Liverpool vs Sheff Utd, Sat 24 Oct 20.00h - Premier League

[Leo No.8]

2 hours ago, kop205 said:

What was his original decision? I thought he'd given a penalty initially, then it seemed like they were setting up for a free kick.

His original decision was 100% free kick, he did the TV motion to show VAR had over ruled his decision.

[RBM]

One of the main problems with VAR is that is being operated by the same group of referees using the already existing bias that they show on the pitch. 
 

I don’t want to get all tin hatted about it, but there is no way we get reffed impartially. 

[D.Boon]

12 hours ago, Tommy Cockles said:

Didn’t watch a frame. Couldn’t be happier. 

Didn't even clock the score till midnight when I was pissed. Just seen the highlights. Another horrendous VAR away from a 2-0 win is my horrifically hungover take.

[Stanley Leisure]

2 minutes ago, RBM said:

One of the main problems with VAR is that is being operated by the same group of referees using the already existing bias that they show on the pitch. 
 

I don’t want to get all tin hatted about it, but there is no way we get reffed impartially. 

Think I agree. There’s no way Coote forgot the rules for the VVD challenge as well as fabricating the Mané offside. 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Stanley Leisure

[Tommy Cockles]

20 minutes ago, Stanley Leisure said:

Think I agree. There’s no way Coote forgot the rules for the VVD challenge as well as fabricating the Mané offside. 

If I’m a ref Utd are getting nothing that can construed as marginal. Nothing.

Which is why, if I was a ref, I should never get one of their games.

[Ombudsam]

There’s not a refereeing conspiracy against Liverpool Football Club.

Anyway, winners win and we won. Just do that.

[Molby]

1 minute ago, sammy & a said:

There’s not a refereeing conspiracy against Liverpool Football Club.

Anyway, winners win and we won. Just do that.

This word ‘conspiracy’ gets over-used

you can still get to a place you don’t want to be without riding the conspiracy train

take the assassination of JFK for example 

[kop205]

50 minutes ago, Dan said:

If Mane's goal last week was VAR applying the laws properly then it can f*** off.

It wasn't though was it. He was visibly onside.

[Rory Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, Ibby said:

Fab got the ball and the lads foot if it was touching the line at impact you would need a bloody microscope to see it.

Absolute farce of a decision.

At the time, I was concerned on the 1st replay. A very small part of his foot is touching the line so - if it was a foul then it was a penalty, that was my worry. I've since come the conclusion that the initial decision could have been made more based on sound than vision (potential blocked view and scream of McBurnie), and that TV pictures don't conclusively show Fabinho kicking the ball 1st without standing on the top of McBurnie's foot.

For the foul, the ref does not have a great view of it as there is a player blocking his view. Also, he waits momentarily and in that moment there is a scream from McBurnie, he then blows when the shot is blocked.

To give a foul, I think he must have come to one of two conclusions;

1. McBurnie layed it off and Fabinho kicked his foot, or
2. Fabinho came over the top of McBurnie's foot, like a 'stamp' and kicked it that way

From the replays, VAR could rule out #1 but #2 was a judgement call and stuck with the ref. Thereafter, they focused on the line and inside/outside call.

I think the thought process of VAR was almost like Van Dijk last week, there was such a focus on where the line/foot was, that they overlooked another key incident. If that happens well inside the box and the ref points for a penalty, they would look purely at the tackle and tell the ref that Fabinho clearly kicks the ball, the follow through catches McBurnie (which is ok as it wasnt excessive), but they cant tell if Fabinho kicked/stood-on the strikers foot at the moment of kicking the ball. The conclusion I come to from the pictures is that "If I cant see it, I cant give it" - the VAR seems to come to the conclusion "If I cant see it, it doesnt mean it didnt happen, so I trust the referee"

It comes back to the ref making the initial call - with not a perfect view (and after a few seconds) - and VAR trusting the call and limiting their judgement to the exact place of the offence. 

[Dan]

2 minutes ago, kop205 said:

It wasn't though was it. He was visibly onside.

Looked like it. Regardless, can't imagine many celebrated our equaliser last night for similar reasons. I'd rather human error in real time than this nonsense.

[Rory Fitzgerald]

10 minutes ago, Dan said:

Looked like it. Regardless, can't imagine many celebrated our equaliser last night for similar reasons. I'd rather human error in real time than this nonsense.

