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

[Kashinoda]

I'd be fuming if we conceded a penalty like that. So would 4pool, despite his experiment in the park.

Things went wrong for Jota when he mis-controlled the ball and sent it away from the goal. It's clear what happened next. He hit the goalie with the ball nowhere to be seen. Only Diogo will know whether he ran towards the goalie and away from the escaping ball on purpose or whether it was 'momentum' that took him there. But it matters not a jot. The ball was somewhere else.

A foul is a foul, doesn't really matter where the ball is. You don't really get to get away with it just because the ball is elsewhere, that's the NFL not Football.

In this instance Jota's mis-control is so bad the ball is still in play as he's flat on the floor, so even going by your logic it's not 'nowhere to be seen'.

[slaphead]

That's not a penalty for me. The easy way to tell is ask yourself, if that was City getting a bit nervous about Palace possibly nicking a point, and they got that, would you sit here now and say that was a penalty ?  If so fair play, if not then it's not a penalty.  Mad how split everyone is on it mind

[Yorkykopite]

A foul is a foul, doesn't really matter where the ball is. You don't really get to get away with it just because the ball is elsewhere, that's the NFL not Football.

That's not quite true. A player usually has to be in control of the ball for a foul to be given against him. The exception is obviously 'obstruction'. But even here the player has to be obstructed while trying to move towards the ball (as Cavani was the other night). Jota was clearly moving towards the keeper not the ball. The ball was "nowhere to be seen" in the sense that it had gone off in another direction completely because of our man's poor touch.

[red_Mark1980]

That's not quite true. A player usually has to be in control of the ball for a foul to be given against him. The exception is obviously 'obstruction'. But even here the player has to be obstructed while trying to move towards the ball (as Cavani was the other night). Jota was clearly moving towards the keeper not the ball. The ball was "nowhere to be seen" in the sense that it had gone off in another direction completely because of our man's poor touch.

So you can foul someone off the ball? What absolute nonsense

[pathetic]

It's not a penalty we usually get so it's obvious there would be some noise made about it. If it was against us I would be fuming as Jota quite clearly walks into the keeper once he loses the ball. But then again, their keeper had no business going out like that and he was asking for something like this to be done. I'm sure that if this happened to City or United it would be business as usual for the pundits and clever player by the respective player.

[Yorkykopite]

So you can foul someone off the ball? What absolute nonsense

Exactly.

[Samio]

So you can foul someone off the ball? What absolute nonsense

It's a mad theory. Genuinely.

Imagine if that was 'actually' true. You could get 3 attacking players to take out 3 defending players off the ball, then leave a 1-on-1 for an attacker against a defender.

[zadoktBeast]

So you can foul someone off the ball? What absolute nonsense

Yes you can. Outside the box you can't, but inside the box you definitely can, e.g. after the striker has got their shot away

That's the way it's always been in every level of football from the park to the Prem, and everyone innately understands it

[carling]

Soft pen but it feels a bit like an NFL move when the keepers come flying out and 'block' the space.  Footy should be about seeing if the striker can score past the keeper, not having the keeper wipe out whatever is in front of him with the hope he gets a touch on the ball.

[Yorkykopite]

Soft pen but it feels a bit like an NFL move when the keepers come flying out and 'block' the space.  Footy should be about seeing if the striker can score past the keeper, not having the keeper wipe out whatever is in front of him with the hope he gets a touch on the ball.

In this instance the keeper was coming out to try and block the ball not the 'space'. But Jota mis-controlled the ball and sent it in another direction completely. Rather than chase the escaping ball Jota continued his run towards the keeper.

As redMark1980 explained above you cannot do this simply because the ball isn't there. It's a foul. On the keeper.

It reminded me of that other poor decision when Calvert-Lewin decided to leave the ball that was rolling towards the Annie Road touchline and move into Lovren instead. It was really a foul on Lovren but the idiot ref gave a penalty to Everton instead.

I can think of an instance when the referee got it right though. The European Cup Final v Tottenham. Kane decided that he couldn't outpace Matip in the box and therefore ignored the rolling ball and moved instead into Matip knocking them both to the ground. Yesterday's referee might well have fallen for that and given Tottenham a spot kick.

[Funky_Gibbons]

In this instance the keeper was coming out to try and block the ball not the 'space'. But Jota mis-controlled the ball and sent it in another direction completely. Rather than chase the escaping ball Jota continued his run towards the keeper.

As redMark1980 explained above you cannot do this simply because the ball isn't there. It's a foul. On the keeper.

It reminded me of that other poor decision when Calvert-Lewin decided to leave the ball that was rolling towards the Annie Road touchline and move into Lovren instead. It was really a foul on Lovren but the idiot ref gave a penalty to Everton instead.

