Topic: VAR! Video Assistant Referee & Shite Referees in General

[4pool]

I think the rule is the keeper needs to have the ball under control. Although Adrian had two hands on the ball I don’t think he ever had it under control. Seemed a fair goal to me.

The rule is:


A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface
(e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands
or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper
has made a save
• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of
the ball with the hand(s).

[thejbs]

I didn’t have any issue with it. Thought it was never really under control. If it was us I’d have wanted that given. More concerned about some of the onfield decisions beyond VAR remit.

[Yorkykopite]

Meteoroids have previous for wiping out dinosaurs

That was actually haemorrhoids.

[Barneylfc∗]

I didn’t have any issue with it. Thought it was never really under control. If it was us I’d have wanted that given. More concerned about some of the onfield decisions beyond VAR remit.

Whether you have issues with it or not, the laws of the game state that it's a foul.

Both the 'referee' and useless c*nt in the VAR room think it's fine and clearly don't know the laws of the game.

Both useless c*nts clearly don't understand the handball law either given the useless c*nt Pawson didn't make the decision on the field, and the useless c*nt in the VAR room didn't have the balls to tell Pawson he's a useless c*nt for our penalty.

[RedG13]

.
Glad it didn't cost us today - these VAR guys are meant to be professional referees or match officials, yes?


Alvarez goal on 70 mins (Foden kicked the ball out of GK Adrian's hands) - https://clip.dubz.co/v/q37ayz & https://twitter.com/itvfootball/status/1553434188459786240

GK Adrian with 2 hands on the ball (before having it kicked out of his hands) : https://twitter.com/LFC_FootyChat/status/1553482332304248832 (images)

https://twitter.com/Jhdharrison1/status/1553829673733349379 From one of the top GK experts

[farawayred]

Whether you have issues with it or not, the laws of the game state that it's a foul.

Both the 'referee' and useless c*nt in the VAR room think it's fine and clearly don't know the laws of the game.

Both useless c*nts clearly don't understand the handball law either given the useless c*nt Pawson didn't make the decision on the field, and the useless c*nt in the VAR room didn't have the balls to tell Pawson he's a useless c*nt for our penalty.

The problem is that it's been decided that VAR is not going to rereferee the game. They are under no obligation to make the right call, but to check if the referee made the wrong call. Neither the referee, nor the linesman called a foul on Adrian (the ref should have, but he didn't). VAR must have check for offside, which the linesman gave. There was no offside, hence they gave the goal. Should that be how the game evolves? No. But they can't give a foul the referee didn't give.

[MH41]

The problem is that it's been decided that VAR is not going to rereferee the game. They are under no obligation to make the right call, but to check if the referee made the wrong call. Neither the referee, nor the linesman called a foul on Adrian (the ref should have, but he didn't). VAR must have check for offside, which the linesman gave. There was no offside, hence they gave the goal. Should that be how the game evolves? No. But they can't give a foul the referee didn't give.

Then why did they spend ANY time looking at the Ádrian incident ? Just look at the offside, and give the goal.
They clearly did spend quite a bit of time looking at it, so what was the purpose, if they can't change it?

[red_Mark1980]

The problem is that it's been decided that VAR is not going to rereferee the game. They are under no obligation to make the right call, but to check if the referee made the wrong call. Neither the referee, nor the linesman called a foul on Adrian (the ref should have, but he didn't). VAR must have check for offside, which the linesman gave. There was no offside, hence they gave the goal. Should that be how the game evolves? No. But they can't give a foul the referee didn't give.

That's not actually true is it? They look at incidents in the lead up.

They clearly checked the foul on Adrian and thought it was OK. The commentary team said so

[HomesickRed]

https://twitter.com/Jhdharrison1/status/1553829673733349379 From one of the top GK experts

Thing is, if Foden doesn't make that challenge, Adrian DOES have the ball under control because he has both hands on the ball first, and it is grounded.
That's the rule and lots of goals were chalked off last season for exactly the same reason. It should never have stood.

[4pool]

Thing is, if Foden doesn't make that challenge, Adrian DOES have the ball under control because he has both hands on the ball first, and it is grounded.
That's the rule and lots of goals were chalked off last season for exactly the same reason. It should never have stood.

the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface
(e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands
or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper
has made a save

The shot hit Adrian, he dives to his right, gets both hands on the ball......and it's not a foul because it was a rebound/save immediately beforehand.

