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

[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

[thaddeus]

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

It's all very vague.  Bobby was offside and was being marked by their defender.  The interpretation seems to be that had he not jumped he was never going to given offside (although he was still drawing the defender away from Ox) but because he jumped and got nowhere near the ball he should have been offside.  He did jump though, the VAR officials checked and still decided he wasn't.  Had the linesman flagged would VAR have overruled it?!

It was nice to come out on top of debatable decisions as we've often been on the other side of them.  I'm just echoing what's been said hundreds of times already but VAR has only really served to show that the speed of the game being too much for officials wasn't ever really the big issue that it was made out to be.  It just seems like two sets of officials seeing the same footage and working from the same rule book will repeatedly come up with different interpretations (just as pundits do; Neville repeating for two minutes that Kane didn't foul Thiago Silva compared to the MotD commentator saying it was a clear foul).

I guess the best we can ever hope for is that the dice fall our way when it matters and go against us in games where it doesn't make any difference.

[rushyman]

Look Jotas bought that

If it was an opposing player I’d be going mad so I’m not going to be a complete hypocrite

But we are still easily the best behaved in the league fit doing it. Salah was at it in his early years now doesnt, Mané also though he does do it still here and there

The worst behaved is a toss up between United and Spurs. The two main men being kane and Fernandes

But I have simply never, ever seen a cheat like Fernandes in my life. Neymar is the only one that comes close so united edge it.

[JRed]

The offside rule is just ridiculous anyway. Yes a case could be made for Firmino being ruled offside although he didn’t actually touch the ball.
However, the scorer of Palace’s goal gained a clear advantage by being in an offside position, had he not been offside at the time the ball was passed through to his teammate then he would not have been in the position to score.

[KevLFC]

Var didn't check Firmino was offside did they?

[Elzar]

The offside rule is just ridiculous anyway. Yes a case could be made for Firmino being ruled offside although he didn’t actually touch the ball.
However, the scorer of Palace’s goal gained a clear advantage by being in an offside position, had he not been offside at the time the ball was passed through to his teammate then he would not have been in the position to score.

Yep, City use this to their advantage a lot with players almost goal hanging waiting for cut backs. It's a shite rule.

Var didn't check Firmino was offside did they?

Yes they check everything, they concluded he didn't influence play.

[thaddeus]

Var didn't check Firmino was offside did they?

I might be wrong but I think they routinely check every goal for offside.  It's quite possible though that they had a customary glance at Ox - who was clearly onside - and didn't check Firmino.

[Alan_X]

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.

In one. He was trying to dink it over the keeper. Missed it and you can see he is looking to go after the ball which is bouncing slowly towards the touchline. Maybe he wouldn't have got it but he didn't get the chance because the keeper, who didn't get anywhere near the ball, prevented him from trying.

Penalty.

What is ridiculous is that it's being talked about as if it wasn't the 89th minute and Liverpool weren't already 2-1 up.

[redgriffin73]

What did Peter Walton or whoever it was have to say about the decision on the penalty and Ox's goal?

Edit - and the Palace goal. Does he comment on them all or only contentious VAR decisions?

[Alan_X]

The offside rule is just ridiculous anyway. Yes a case could be made for Firmino being ruled offside although he didn’t actually touch the ball.
However, the scorer of Palace’s goal gained a clear advantage by being in an offside position, had he not been offside at the time the ball was passed through to his teammate then he would not have been in the position to score.

Still don't get how the pass to Edouard was a second phase of play when it was all one move.

"The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession.

Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack."

The momentum of the attack was continuous and the defence didn't have a chance to reset.

If Edouard wasn't offside, then surely any player can goal hang and just wait for a pull back because everything up to the moment the assist is made is a different phase of play?

[KillieRed]

Perhaps someone should try the goal hanging, say at the 6 yard box out of the eye line of the goalie. See what happens.