I can think of an instance when the referee got it right though. The European Cup Final v Tottenham. Kane decided that he couldn't outpace Matip in the box and therefore ignored the rolling ball and moved instead into Matip knocking them both to the ground. Yesterday's referee might well have fallen for that and given Tottenham a spot kick.

Do you mean last years penalty CL won against Trent?

[carling]

In this instance the keeper was coming out to try and block the ball not the 'space'. But Jota mis-controlled the ball and sent it in another direction completely. Rather than chase the escaping ball Jota continued his run towards the keeper.

As redMark1980 explained above you cannot do this simply because the ball isn't there. It's a foul. On the keeper.

It reminded me of that other poor decision when Calvert-Lewin decided to leave the ball that was rolling towards the Annie Road touchline and move into Lovren instead. It was really a foul on Lovren but the idiot ref gave a penalty to Everton instead.

I can think of an instance when the referee got it right though. The European Cup Final v Tottenham. Kane decided that he couldn't outpace Matip in the box and therefore ignored the rolling ball and moved instead into Matip knocking them both to the ground. Yesterday's referee might well have fallen for that and given Tottenham a spot kick.

But I think Jota was trying to push off with his right foot and try to get the ball before it went out.  He couldn't do that because the keeper was there after rushing the space without an awful lot of consideration of the ball.  I just think it would be better in these scenarios if the keeper wasn't so aggressive, hate it when these moments come down to whether it was a penalty or not. 

[idontknow]

But I think Jota was trying to push off with his right foot and try to get the ball before it went out.  He couldn't do that because the keeper was there after rushing the space without an awful lot of consideration of the ball.  I just think it would be better in these scenarios if the keeper wasn't so aggressive, hate it when these moments come down to whether it was a penalty or not.

Agree, Jota was definitely still going for the ball and if he hadn't been brought down there was a good chance he would have got to it. A tight angle to score from, but certainly not impossible. Although where the goalkeeper would have been if he hadn't rushed out, who can say?
Definitely a penalty though.

[Yorkykopite]

Do you mean last years penalty CL won against Trent?

That was weird wasn't it? No I meant the 1-1 draw in 2017 when CL ignored the ball and moved himself into Lovren instead.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Honestly. Baffles me how some people think it wasn't a penalty.

The way some people are talking is as if the keeper was like a parked car and Jota crashed into him.

The keeper is literally still sliding towards Jota at the point of contact... I implore people to watch the clip, but just watch the keeper a few times - he's so stupid.

I think it's one of them where you can use the video to suit whatever narrative you want to build. Don't think it was a penalty? Just watch Jota's movement and the evidence supports you. Think it was a penalty? Watch the keeper and the evidence supports you.

I think the controversial element is that it was overturned, which doesn't fit with the above and goes against incidents we have seen time and time again this season.

[Funky_Gibbons]

That was weird wasn't it? No I meant the 1-1 draw in 2017 when CL ignored the ball and moved himself into Lovren instead.

I thought you meant last years when he shot then ran into Trent a few steps later who was laying on the floor, also very similar to the Jota incident. Didn’t VAR tell the referee to look at that again but he glanced at the screen for about 10s and stuck with his original decision? One of the few times that’s happened.

Conclusion, DCL is a cheat.

[Yorkykopite]

I thought you meant last years when he shot then ran into Trent a few steps later who was laying on the floor, also very similar to the Jota incident. Didn’t VAR tell the referee to look at that again but he glanced at the screen for about 10s and stuck with his original decision? One of the few times that’s happened.

Conclusion, DCL is a cheat.

Yes, that was broadly similar to yesterday's incident. The 'action' had already happened if you like. DCL had had his original shot saved. Jota had failed to chip the keeper. DCL then ran into Trent who was still going through with his (failed) tackle to stop the original shot. Jota then ran into the Palace goalie who was still going through with his (abortive) attempt to stop the original chip. Neither were pens.

[FlashGordon]

Yes, that was broadly similar to yesterday's incident. The 'action' had already happened if you like. DCL had had his original shot saved. Jota had failed to chip the keeper. DCL then ran into Trent who was still going through with his (failed) tackle to stop the original shot. Jota then ran into the Palace goalie who was still going through with his (abortive) attempt to stop the original chip. Neither were pens.

One difference though Yorky is Trent and Calvert Lewin were both moving in the same direction whereas Jota and the keeper were always going to collide.

[zadoktBeast]

Never a pen. I hate VAR and scandalous decisions like that, so I have to call it out when it (albeit rarely) favours us as well. It's ruining people's ancient sense of natural justice on the pitch.