[Barneylfc∗]

The problem is that it's been decided that VAR is not going to rereferee the game. They are under no obligation to make the right call, but to check if the referee made the wrong call. Neither the referee, nor the linesman called a foul on Adrian (the ref should have, but he didn't). VAR must have check for offside, which the linesman gave. There was no offside, hence they gave the goal. Should that be how the game evolves? No. But they can't give a foul the referee didn't give.

Of course they can. That's the point of VAR. There's no difference in that than telling the ref he has missed a handball for a pen.

[Barneylfc∗]

Thing is, if Foden doesn't make that challenge, Adrian DOES have the ball under control because he has both hands on the ball first, and it is grounded.
That's the rule and lots of goals were chalked off last season for exactly the same reason. It should never have stood.

Firmino had a goal ruled out against the Mancs because van Dijk had the audacity to challenge De Gea and he was deemed to have it under control simply because his hands were touching the ball.

[Alan_X]

There are three parts separated by the word 'or':

the ball is between the hands

or

between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)

or

by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save

The shot hit Adrian, he dives to his right, gets both hands on the ball......and it's not a foul because it was a rebound/save immediately beforehand.

The qualification relates to the third part.

The last one is for situations such as the goalie holding the ball in his outstretched hand for a goal kick.

[thaddeus]

There are three parts separated by the word 'or':

The qualification relates to the third part.

The last one is for situations such as the goalie holding the ball in his outstretched hand for a goal kick.

Thanks Alan.  That last one did sound a bit weird without context.

My feeling on the incident is if the assistant hadn't flagged for offside then the referee had a decision to make for the potential foul.  We'll of course never know what decision he would have made but it would have at least been actively thought through rather than the seemingly passive "it doesn't matter as it was offside".  If the referee blows for the foul then VAR wouldn't have overruled it and given the goal.

Watching it live I was adamant it was a foul - admittedly I'm biased - but equally sure VAR wouldn't call it.  "Clear and obvious error" is a phrase you can drive a coach and horses through!

[Agent99]

It still takes a fucking age. I do wish they were mic'd up then at least we know whats going on. The offside looked pretty clear that he was level so was the reason it took so long because they were also checking the foul on Adrian? At least if we can hear them we know they were checking both.

[Son of Spion]

It still takes a fucking age. I do wish they were mic'd up then at least we know whats going on. The offside looked pretty clear that he was level so was the reason it took so long because they were also checking the foul on Adrian? At least if we can hear them we know they were checking both.

It's bizarre that it took them so long to make decisions. Their goal was clearly onside, but should have been chalked off for a clear foul on Adrian. It should have taken seconds to sort that out.

Our penalty was so blatant. God only knows how Pawson missed it.

I agree it would be nice to hear what is being said. Even if it was just recorded so it can be reviewed later would be a help. At least we'd then know how they arrive at decisions, some of which defy all logic.

[driftinwest]

I couldn't believe how long var took over our penalty, if the ref missed it surely the assistant ref saw it or don't they make decisions anymore?  There was a time they'd hold their flag across their chest to indicate a penalty nowadays all they seem to do is flag if the ball is out or a last grasp wave for offside

[4pool]

And then there's ex-Ref's sticking their nose in:

Speaking exclusively to Football Insider ex-Premier League referee Keith Hackett believes the officials on the day got the decision wrong saying “I think it’s a tough call,

“What’s important this year is that the Premier League, through the PGMOL, in the close season have hopefully talked to match officials to get a more consistent understanding of what handball is and how they are going to punish it.

“In a way, the whole discussion centres around this making the body larger. We’ve also got to take into account that arm movement is linked to body movement when players are trying to get to the ball.

“What disappoints me is that there isn’t an emphasis in law and referee’s interpretation on the word deliberate. Can we say that handball was deliberate?"


Hackett then went on to say he believes Rodri's arm position was natural, therefore not a penalty “You want to see some movement, you want to see that body extension. For me, this appeared to be a natural play by the defender with no intention of handling the ball.

“I think the ball struck him, I don’t think his arm was out deliberately to stop the ball or in an unnatural position. Therefore, for me, I don’t support the decision of a handball.

“This coming season we’ve got to get a greater clarification and consistency on handball. On this one, I’m going with Craig Pawson’s initial decision. I think VAR has gone hunting.