[red_Mark1980]

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

People can talk and debate and in years gone by we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. The lino puts his flag up and that's it.

Within the laws he's been deemed to have no impact. Ergo. Goal.

[red_Mark1980]

Perhaps someone should try the goal hanging, say at the 6 yard box out of the eye line of the goalie. See what happens.

If he's clearly offside and not impacting he's not offside. A player injured by the corner flag isn't offside. Clearly if Firmino gets a touch he's offside.

If there's another defender who when Robertson plays the ball leaves ox and runs towards Bobby as he's jumping he's off .
There is nothing the palace defender can do or the goalkeeper.

[Gods_Left_Boot]

Still don't get how the pass to Edouard was a second phase of play when it was all one move.

"The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession.

Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack."

The momentum of the attack was continuous and the defence didn't have a chance to reset.

If Edouard wasn't offside, then surely any player can goal hang and just wait for a pull back because everything up to the moment the assist is made is a different phase of play?

The way the offside law is interpreted now, basically any time a player makes a deliberate play or attempt to play the ball, it's a new "phase of play". If Schlupp's pass had accidentally ricocheted off of Matip or Virg into the path of Edouard, it would have been offside. Once the ball gets to Matete, Edouards's original position becomes irrelevant.

As for the second bolded bit, yes, that would be within the rules.

[Elzar]

For a funny example of how bad the offside rule is now, look at the first VAR disallowed goal. City vs West Ham, in this video Sterling is given offside due to the top of his arm, but Jesus is not offside despite being nowhere near the defence.

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/11782373/first-use-of-var-in-pl

[Alan_X]

For a funny example of how bad the offside rule is now, look at the first VAR disallowed goal. City vs West Ham, in this video Sterling is given offside due to the top of his arm, but Jesus is not offside despite being nowhere near the defence.

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/11782373/first-use-of-var-in-pl

I have to say I missed that change. I used to know the Laws of the Game but that is fucking ridiculous. When they say 'attacking phase of play' it means 'last pass'. Got it.

[Elzar]

I have to say I missed that change. I used to know the Laws of the Game but that is fucking ridiculous. When they say 'attacking phase of play' it means 'last pass'. Got it.

It's nonsense, and completely misinterprets what the offside rule was meant to rule out in the first place.

[Gods_Left_Boot]

The gold standard for how horrendous this new interpretation of the offside law is, is the goal France scored against Spain on the final of the Nation's League. Mbappe started his run from an offside position, but since the Spain defender "deliberately attempted to play the ball" by sliding in and slightly deflecting the throughball to Mbappe, it was considered a new phase of play and the goal was allowed to stand.

[Alan_X]

And just to go back to the Jota decision. Am I right in thinking the keeper can do whatever the fuck he likes if the attacker is deemed to have lost control of the ball?

[JRed]

Still don't get how the pass to Edouard was a second phase of play when it was all one move.

"The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession.

Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack."

The momentum of the attack was continuous and the defence didn't have a chance to reset.

If Edouard wasn't offside, then surely any player can goal hang and just wait for a pull back because everything up to the moment the assist is made is a different phase of play?

Exactly. Sure a ‘phase of play ‘ should be when a period of attacking play has broken down or stalled. For Edouard to be onside is completely unfair to the defending team.

[FlashGordon]

If he's clearly offside and not impacting he's not offside. A player injured by the corner flag isn't offside. Clearly if Firmino gets a touch he's offside.

If there's another defender who when Robertson plays the ball leaves ox and runs towards Bobby as he's jumping he's off .
There is nothing the palace defender can do or the goalkeeper.

Isn't the law ''attempt to play the ball'' though or has that now gone from the verbiage? He certainly attempted to play the ball.

[Elzar]

Isn't the law ''attempt to play the ball'' though or has that now gone from the verbiage? He certainly attempted to play the ball.

It's "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent" - the 2nd part which means Firmino wasn't offside here.

