Premier League clubs to vote on scrapping VAR

[Tamworthram]

25 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

There was a VAR call yesterday in a Brazilian game that was so stupid that I can finally see why it’s ruining the game.

Basically a striker received a pass on the edge of the area and at that moment the defender slid in. The striker lifted the ball over the sliding defender, before scoring.

Everything looked completely normal but VAR disallowed it.

The reason being… As the striker lifted the ball over the defender, the ball hits the defenders arm, ricochets up and then hits the striker’s elbow (arm tucked in, ball behind the striker). In normal play you can’t see this and it’s completely unintentional. The striker isn’t even looking at the ball after the initial ricochet.

The goal was disallowed because it supposedly hit the striker’s arm before he scored.

But the irony is, the defender slid in and the ball hit his arm first. However, by VAR rules, they can’t interfere as this happened just outside the box.

Incident happens at 2:40

 

I agree with your sentiment but not your conclusion. VAR wasn’t at fault here but the referee was weak. He should have, after viewing the replay, ruled that the attackers arm wasn’t making his body unnaturally bigger and allowed the goal. It was his call. Sadly though, it seems rare that the referee chooses to stick with their original decision.

[Bris Vegas]

38 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I agree with your sentiment but not your conclusion. VAR wasn’t at fault here but the referee was weak. He should have, after viewing the replay, ruled that the attackers arm wasn’t making his body unnaturally bigger and allowed the goal. It was his call. Sadly though, it seems rare that the referee chooses to stick with their original decision.

VAR was the one who advised the referee to look at the monitor. VAR would only do that if they believe the original decision shouldn't stand. I agree the on-field referee should have stuck with the original decision.

But some other official out there looked at the replays and decided that goal shouldn't stand. Bonkers.

I don't know if it's true or not, but it feels the introduction of VAR has seen more goals chalked off than penalties awarded (missed by the on-field referee). We see goals disallowed all the time now that would have stood pre VAR. 

VAR has a place in the game. It can work for offsides and major incidents. It shouldn't be used for situations like these though. Half the team and bench got booked right after as they went mental at the decision.

Edited July 28 by Bris Vegas

[Tamworthram]

9 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

VAR was the one who advised the referee to look at the monitor. VAR would only do that if they believe the original decision shouldn't stand. I agree the on-field referee should have stuck with the original decision.

But some other official out there looked at the replays and decided that goal shouldn't stand. Bonkers.

I don't know if it's true or not, but it feels the introduction of VAR has seen more goals chalked off than penalties awarded (missed by the on-field referee). We see goals disallowed all the time now that would have stood pre VAR. 

VAR has a place in the game. It can work for offsides and major incidents. It shouldn't be used for situations like these though. Half the team and bench got booked right after as they went mental at the decision.

Very true but VAR only advise/suggest the referee views what they've seen (as I understand it).

The referee has to make the decision which doesn't have to agree with the VAR official.

[IslandExile]

I'm anti-VAR but the handball rules have become ludicrous. That's a different issue.

[Animal is a Ram]

20 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

VAR was the one who advised the referee to look at the monitor. VAR would only do that if they believe the original decision shouldn't stand. I agree the on-field referee should have stuck with the original decision.

But some other official out there looked at the replays and decided that goal shouldn't stand. Bonkers.

I don't know if it's true or not, but it feels the introduction of VAR has seen more goals chalked off than penalties awarded (missed by the on-field referee). We see goals disallowed all the time now that would have stood pre VAR. 

VAR has a place in the game. It can work for offsides and major incidents. It shouldn't be used for situations like these though. Half the team and bench got booked right after as they went mental at the decision.

None of this happens if the handball rules aren't totally unfit for purpose.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

1 hour ago, Animal is a Ram said:

None of this happens if the handball rules aren't totally unfit for purpose.

Agreed. Its really simple. If the ball plays the hand its play on. If the hand plays the ball its hand ball.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Agreed. Its really simple. If the ball plays the hand its play on. If the hand plays the ball its hand ball.

How do you define “the ball plays the hand”?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

17 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

How do you define “the ball plays the hand”?

When the ball travels to the hand 

[Tamworthram]

30 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

When the ball travels to the hand 

So what if the players in a defensive wall made it taller by having their arms in the air or wider by having their arms away from their body a little? What if a defender on the line prevents a goal by reaching out their arm and the ball hits it? What if a defender is trying to prevent a forwards from crossing the ball by having their arms stretched out? What if a defender, defending a corner, has their arms in the air and the ball hits it? What if a forward deflects the ball into the net by reaching their arm so that ball hits it?

I don’t think it would be acceptable for play to continue in any of these scenarios hence the rules about making the body unnaturally bigger and deliberate action (regardless of whether the ball travels to the arm or the arm moves towards the ball)

Edited July 29 by Tamworthram

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

17 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

So what if the players in a defensive wall made it taller by having their arms in the air or wider by having their arms away from their body a little? What if a defender on the line prevents a goal by reaching out their arm and the ball hits it? What if a defender is trying to prevent a forwards from crossing the ball by having their arms stretched out? What if a defender, defending a corner, has their arms in the air and the ball hits it? What if a forward deflects the ball into the net by reaching their arm so that ball hits it?

I don’t think it would be acceptable for play to continue in any of these scenarios hence the rules about making the body unnaturally bigger and deliberate action (regardless of whether the ball travels to the arm or the arm moves towards the ball)

In each of those scenarios an effort has been made to potentially play the ball with the arm. Hand ball would be the decision. 

[Tamworthram]

49 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

In each of those scenarios an effort has been made to potentially play the ball with the arm. Hand ball would be the decision. 

Agreed, there is clearly an intention to play the block the ball but such scenarios surely wouldn't fail the basic "ball travels to hand" test which means it can't be as simple as "ball to hand" or "hand to ball".

I don't think there's a great deal that can be done to improve on the current rules. It's just the referees failure to interpret them reasonably and have the courage to go against the VAR recommendation to review. 

[Alph]

Years ago the handball rule didn't seem like a massive problem. 

I'm fact football rules didn't seem like a massive problem. 

Maybe the problem is that the solution to no problems is that a problem has been created and that now needs a new solution because the solution that was originally created to fix a problem that didn't exist wasn't created to be the solution to the problems it's created. 

Call me FIFA bro. 

[Mucker1884]

6 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

I don't think there's a great deal that can be done to improve on the current rules. It's just the referees failure to interpret them reasonably and have the courage to go against the VAR recommendation to review. 

 

I reckon they should just allow the use of hands, and have done with all this drama!

Obviously, that would make it easy to score a goal, so perhaps reduce the size of the goal to about a foot or so in diameter... and put it 6 foot or so off the ground.
It might also help if the players are forced to wear the initials of their on-pitch position instead of numbers... and perhaps tiny pleated skirts.

Just a thought.

 

 

 

 

 

... and a regular thought, at that, to be fair.  

[maydrakin]

As soon as any club official complains about VAR, other than Wolves, I hope the interviewer suggests that was what they voted for, so did their employer get it wrong when voting for it to be maintained.

[Eddie]

4 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

 

I reckon they should just allow the use of hands, and have done with all this drama!

Obviously, that would make it easy to score a goal, so perhaps reduce the size of the goal to about a foot or so in diameter... and put it 6 foot or so off the ground.
It might also help if the players are forced to wear the initials of their on-pitch position instead of numbers... and perhaps tiny pleated skirts.

Just a thought.

 

 

 

 

 

... and a regular thought, at that, to be fair.  

Brown Fox, when playing for Fulchester United, got pulled up for 'breast ball'.