“I think the penalty kick was harsh and this highlights the dilemma that referees have got until the guy at the top gives a very clear brief on what is going to be punished and what is not going to be punished.”

[Ghost Town]

And then there's ex-Ref's sticking their nose in:

Speaking exclusively to Football Insider ex-Premier League referee Keith Hackett believes the officials on the day got the decision wrong saying “I think it’s a tough call,

“What’s important this year is that the Premier League, through the PGMOL, in the close season have hopefully talked to match officials to get a more consistent understanding of what handball is and how they are going to punish it.

“In a way, the whole discussion centres around this making the body larger. We’ve also got to take into account that arm movement is linked to body movement when players are trying to get to the ball.

“What disappoints me is that there isn’t an emphasis in law and referee’s interpretation on the word deliberate. Can we say that handball was deliberate?"


Hackett then went on to say he believes Rodri's arm position was natural, therefore not a penalty “You want to see some movement, you want to see that body extension. For me, this appeared to be a natural play by the defender with no intention of handling the ball.

“I think the ball struck him, I don’t think his arm was out deliberately to stop the ball or in an unnatural position. Therefore, for me, I don’t support the decision of a handball.

“This coming season we’ve got to get a greater clarification and consistency on handball. On this one, I’m going with Craig Pawson’s initial decision. I think VAR has gone hunting.

“I think the penalty kick was harsh and this highlights the dilemma that referees have got until the guy at the top gives a very clear brief on what is going to be punished and what is not going to be punished.”

Bullshit from Hackett.

The idea of 'Deliberate' is...er...deliberately not found in the Laws of the Game because you see, Mr Hackett, referees are not mind readers and therefore will never be able to know if an action or foul is deliberate or not. That's why the Laws use external criteria to judge incidents - recklessness or liable to stop a goal illegally etc. Not intentions, which only the player can know. 

The people who first codified football were not fools. The fools came much later.

It was a penalty because the hand stopped and affected the path of the ball close to the goal-line and therefore in a goal-scoring situation. It doesn't matter if Darwin's header was "not going in" because someone else may have come in and touched the ball in. And it doesn't matter if there wasn't anyone sliding in on this occasion because next time there might be and a replica handball might prevent a clear goal. That's why such handballs are not allowed.

[thaddeus]

And then there's ex-Ref's sticking their nose in:

Speaking exclusively to Football Insider ex-Premier League referee Keith Hackett believes the officials on the day got the decision wrong saying “I think it’s a tough call,

“What’s important this year is that the Premier League, through the PGMOL, in the close season have hopefully talked to match officials to get a more consistent understanding of what handball is and how they are going to punish it.

“In a way, the whole discussion centres around this making the body larger. We’ve also got to take into account that arm movement is linked to body movement when players are trying to get to the ball.

“What disappoints me is that there isn’t an emphasis in law and referee’s interpretation on the word deliberate. Can we say that handball was deliberate?"


Hackett then went on to say he believes Rodri's arm position was natural, therefore not a penalty “You want to see some movement, you want to see that body extension. For me, this appeared to be a natural play by the defender with no intention of handling the ball.

“I think the ball struck him, I don’t think his arm was out deliberately to stop the ball or in an unnatural position. Therefore, for me, I don’t support the decision of a handball.

“This coming season we’ve got to get a greater clarification and consistency on handball. On this one, I’m going with Craig Pawson’s initial decision. I think VAR has gone hunting.

“I think the penalty kick was harsh and this highlights the dilemma that referees have got until the guy at the top gives a very clear brief on what is going to be punished and what is not going to be punished.”

Was Hackett living under a stone for the past decade?  The whole "was it deliberate?" argument was done away with as nobody ever knows if it was deliberate except the player that handballed and, with the best will in the world, they're not going to go to the ref with a confession.  It's just introducing another immeasurable element to the decision making.

Making the body bigger is also open to interpretation but it's at least measurable.

Anyway, seeing a Uruguayan playing up-front for Liverpool and frantically appealing for a handball was a nice flashback!

[lamonti]

I think the rule is the keeper needs to have the ball under control. Although Adrian had two hands on the ball I don’t think he ever had it under control. Seemed a fair goal to me.

(Unbelievable how opaquely the laws are written.)