[50 Pence]

I'm not buying that the 2nd goal should have been disallowed. If you watch the build up, Mitchell commits to Bobby from the moment the ball is switched. Ox is left completely free as everyone is running toward the box & Robbo`s cross is clearly meant for Ox because he was free at the back post.

The Palace goal,  I think the initial pass was meant for the offside Edouard who was the focus of Virgils attention. But it was a poor , over-hit pass that ended up falling perfectly for the onside Mateta who then set up the initially offside Edouard

[KillieRed]

If “these things even themselves out” this season we will finish top of the VAR League & no one will have a legitimate reason to complain about it.

[JRed]

If “these things even themselves out” this season we will finish top of the VAR League & no one will have a legitimate reason to complain about it.

If they even themselves out we will have a dodgy decision in our favour in every game til the end of next season!

[redgriffin73]

If they even themselves out we will have a dodgy decision in our favour in every game til the end of next season!

We must still be getting the decisions from the 19/20 season as well!

[JRed]

We must still be getting the decisions from the 19/20 season as well!

Crazy isn’t it. We have been well and truly fucked over so many times by VAR , yet one decision goes in our favour and people can’t handle it.

[redgriffin73]

Crazy isn’t it. We have been well and truly fucked over so many times by VAR , yet one decision goes in our favour and people can’t handle it.

And at a point in the game where it most likely made no difference to the outcome. I'd swap yesterday's penalty for one at Spurs for sure.

[wige]

And just to go back to the Jota decision. Am I right in thinking the keeper can do whatever the fuck he likes if the attacker is deemed to have lost control of the ball?

It's not just keepers and when an attacker loses control. Defenders are completely free to utterly wipe someone out as long as they get their shot away.

Countless times where I've seen a defender come flying in, get nowhere near the ball, clatter a striker but because the shot was away and saved/blocked elsewhere that the challenge is ignored.

I do feel like a lot of this falls into those weird 'unwritten' rules of footy though, like events in penalty areas being judged differently from those outside, or very very early bad challenges rarely leading to reds etc etc.

[4pool]

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.

I've read similar many times in the post match thread and in here.

And this statement is wrong. Plenty would say it was a pen. Plenty would say Alisson or Kelleher were unlucky but shouldn't have been sliding into the player---because we know the Refs/Var would give a pen against us.

[Fortneef]

If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.

Ah well.  Hoping we get our luck in a 3/6 pointer rather than a 1 pointer.   
 

[jillcwhomever]

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.

Exactly which is why to me the goalie has stopped Jota from having a second touch of the ball. He has taken out the player, he didn't get anywhere near the ball.

[El Lobo]

Hugely surprised to see the one time Dermot Gallagher calls out his mates is when it benefited us

[Hazell]

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.

Having watched it back, that's definitely the case, it seems pretty obvious actually. Jota tried to move the ball to his right and didn't get the right connection but his body was still moving that way because that's where he expected the ball to go. He then realised where the ball was actually going and tried to move it back a split second before contact with the keeper. While I can understand Vieira's frustration, the more I see, the more it looks like a penalty but I'm still surprised they deemed it a clear and obvious error after Friend didn't give it initially.

I'm not surprised at the furore surrounding it, although like others have said, there wasn't as much when Burnley won a penalty at Anfield last season despite the ball being gone or Kane moving into Cash in order to win a penalty last season

[ArcticRed]

It's almost as if Klopp had a point when he commented on how everyone wants to dissect and discuss the one time we get a decision our way, while for all the decisions against us there's not a word. C*nts, the lot of them.
We should just piss them all off even more by winning the lot

[Armand9]

the simple fact is, they blather on more about a 'pen' when it is given, than when it is not given - tho they're equally important decisions imo

as we rarely get a fucking pen decision then i expect them to bang on about a controversial one we get, as opposed to one we clearly should've but didn't get, eg spurs one on jota (tho all commentators i heard regarding it said it was a ridiculous decision and clearly a pen)