Anyone who's played the game knows in their bones that isn't a penalty. The common-sense/nous understanding of the rules is what has guided us since the Bronze Age, and here's the key thing: THESE RULES DON'T WORK IF YOU WRITE THEM DOWN. What VAR has done is hypnotise everyone with the litigious spirit, and led us into an infinite-calculus nightmare of granular scrutiny

[Yorkykopite]

One difference though Yorky is Trent and Calvert Lewin were both moving in the same direction whereas Jota and the keeper were always going to collide.

Possibly true. But then who fouled who?

The key thing in the whole incident for me is that Jota gets his chip horribly wrong and takes the ball out of the equation. The goalie doesn't seem to do anything wrong. His movement is not "too aggressive' (as someone claimed above). In fact he's barely moving. Nor is he "blocking space" (as someone else said). He has eyes for the ball only. He lowers himself, as goalies always do, as they near the ball. And he raises two hands to stop Jota's chip.

[Black Bull Nova]

I didn't think it was a penalty but then I don't think many of the given ones are and the degree to which things like wrestling and holding in the area is ignored is criminal.


Penalties (and to a degree offside) have just gone all over the place and VAR is only partially helping because its the officials (on the pitch and off) who are the problem, especially in terms of their consistency.

[Dr Stu-Pid]

In this instance the keeper was coming out to try and block the ball not the 'space'. But Jota mis-controlled the ball and sent it in another direction completely. Rather than chase the escaping ball Jota continued his run towards the keeper.

All of his momentum is taking him towards the goal and away from the ball, so in order to change direction he has to be able to place his leg further to the right to be able to push off it.  You say that he 'continued his run towards the keeper' but it was literally two steps in maybe half a second.  People (mainly pundits) make it seem that he changed direction from towards the ball to towards the keeper, but that was already his natural direction and he was trying to push off to change direction towards the ball IMO.

Also, if you deliberately change direction to initiate contact from a 6 foot 3 inch GK who weighs probably 14 stone and is sliding towards you at pace, don't you think it would be a natural instinctive reaction to raise your arms to deflect the impact and protect yourself?

I also don't see why the fact that he mis-hits/ mis-controls the ball has any impact on the decision?  The keeper has gambled everything on blocking the shot, as he knows that as long as he makes contact with the ball then it can't be a foul (unless it is studs up, high, or reckless).  Ironically if Jota gets the touch that he actually wants then the keeper probably saves it as he is close enough that getting the ball over him would have been very tough.  But he doesn't and the ball rolls to a position where it is still in play and where Jota can still reach it, so now the keeper is in trouble because he can't avoid the contact and can't get a touch on the ball.  It's always been the case that if the striker gets to the ball first and the keeper makes contact that it is a penalty, even if the touch from the striker is away from goal and even if it is heavy and likely to run out of play.

[zadoktBeast]

1. Would anyone here honestly be calm if that was given against us (as they always are)? I'd have boiling piss comin out my eyeballs

2. People need to STOP using the argument 'anywhere else on the pitch that's a simple foul blah blah!' - the rules in the box are different. I'm not talking about the written-down on paper, codified rules, I'm talking about the REAL rules akin to the spirit of the game. Most people on here have played many games of footy and understand this difference, but VAR and the slow-mo's have made you forget

[Dr Stu-Pid]

Okay, moving away from whether it was actually a penalty or not, I wanted to talk about the decision making process from VAR. 

In the Spurs v Liverpool game the non-penalty decision by the on-field referee couldn't be over-ruled according to ex-referees because what the on-field referee described to VAR matched the events on the pitch.  He said that Jota slowed down which initiated the contact, which was somewhat true, so at that point it is a subjective decision and not a clear and obvious error (even though it was definitely a penalty).

If we assume the above is correct and non just PGMOL and the referees union trying to cover their backs, then presumably that means that the on-field referee described something very different to the actual on-field events and so they could recommend a review?  Did he maybe think that the defender gets a touch on the ball?  Or the keeper blocks it and it then rebounds off Jota?  Or maybe that there wasn't any contact between Jota and the GK, or at least only very minimal contact?

[zadoktBeast]

Okay, moving away from whether it was actually a penalty or not, I wanted to talk about the decision making process from VAR. 

In the Spurs v Liverpool game the non-penalty decision by the on-field referee couldn't be over-ruled according to ex-referees because what the on-field referee described to VAR matched the events on the pitch.  He said that Jota slowed down which initiated the contact, which was somewhat true, so at that point it is a subjective decision and not a clear and obvious error (even though it was definitely a penalty).

If we assume the above is correct and non just PGMOL and the referees union trying to cover their backs, then presumably that means that the on-field referee described something very different to the actual on-field events and so they could recommend a review?  Did he maybe think that the defender gets a touch on the ball?  Or the keeper blocks it and it then rebounds off Jota?  Or maybe that there wasn't any contact between Jota and the GK, or at least only very minimal contact?