This is from the Twitter VAR nerd Dale Johnson
https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1554069359307505667?s=20&t=UHHXuTg47rhvP6wiTZW-ug

By his interpretation, because it's a rebound from a keeper's spill (unlike the Schmeichel incident last December) having it under control is not the issue, the issue is whether there's a foul on Adrián. (At least I think that's what he means.)

In my opinion, there clearly is a foul, but I also think that referees are hard on players who are a bit crap, e.g. Adrián, who is well-known to be a bit of a disaster. You get punished for spilling a shot inside your own six-yard box. It's like how Xhaka gets sent off for every rough tackle where other players with less bad reputations get away with it: it fits the pre-conceived narrative. To add to that narrative factor, Adrián probably would've gotten away with it if he'd have rolled around and pretended he was really hurt, or pretended it was a head injury.

From my point of view, it's a clear foul on Adrián, but Adrián has to do better to avoid getting in that situation and not leaving it in the hands of the refs who are shite. Mind you, he's our third choice keeper, so I don't expect much more and thought he did OK in the rest of the game. Scott Carson is City's third choice keeper and their second choice keeper (Steffen) wasn't much cop either in the FA Cup semi-final.

Also the linesman shouldn't be flagging in that situation having spent the last two seasons not flagging anything even when it was clearly offside. When they flag now, players will expect that it's not even close to being onside. (I think this is a cock-up rather than a change in procedure though.)

[thejbs]

While I have no problem with the City goal (I do get why some do), it's ridiculous to even question our penalty.  If the header was goal-bound, into an empty net, there would be no conversation.  Just weird that 'it wasn't going in' is a narrative, despite that meaning nothing in the rules of the game.

[Avens]

(Unbelievable how opaquely the laws are written.)

This is from the Twitter VAR nerd Dale Johnson
https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1554069359307505667?s=20&t=UHHXuTg47rhvP6wiTZW-ug

By his interpretation, because it's a rebound from a keeper's spill (unlike the Schmeichel incident last December) having it under control is not the issue, the issue is whether there's a foul on Adrián. (At least I think that's what he means.)

In my opinion, there clearly is a foul, but I also think that referees are hard on players who are a bit crap, e.g. Adrián, who is well-known to be a bit of a disaster. You get punished for spilling a shot inside your own six-yard box. It's like how Xhaka gets sent off for every rough tackle where other players with less bad reputations get away with it: it fits the pre-conceived narrative. To add to that narrative factor, Adrián probably would've gotten away with it if he'd have rolled around and pretended he was really hurt, or pretended it was a head injury.

From my point of view, it's a clear foul on Adrián, but Adrián has to do better to avoid getting in that situation and not leaving it in the hands of the refs who are shite. Mind you, he's our third choice keeper, so I don't expect much more and thought he did OK in the rest of the game. Scott Carson is City's third choice keeper and their second choice keeper (Steffen) wasn't much cop either in the FA Cup semi-final.

Also the linesman shouldn't be flagging in that situation having spent the last two seasons not flagging anything even when it was clearly offside. When they flag now, players will expect that it's not even close to being onside. (I think this is a cock-up rather than a change in procedure though.)

Probably not the thread for this discussion but I've seen this said a fair bit since the weekend and I think it's ridiculous. It was a point blank save, an excellent save, that led to the ball being where it was and it was pretty quick reactions from Adrian that gave him the opportunity to even be "fouled" - at what point should he have done better?

[lamonti]

Probably not the thread for this discussion but I've seen this said a fair bit since the weekend and I think it's ridiculous. It was a point blank save, an excellent save, that led to the ball being where it was and it was pretty quick reactions from Adrian that gave him the opportunity to even be "fouled" - at what point should he have done better?

Agree to disagree. He palmed it into his own six yard area twice in the game. He should at least get it away from goal. If Alisson did that you wouldn't be happy. To be honest I don't expect much more. I was happy to see him clearing balls off the pitch, it's safe there. He was bad in 20/21, and I didn't expect him to get better out of the team while getting two years older. Like I said he's a solid number 3 who gets on well with the squad and I thought overall he had a decent game.

[Golyo]

Agree to disagree. He palmed it into his own six yard area twice in the game. He should at least get it away from goal. If Alisson did that you wouldn't be happy. To be honest I don't expect much more. I was happy to see him clearing balls off the pitch, it's safe there. He was bad in 20/21, and I didn't expect him to get better out of the team while getting two years older. Like I said he's a solid number 3 who gets on well with the squad and I thought overall he had a decent game.