Yeah, I didnt budge for the Firmino goal and was listening to the commentator to say if VAR was reviewing. However, I bloody celebrated Salah's goal. What a piece of skill that was, I was still nervous of offside but the touch and finish meant I couldnt not celebrate.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Rory Fitzgerald

[psl]

Having followed the game on here, I was definitely expecting to be more angry about the Fabinho pen than I was now I've seen the highlights.

Edited October 25, 2020 by psl

[Rory Fitzgerald]

1 minute ago, psl said:

Having followed the game on here, I was definitely expecting to be more angry about the Fabinho pen than I was.

I think there was doubt on Mike Dean's side and if it was clearly inside the box, I don't think he wouldn't be confident enough to give a penalty. 

 

 

[Swipe]

5 minutes ago, psl said:

Having followed the game on here, I was definitely expecting to be more angry about the Fabinho pen than I was now I've seen the highlights.

He got the ball. I’ve seen loads of those kind of tackles lauded on replay as just getting enough of the ball. 

[growler]

The idea of VAR is solid - the implementation has been appalling. So many ex pros, refs, coaches etc. these are th best behind the screen??

use a thick brush for the offside line for the two players and if the lines overlap, it’s onside. Once you remove the marginal, half the issues disappear. 
 

then put 1 representative from each club in the room. If they cant agree on a decision in 30 seconds, on pitch ref uses the monitor.

[Rory Fitzgerald]

3 minutes ago, Swipe said:

He got the ball. I’ve seen loads of those kind of tackles lauded on replay as just getting enough of the ball. 

Yeah, loads of slide tackles that catch the leg first with momentum carrying through to knock the ball away. VAR seemed* to be looking at the replay from the Main Stand camara alot from behind McBurnie to see the location of the foot - but that that camara completely blind-sides the viewer to the impact of Fabinho's foot. 

*I cant be 100% sure on that but from memory, alot seemed to be from behind McBurnie

Edited October 25, 2020 by Rory Fitzgerald

[Cunny]

He gets ball and player. I think it is a foul.

I would expect a foul to be given for us in that scenario.

That is subjective but I don’t think it is a clear and obvious error for VAR to overrule.

He is technically in the penalty area.

 

[Ombudsam]

19 minutes ago, Molby said:

This word ‘conspiracy’ gets over-used

you can still get to a place you don’t want to be without riding the conspiracy train

take the assassination of JFK for example 

This is true but there’s also something for just using the word that summarises the concept which is being described.

[Swipe]

9 minutes ago, Cunny said:

He gets ball and player. I think it is a foul.

I would expect a foul to be given for us in that scenario.

That is subjective but I don’t think it is a clear and obvious error for VAR to overrule.

He is technically in the penalty area.

 

Practically every sliding tackle takes the player too. I’d actually not have been that bothered if it was the old system and the ref missed it cos it was a tight one but VAR is supposed to be for things like this. 
 

A nonsense decision. 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Swipe

[Tommy Cockles]

Have always believed VAR should be a coaches challenge system. 1 a half or 2 per game or whatever.

The arbitrary way they look at some things but not others is absurd.

[kop205]

23 minutes ago, growler said:

 

then put 1 representative from each club in the room. If they cant agree on a decision in 30 seconds, on pitch ref uses the monitor.

This is one of the few things that could actually make the current system worse. Kudos.

[Hassony]

21 minutes ago, Swipe said:

Practically every sliding tackle takes the player too. I’d actually not have been that bothered if it was the old system and the ref missed it cos it was a tight one but VAR is supposed to be for things like this. 
 

A nonsense decision. 

You can't give this as a penalty but not give the West ham one earlier if you're applying the same rules 

[Earl Hafler]

21 minutes ago, Swipe said:

He got the ball. I’ve seen loads of those kind of tackles lauded on replay as just getting enough of the ball. 

Exactly.

Wasn't dangerous, there was no trailing leg; possibly a midfielders tackle and where Virgil would have just stayed upright but it's not a penalty. At the very least, there is no way of being that confident it was in the area 

It's an underdog thing. A leveler to keep the league interesting 

[Hassony]

Just now, Earl Hafler said:

Exactly.

Wasn't dangerous, there was no trailing leg; possibly a midfielders tackle and where Virgil would have just stayed upright but it's not a penalty. At the very least, there is no way of being that confident it was in the area 

It's an underdog thing. A leveler to keep the league interesting 

I would have been less angry if Dean had given it as a penalty straight away, the fact that he gave it outside and VAR changed it to a penalty despite it not being clear enough, is the most frustrating part 

[Hightown Phil]

His foot is very clearly on the line, you can debate if it was a foul or not but I don't see how a picture of him with his foot on the line is up for debate.