VAR is a logical fallacy which reasons: 'the refs can;t always have a 100% game on their own, so let's help them out by adding two more refs. 3 refs are better than 1 and have a better chance of getting everything 100% right'.

Whereas we dinosaurs who grew up loving the game AS WAS ('member?) KNOW that 3 refs means DEATH BY COMMITTEE.

Putting it simply, too many Milk-monitor cucks spoil the broth

[thejbs]

I don’t think there’s a single Liverpool fan who wouldn’t be fuming had that penalty decision gone against us instead of for. We’ve had many more stonewall pens turned down by var.

[Lee1-6Liv]

Jota goes to nudge the ball to his right over the keeper, he takes a step in this direction, notices he has missed the ball and tries to correct his run but in this time he is taken out by the keeper. I can see why people think he initiated the contact but he is looking to follow the flight of where he thinks he has touched the ball.

[lamonti]

What's Guaita meant to do? He comes out to close Jota down and Jota just side steps into him.

He could try not clattering into Jota for a start.

[lamonti]

If I were Palace I'd be more annoyed at our second not being disallowed than the pen. Benefitted us today but VAR is still shit.

Agreed. This should be offside.

[FlashGordon]

Agreed. This should be offside.

This is the one their should be uproar about he clearly tries to play the ball in an offside position.

[Lusty]

A perfect example of why VAR was always doomed to fail, because if you can have so many contrasting opinions even a day after the event when we've all had as many angles and replays as you want, you have to accept that these things are subjective and you might as well just let a human being on the pitch make a decision.  VAR hasn't added anything here (except from an LFC perspective), you still have a decision that 50% of fans are angry about.

Personally I am one of those who would be pissed off if it was given against us.  Although I might be just as pissed off with the goalkeeper in that scenario.  Even if you think it's a foul though, a penalty is such a disproportionate punishment given what actually happens so it's exactly the kind of situation where you want a human to use their common sense.

[clinical]

Very rare we've been able to come and here on say we got away with one yesterday. In fact when did that last happen?

Just shows you we're owed a few. 

[MH41]

Jota goes to nudge the ball to his right over the keeper, he takes a step in this direction, notices he has missed the ball and tries to correct his run but in this time he is taken out by the keeper. I can see why people think he initiated the contact but he is looking to follow the flight of where he thinks he has touched the ball.

This is exactly what has happened.
He tried to lift it over the keeper, with the outside of his right foot and follow the ball. He hasn't executed it the way he intended. But that's why he has moved to the right.

[slaphead]

Is what Jota done there different from what Kane does every game ?  Put his body where naturally it wasn't going and getting a foul in the process ?
I'm asking because I hear people saying if that was Kane or someone they would be described as clever.

[red_Mark1980]

This is the one their should be uproar about he clearly tries to play the ball in an offside position.

But how does that impact play? Their player can't suddenly teleport to Ox.

He's chosen to mark Firmino. He's not getting to Ox. If Bobby doesnt jump he's still in the same position.

[wige]

But how does that impact play? Their player can't suddenly teleport to Ox.

He's chosen to mark Firmino. He's not getting to Ox. If Bobby doesnt jump he's still in the same position.

I think it's more that a player in an offside position makes a clear attempt to play the ball.

[Elzar]

Is what Jota done there different from what Kane does every game ? 

Yes, because Jota does it naturally while trying to take a shot. Not to initiate contact like Kane does. 

[red_Mark1980]

I think it's more that a player in an offside position makes a clear attempt to play the ball.

He needs to impact play. So in a scenario where it's a longer ball and the player sees Firmino jumping for the ball and closes him down yes. Absolutely.

In the scenario on Sunday the guy "impacted" isn't impacted by Bobby's jump.
If he doesn't jump the lad can't do anything different. He's not suddenly going to turn around and close Ox down.

[JRed]

Is what Jota done there different from what Kane does every game ?  Put his body where naturally it wasn't going and getting a foul in the process ?
I'm asking because I hear people saying if that was Kane or someone they would be described as clever.

You’re forgetting that Jota is not the England captain, so it’s entirely different.

[Elzar]

He needs to impact play. So in a scenario where it's a longer ball and the player sees Firmino jumping for the ball and closes him down yes. Absolutely.

In the scenario on Sunday the guy "impacted" isn't impacted by Bobby's jump.
If he doesn't jump the lad can't do anything different. He's not suddenly going to turn around and close Ox down.

Yeah, it's a shocking law but this is what relates to Firmino:

challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent

He didn't challenge anyone for the ball as they were nowhere near it despite jumping. He didn't impact the defender as again, the defender would have been nowhere near it regardless.

Basically, due to the quality of Robertsons balls being played directly at Ox, rather than just "in a good area", it takes Firmino out of the case.

Load of shite if you ask me - he's offside