VAR again

[CANARYKING 634]

So Ben White kicks Harry Kane in the penalty area and ……………

[Yellow Green Army 237]

No pen

[Yellow Green Army 237]

Says it all really.

[Well b back 3,186]

Yep VAR didn’t even look

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I will ask again. So why did whichever corrupt p***k was doing VAR in our game persuade the ref to change his decision? It stinks. 

[alex_ncfc 644]

12 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I will ask again. So why did whichever corrupt p***k was doing VAR in our game persuade the ref to change his decision? It stinks. 

This is something I really don't like about VAR - previously all decisions were left on the pitch, but the ref was clearly willing to let Kabak's challenge go. Now there's the opportunity for someone to overturn a ref's decision, even if they "just feel like it" - there's more opportunities for corruption. VAR was touted as making sure everyone had a fair chance and there was no more big club advantage, but what is any different? If someone in a room miles and miles away decides they don't want little Norwich getting anything, then they will still ensure that is the case!

[splendidrush 699]

8 hours ago, alex_ncfc said:

This is something I really don't like about VAR - previously all decisions were left on the pitch, but the ref was clearly willing to let Kabak's challenge go. Now there's the opportunity for someone to overturn a ref's decision, even if they "just feel like it" - there's more opportunities for corruption. VAR was touted as making sure everyone had a fair chance and there was no more big club advantage, but what is any different? If someone in a room miles and miles away decides they don't want little Norwich getting anything, then they will still ensure that is the case!

.... I said this when VAR was first mooted, it's just another way to ensure the big Clubs maintain their dominance. After a season or two, to allow things to settle down,  we're now seeing blatant poor decisions at the expense of the smaller Clubs...... it's almost like the Premiership only want larger/well supported Clubs to occupy the Premiership...... they'd rather Sunderland,  Wednesday and Stoke in exchange for us, so don't expect any favours. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[Matt Juler 148]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

That's different Jim, the Villa player is clearly holding the keeper, not just standing in his way... 🙄

[Baracouda 47]

1 hour ago, splendidrush said:

.... I said this when VAR was first mooted, it's just another way to ensure the big Clubs maintain their dominance. After a season or two, to allow things to settle down,  we're now seeing blatant poor decisions at the expense of the smaller Clubs...... it's almost like the Premiership only want larger/well supported Clubs to occupy the Premiership...... they'd rather Sunderland,  Wednesday and Stoke in exchange for us, so don't expect any favours. 

it doesn't take a lot to make an impact one or two key decisions throughout the season, can really change the odds of events happening.

Bit like FFP, the football politicians say its about being fair but a clubs wages, transfers etc have to be inline with their income, so technically its impossible to 'buy' yourself into the elite clubs now whilst we get hammered by the media and fans for not spending insane amounts, I believe if we spent what some want we would be in breach of FFP rules. 

Its quite clear that the 'Super League' clubs push the authorities into corners to protect their own interests, bit like their proposal for the premiership to be an 18 club division. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Baracouda

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 hour ago, Matt Juler said:

That's different Jim, the Villa player is clearly holding the keeper, not just standing in his way... 🙄

Yes but this goal was given Matt. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 hour ago, Baracouda said:

it doesn't take a lot to make an impact one or two key decisions throughout the season, can really change the odds of events happening.

Bit like FFP, the football politicians say its about being fair but a clubs wages, transfers etc have to be inline with their income, so technically its impossible to 'buy' yourself into the elite clubs now whilst we get hammered by the media and fans for not spending insane amounts, I believe if we spent what some want we would be in breach of FFP rules. 

Its quite clear that the 'Super League' clubs push the authorities into corners to protect their own interests, bit like their proposal for the premiership to be an 18 club division. 

To be fair it’s not just big clubs getting decisions so perhaps it’s just complete incompetence. 

[Matt Juler 148]

On 27/09/2021 at 08:53, Jim Smith said:

Yes but this goal was given Matt. 

You didn't get the sarcasm! 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Bringing this back to the top I see the English team of aofficials managed to mess up the Nations League Final again last night by demonstrating their idiotic (or essentially just make it up as you go along interpretation of the offside rul for Mbappe's winning goal. 

[ncfcstar 287]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Bringing this back to the top I see the English team of aofficials managed to mess up the Nations League Final again last night by demonstrating their idiotic (or essentially just make it up as you go along interpretation of the offside rul for Mbappe's winning goal. 

Now I still think it should have been disallowed, but explanation above.  Needs a rule change if we want to fix it permanently.

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 minute ago, ncfcstar said:

Now I still think it should have been disallowed, but explanation above.  Needs a rule change if we want to fix it permanently.

 

 

Its not a correct decision. That Dale Johnson loves to explain how decisions are technically correct to defend the refs. I assume tyhey are relying on the following?

"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent"

This also builds on this new found nonsense approach that seems to have emerged that every touch by a player is a new "phase" of play which did for us at Arsenal.

Mbappe is offside when the through ball is played and he becomes active when he plays the ball.

That other line is clearly not referring to this sort of scenario, its talking about someone interfering with play by intercepting a back pass or something like that. 

[ncfcstar 287]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Its not a correct decision. That Dale Johnson loves to explain how decisions are technically correct to defend the refs. I assume tyhey are relying on the following?

"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent"

This also builds on this new found nonsense approach that seems to have emerged that every touch by a player is a new "phase" of play which did for us at Arsenal.