You clearly have an agenda against Adrián. When questioned what he did wrong about the goal he conceded, you just don't answer but blame him for 20/21. You are a joke.

[Dull Tools]

(Unbelievable how opaquely the laws are written.)

This is from the Twitter VAR nerd Dale Johnson
https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1554069359307505667?s=20&t=UHHXuTg47rhvP6wiTZW-ug

By his interpretation, because it's a rebound from a keeper's spill (unlike the Schmeichel incident last December) having it under control is not the issue, the issue is whether there's a foul on Adrián. (At least I think that's what he means.)

In my opinion, there clearly is a foul, but I also think that referees are hard on players who are a bit crap, e.g. Adrián, who is well-known to be a bit of a disaster. You get punished for spilling a shot inside your own six-yard box. It's like how Xhaka gets sent off for every rough tackle where other players with less bad reputations get away with it: it fits the pre-conceived narrative. To add to that narrative factor, Adrián probably would've gotten away with it if he'd have rolled around and pretended he was really hurt, or pretended it was a head injury.

From my point of view, it's a clear foul on Adrián, but Adrián has to do better to avoid getting in that situation and not leaving it in the hands of the refs who are shite. Mind you, he's our third choice keeper, so I don't expect much more and thought he did OK in the rest of the game. Scott Carson is City's third choice keeper and their second choice keeper (Steffen) wasn't much cop either in the FA Cup semi-final.

Also the linesman shouldn't be flagging in that situation having spent the last two seasons not flagging anything even when it was clearly offside. When they flag now, players will expect that it's not even close to being onside. (I think this is a cock-up rather than a change in procedure though.)

If Foden hasn't touched the ball then it is a clear foul on Adrian. Either way it should be a foul.

I agree that all our team stopped when the flag went up. They do really need to clarify that.

[El Lobo]

It shouldnt have stood clearly, but I dont think its outrageous to say Adrian maybe should have done a little better with the initial shot. I know it was close range but it was pretty soft and straight at him.

[Avens]

Agree to disagree. He palmed it into his own six yard area twice in the game. He should at least get it away from goal. If Alisson did that you wouldn't be happy. To be honest I don't expect much more. I was happy to see him clearing balls off the pitch, it's safe there. He was bad in 20/21, and I didn't expect him to get better out of the team while getting two years older. Like I said he's a solid number 3 who gets on well with the squad and I thought overall he had a decent game.

I don't think anyone would be blaming Alisson if he did it, and I'd agree with that view.

It shouldnt have stood clearly, but I dont think its outrageous to say Adrian maybe should have done a little better with the initial shot. I know it was close range but it was pretty soft and straight at him.

The shot is from 7 yards out. Sure it wasn't the greatest strike but I think it's really harsh to expect any goalkeeper (Alisson included) to do anything more than simply stop it from going in. If he'd conceded from that initial shot I don't think anyone would be blaming him for the goal.

[Ghost Town]

Agree to disagree. He palmed it into his own six yard area twice in the game. He should at least get it away from goal. If Alisson did that you wouldn't be happy.

Alisson has done the same. Indeed, it was the biggest 'criticism' of him before he joined us that he tended to do that a bit. It's something that happens to all keepers at times. It's often a function of exact relative positions of keeper and ball and opposition players where palming into that area ends up being the only possible option if you are going to manage to make a save. I'd count it as something that's inevitable occasionally. Just, hopefully, not too often from a top keeper.

[gazzalfc]

Premier league will release the audio of VAR decisions after matches from this season...

It wont be live and I'm sure the PGMOL will make sure their ducks are in a row before its released but its a step

[Ghost Town]

Premier league will release the audio of VAR decisions after matches from this season...

It wont be live and I'm sure the PGMOL will make sure their ducks are in a row before its released but its a step

That sounds like good news. It might at least make refs and VAR think a bit less careless

[Hazell]

Premier league will release the audio of VAR decisions after matches from this season...

It wont be live and I'm sure the PGMOL will make sure their ducks are in a row before its released but its a step

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8uM0zOBuSw

[Dr Stu-Pid]

I think that one important note here is that the rule says that the GK is deemed to be in control of the ball when he has it "between the hands", not that they are deemed to be in control if they have two hands on the ball.  In the images on the last page Adrian has two hands on the ball, but the ball is not between his hands (or between his hands and the ground, or his hands and the ground) and he is instead trying to pull the ball back into his body.  For me he was never in control of the ball even by the definition posted, and would only have been in control once it was between his hands and his body.

