to finish the check 

[Inverted]

Just now, Stan said:

But it has to be checked before you figure out if it's 'blatantly offside'. Otherwise you have replays after play has restarted and you'd be like 'ah that should have been checked'. 

What's 'blatant' as well? Define it. Is it a specific measurement? A specific distance between player and defender? Daylight between the 2? Ask yourself those and in order to get the answer, it has to be checked.

The rule for offside (not VAR) is that if you're 1mm offside, you're offside. If you're level and/or behind the defender, you're onside. There's no such thing as 'blatant offside' in the rules and that's the case before VAR. If you check an offside through VAR, you can't give a goal just because the striker was only 1mm offside. It literally negates the idea of having a review in the first place let alone the actual laws of the game.

 

Nobody is disputing that. What we're saying is that if the picture is clear, then checking should only take a few seconds. 

If you start checking the moment the goal goes in, then it takes at least 30 seconds for everyone to be ready to kick-off. So any VAR check that takes long than that, with access to all angles and speeds, should be for a really tough or ambiguous call. 

There's no reason that kick off should be delayed and celebrations dulled, for a simple offside. It should be done well before that, before anybody needs to know it was checked. 

[The Artful Dodger]

Another 2 half game like yesterday. Wolves and Leicester look like they'll be competing,well on their second half displays. 

[Inverted]

6 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

If it's to a player in an offside position, yes

Clearly there was something in it if they had to stop the game to finish the check 

That was worded poorly. 

But if the pass is played backwards, and the recipient gets it without needing to move backwards - in fact, he moves forward to receive it - that's a pretty strong indicator that he's not going to be in an offside position. 

[Cicero]

4 minutes ago, Teso dos Bichos said:

Forget the scoreline, AWB is proving to be the transfer of the window... if he keeps this performances throughout the whole season, we might be looking at the transfer of the decade. 

Surely not better than 50 million for Matic?

[LFCMadLad]

10 minutes ago, Stan said:

So then how do you decide which goals are checked and which aren't ? That just leads to more ambiguity and confusion during a game. 

 

You honestly dont think they are going way overboard on what and why things are being checked?

You cant possibly think that it's good for the flow of a game, surely?

It's becoming a joke. It's all anyone talks about either during or after a game. 

Football is a game. I mean what next, human footballers scrapped in favour of robots that play the game perfectly fair?

The passion, emotion and controversy that football is all about has been replaced by drongo's sat behind a screen still making shit decisions.

I'm not going to say much more on the subject because to be honest, it's become as boring as Brexit. 

 

[Bluewolf]

Decent game, Wolves did well fighting themselves back into it after looking a bit sub par in the first half.. 

[6666]

The most important thing is that Sheffield Utd and Wolves both delivered and now my predictions for this matchday don't look so bad.

[Stan]

Just now, LFCMadLad said:

You honestly dont think they are going way overboard on what and why things are being checked?

You cant possibly think that it's good for the flow of a game, surely?

It's becoming a joke. It's all anyone talks about either during or after a game. 

Football is a game. I mean what next, human footballers scrapped in favour of robots that play the game perfectly fair?

The passion, emotion and controversy that football is all about has been replaced by drongo's sat behind a screen still making shit decisions.

I'm not going to say much more on the subject because to be honest, it's become as boring as Brexit. 

 

It is becoming boring and when I saw you quoted and before seeing what you said I was gonna say let's call it a day and agree to disagree . We could go in circles all night long!

[Bluewolf]

Pogba not looking a happy man... 

[RandoEFC+]

Was it not a huge dive from Pogba on the penalty? Didn't look like he was tripped at all. Dont see how the offside for the goal was checked so thoroughly yet they only glanced at that blatant dive.

If they are going to go down the "clear and obvious" route, why does this logic not apply for offside decisions? I know offside is more black and white, but if you need to do the whole lines across the pitch from the last hair on the attackers shoulder then I think you should give the attacker the benefit of the doubt.

They need to tidy the rules up on penalties as well, what constitutes unavoidable contact, what constitutes buying a penalty and what is actually a foul.

[Inverted]

The only thing worse than the wishy-washy vagueness of the rules 5 years ago, is this current car-crash of the same old vagueness and leniency interspersed with apparently random instances of hyper-scrutinised and precise decision-making. 

Some dodgy calls go by without a peep. Some completely innocuous incidents get obsessively pored over. 

Im all for VAR but they've done absolutely no favours to it by making as confusing, obtuse and arbitrary as possible. 

[Burning Gold]

47 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Was it not a huge dive from Pogba on the penalty? Didn't look like he was tripped at all. Dont see how the offside for the goal was checked so thoroughly yet they only glanced at that blatant dive.

If they are going to go down the "clear and obvious" route, why does this logic not apply for offside decisions? I know offside is more black and white, but if you need to do the whole lines across the pitch from the last hair on the attackers shoulder then I think you should give the attacker the benefit of the doubt.

They need to tidy the rules up on penalties as well, what constitutes unavoidable contact, what constitutes buying a penalty and what is actually a foul.

I think it's a dive, but there was a small amount of contact as he went over, so I guess they can't call it "clear and obvious"

On the offside thing, it's where do you draw the line? You have to draw it somewhere because they can do the lines on the pitch and get the right decision even if there's only about a milimeter in it. So at some point you're going to have to decide "it's so close, let's not bother". Base it on some defined distance and you're ultimately just moving the line further forward (and actually adding complexity when the VAR people do their lines superimposed on the pitch). You'll still get incredibly tight decisions. Base it on some guy's judgement and we're back to the old problem with biases and human error.