Mbappe is offside when the through ball is played and he becomes active when he plays the ball.

That other line is clearly not referring to this sort of scenario, its talking about someone interfering with play by intercepting a back pass or something like that. 

You can assume, why not read the thread of tweets and then we can have a discussion based on what you and I think.  I personally think it should be offside as well.

[pete 318]

Never considered the corruption aspect only considered ineptitude.  But the power given over to the singular VAR official to disallow or allow goals gives the individual unique opportunity to fix matches.  Particularly the French goal where the touch by the Spanish player is questionable no significant deviation.

[Baracouda 47]

he was offside when the pass was made and with the clear intention of passing to him. Whilst he is making a run/movement to receive the pass. At that point he should be offside. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Baracouda

[Jim Smith 2,314]

4 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

You can assume, why not read the thread of tweets and then we can have a discussion based on what you and I think.  I personally think it should be offside as well.

Sorry i've read it now. I wsn;t having a go at you if thats how it came across. I just find the current trend of officials twisting and interpreting the rules incredibly frustrating. When you ask any of them (or indeed this Johnson chap) where it says something in the rules they just say "thats how its interpreted" - case in point being that every touch is a new phase of play. i thought we were done at Arsenal though the application of the same interpretation (i.e. that when Aubamayang scored it was somehow a new phase of play just because Pepe fell over and the ball came off his ankle with him knowing nothing about it. 

In my view, if you are offside in the immediate build up to a goal and you end up sticking the ball in the net then you have become active in doing so and its an offside offence.

In this case, that rule about a defender deliberately playing the ball is not meant for a situation such as this where he tries to intercept it and gets an unintentional deflection on the ball. 

[Big O 225]

I don’t get why they have over complicated the offside rule with all these phases of play interpretations. Surely the old fashioned one of interfering with play should suffice. Is Mbappe interfering with play? Yes, therefore offside. Simple. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

19 minutes ago, Big O said:

I don’t get why they have over complicated the offside rule with all these phases of play interpretations. Surely the old fashioned one of interfering with play should suffice. Is Mbappe interfering with play? Yes, therefore offside. Simple. 

I agree. They appear to have got in a mess by creating a contradiction between the fact that the key moment in the decision is when the ball is passed/played but the offence does not get penalised until the receiving player becomes active.

in my opinion whilst it may not be penalised until the player becomes active, the offence occurs at the moment the ball is passed (ie it’s sort lf retrospective) so if that player subsequently receives a ball meant for him (or played in his general direction) and benefits from the fact he was offside then that should be that. 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Jim Smith

[Big O 225]

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

I agree. They appear to have got in a mess by creating a contradiction between the fact that the key moment in the decision is when the ball is passed/played but the offence does not get penalised until the receiving player becomes active.

in my opinion whilst it may not be penalised until the player becomes active, the offence occurs at the moment the ball is passed (ie it’s sort lf retrospective) so if that player subsequently receives a ball meant for him (or played in his general direction) and benefits from the fact he was offside then that should be that. 

 

I concur. Maybe we need to get ourselves jobs at POGMOL Jim? 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

23 minutes ago, Big O said:

I concur. Maybe we need to get ourselves jobs at POGMOL Jim? 

In fairness to the refs (who I don’t have a lot of time for) the rules have become unclear as well, even before you introduce all the “guidance” and interpretations that seem to evolve. 
 

Thecrules now say (don’t know when this came in or if they’ve always said it) that if an offside player is fouled before they get to the ball you give the foul because it occurred before the offside offence but I don’t think that should be the case for the reasons discussed above. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

What happened to the old rule that said if the ball comes off a defender it can't be offside?  When did that stop being a thing? 

[Naturalcynic 628]

2 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

What happened to the old rule that said if the ball comes off a defender it can't be offside?  When did that stop being a thing? 

On the subject of rules that seem to have disappeared, what happened to obstruction?  Referees never blow up for this, even though defenders “shepherding the ball out” clearly have no intention of playing the ball and are blatantly preventing the opposing player from getting to it. 

[essex canary 491]

19 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

What happened to the old rule that said if the ball comes off a defender it can't be offside?  When did that stop being a thing? 

Isn't it the correct interpretation as discussed earlier on in this thread that the defenders intervention must/ought to be a deliberate act, not simply a deflection.

[essex canary 491]

18 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

On the subject of rules that seem to have disappeared, what happened to obstruction?  Referees never blow up for this, even though defenders “shepherding the ball out” clearly have no intention of playing the ball and are blatantly preventing the opposing player from getting to it. 

Fair question in general though a defender shepherding a ball out has always been legal providing he retains the ball in playing distance in doing so.

[lake district canary 4,531]

33 minutes ago, essex canary said:

54 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

What happened to the old rule that said if the ball comes off a defender it can't be offside?  When did that stop being a thing? 

Isn't it the correct interpretation as discussed earlier on in this thread that the defenders intervention must/ought to be a deliberate act, not simply a deflection.

That interpretation is to do with "phases" of play, which is fairly recent thing.  I'm talking about the original rule of years ago that said if the ball comes off a defender last, it can't be offside.  It was simple and clear, everyone understood it.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

2 hours ago, lake district canary said:

What happened to the old rule that said if the ball comes off a defender it can't be offside?  When did that stop being a thing? 

The rule is that if the ball is deliberately played by a defender to an offside player then they are not offside.