It also states the GK cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball, but Foden and Adrian were competing for a loose ball, and at the time of the challenge Adrian did not have control (if he ever did).  If Adrian dives on the ball and then Foden comes in from the side and challenges him then it is a foul, but Adrian dives around Foden to get to the ball, so there was nothing really that Foden can do to avoid contact with Adrian. 

Either way though, the on-field referee didn't give a foul and I don't think that it was a clear and obvious error not to do so, and with VAR that is ultimately the question, not whether it was a foul in the first place.  If Pawson blows for a foul then VAR doesn't overturn that decision either IMO.

[Dave McCoy]

Premier league will release the audio of VAR decisions after matches from this season...

It wont be live and I'm sure the PGMOL will make sure their ducks are in a row before its released but its a step

They did this for the MLS returns tournament if I remember correctly. So pretty sure this is a Howard Webb initiative.

[Barneylfc∗]

I think that one important note here is that the rule says that the GK is deemed to be in control of the ball when he has it "between the hands", not that they are deemed to be in control if they have two hands on the ball.  In the images on the last page Adrian has two hands on the ball, but the ball is not between his hands (or between his hands and the ground, or his hands and the ground) and he is instead trying to pull the ball back into his body.  For me he was never in control of the ball even by the definition posted, and would only have been in control once it was between his hands and his body.

It also states the GK cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball, but Foden and Adrian were competing for a loose ball, and at the time of the challenge Adrian did not have control (if he ever did).  If Adrian dives on the ball and then Foden comes in from the side and challenges him then it is a foul, but Adrian dives around Foden to get to the ball, so there was nothing really that Foden can do to avoid contact with Adrian. 

Either way though, the on-field referee didn't give a foul and I don't think that it was a clear and obvious error not to do so, and with VAR that is ultimately the question, not whether it was a foul in the first place.  If Pawson blows for a foul then VAR doesn't overturn that decision either IMO.

There is precendent

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11913359/ref-watch-virgil-van-dijk-fouled-david-de-gea-for-liverpools-disallowed-goal-says-dermot-gallagher

Having 2 hands touching the ball is deemed having it under control according to Dermot Gallagher

[Dr Stu-Pid]

There is precendent

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11913359/ref-watch-virgil-van-dijk-fouled-david-de-gea-for-liverpools-disallowed-goal-says-dermot-gallagher

Having 2 hands touching the ball is deemed having it under control according to Dermot Gallagher

That isn't precedent.  If Dermot Gallagher saying something was precedent then precedent would change almost every week depending on which referee he is trying to defend.

Also, with that incident when De Gea has two hands on the ball, you could certainly say that the ball was 'between his hands'.  Whether I think it was a foul or not, the VAR obviously felt that had VVD not made contact with De Gea he would have had control of the ball.  De Gea also has the ball 'between his hands' before any contact with VVD, and VVD is jumping towards De Gea, not De Gea towards VVD.  I don't think these two incidents are similar enough to compare IMO.

[Barneylfc∗]

It is precendent. It's an example of a goalkeeper being deemed to have the ball under control and a goal being ruled out because an attacking player dispossess him.

[rob1966]

It shouldnt have stood clearly, but I dont think its outrageous to say Adrian maybe should have done a little better with the initial shot. I know it was close range but it was pretty soft and straight at him.

I think the fact that Foden doesn't get a clean contact caught him out. Adrian, like probably everyone in the stadium and watching on telly, expected that ball to go to his right, not come straight at him, he's tried to sweep it away to the side rather than knock it back into the 6yd area and just didn't get the contact he needed on the ball.

[Dr Stu-Pid]

It is precendent. It's an example of a goalkeeper being deemed to have the ball under control and a goal being ruled out because an attacking player dispossess him.

I think that you missed the joke that Dermot Gallagher would have said the exact opposite had VAR ruled the other way.  He has no consistency and contradicts himself from week to week and 90% of the time just sides with the referee or VAR.

[xbugawugax]

They did this for the MLS returns tournament if I remember correctly. So pretty sure this is a Howard Webb initiative.

i give it a week before they have it canned. for some insane reason as to protect the referee from any bias or some shit reason like upholding the integrity of the officials in the game.

we all know how well the PMGOL handle criticism of their own.