Good job this didn’t cost us

[Jim Smith 2,578]

Well done again VAR 

[cambridgeshire canary 7,759]

To be fair goalkeepers are thankfully a very protected breed these days. So much as a slight pull, tug or nudge to them and the whistles getting blown 

Edited January 17, 2022 by cambridgeshire canary

[hogesar 10,695]

I expected a free kick to be given. Put it this way, had the ref blown for a free-kick (albeit in this case let's pretend there was a slight delay in him doing so) there's no way VAR would be overturning and giving the goal

[Jim Smith 2,578]

10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I expected a free kick to be given. Put it this way, had the ref blown for a free-kick (albeit in this case let's pretend there was a slight delay in him doing so) there's no way VAR would be overturning and giving the goal

My point was that it’s offside. Two/three players clearly offside when the cross comes in. One challenges Krul for the ball and another sticks it in the net afterwards! 

[Greavsy 2,626]

In real time I thought there was a foul on Krul - or at least he was impeded. 

Arent 3 everton players offside with the cross is being made in the first pic? 

[king canary 8,733]

Am I missing something? What was VAR supposed to do here?

[Jim Smith 2,578]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

Am I missing something? What was VAR supposed to do here?

Rule the goal out for offside. 

[hogesar 10,695]

34 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

My point was that it’s offside. Two/three players clearly offside when the cross comes in. One challenges Krul for the ball and another sticks it in the net afterwards! 

Oh f*ck me! You're completely right! Wait, why didn't VAR rule it out then? Godfrey is offside, and definitely interfering with play. Arguably with the Cantwell offside that VAR gave against us the other two are just as involved.

[hepphep 175]

True! Didn't spot during the game, but that seems like very clear case.

[hogesar 10,695]

Cheers Jim, now I'm fuming about VAR all over again

[hogesar 10,695]

F*ck the corrupt Premier League - absolutely ZERO excuse why this wasn't addressed?!

[Thirsty Lizard 3,211]

Good effing grief. Was the up the other end so didn't realise offside might have been an issue - and surprisingly (not) it wasn't picked up by MOTD. That's an absolute scandal!!!

[Greavsy 2,626]

Maybe its wasnt looked at as much as we didnt protest, like schmeichel did for the Cantwell one. 

im a little confused by the score caption in those still tho, as it say its 2-1, but it was obviously 2-0 at the time of the incident / their goal? Unless they are from the replay I guess? 

[Ian 1,204]

Wow, that is an absolute shocker from VAR.

[canarydan23 4,748]

23 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Rule the goal out for offside. 

Absolutely spot on. No idea how that wasn't overturned. Pathetic.

[Ian 1,204]

Just watched a slow-mo replay myself and whilst it's tight, it's a definite offside. The fact the player is coming from further offside makes me wonder how it was possible for VAR to miss this.

It really does make me question the point of it entirely. However, one of our players should have picked up on it and made it clear to the ref, as it appears VAR only applies if you complain about a decision...

[canarydan23 4,748]

And balls to a this it didn't cost us anything, the stress at the end has probably taken 5 years off the end of my life!

[Mr Angry 1,977]

Richarlison was offside when the cross came in but that’s irrelevant as he didn’t touch the ball in that phase or interfere with Krul etc and he certainly wasn’t offside in the next phase when he scored. 
 

Godfrey was also offside and he challenged Krul for the cross but he didn’t make contact with the ball-I think it was Keane-so I’m not sure if that would have been given, and I’m not sure if there was a foul on Krul.

[canarydan23 4,748]

Just now, Mr Angry said:

Richarlison was offside when the cross came in but that’s irrelevant as he didn’t touch the ball in that phase or interfere with Krul etc and he certainly wasn’t offside in the next phase when he scored. 
 

Godfrey was also offside and he challenged Krul for the cross but he didn’t make contact with the ball-I think it was Keane-so I’m not sure if that would have been given, and I’m not sure if there was a foul on Krul.

Erm, Cantwell v Leicester?

[Danbury Yellow 126]

At the time I didn’t pick up the offside element, but I certainly thought Krul was fouled while trying to punch away the ball.  This sent him downwards in an unnatural way thus stopping any chance of a) a longer punched clearance and b) a better starting place to make a save.  
I assumed VAR reviewed it, watching the replays I stand by the foul, and now the offside too.

No consistency.  Or do people feel it’s genuine bias?  

Edited January 17, 2022 by Danbury Yellow

[hogesar 10,695]

2 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Erm, Cantwell v Leicester?

Exactly this. Also, if the offsides were tighter than the stills suggest we should have been told about VAR checking in the stands - it was as if VAR didn't even look at it.

21 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Maybe its wasnt looked at as much as we didnt protest, like schmeichel did for the Cantwell one. 

 

I mean if that's how VAR is going to work then the entire basis on "not surrounding refs" etc is lost - and makes them look even morre inept than they actually are.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,256]

For me it's no coincidence that at the start of the season we were getting absolutely shafted by refs and VAR and since we've been pretty much dead and buried things have started to even out a bit for us and we've been on the side of some calls. If we put a few results together and look like we might get out of this mess expect a return to us being cheated every game again.

As for this call? Incompetence, the officials got swept up in the quality of the goal and simply forgot to check

[Mr Angry 1,977]

4 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Erm, Cantwell v Leicester?

Erm, Todd was stood in an offside position in front of Schmeichel when Kenny headed the ball-nobody was stood in front of Timmy when Richarlison connected.

[Jim Smith 2,578]

36 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Cheers Jim, now I'm fuming about VAR all over again

As we won I can live with it this week but it just goes to show you can’t trust em!

[hogesar 10,695]

8 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Richarlison was offside when the cross came in but that’s irrelevant as he didn’t touch the ball in that phase or interfere with Krul etc and he certainly wasn’t offside in the next phase when he scored. 
 

Godfrey was also offside and he challenged Krul for the cross but he didn’t make contact with the ball-I think it was Keane-so I’m not sure if that would have been given, and I’m not sure if there was a foul on Krul.

You don't need to make contact with the ball, you just need to be interfering with play. Challenging the goalkeeper in the air can't be anything other than that.

[canarydan23 4,748]

So standing still in front of a keeper in an offside position despite the fact that the keeper could clearly see around said player, and said player never came close to contact with the keeper, is correctly ruled offside by VAR.

But standing still in front of a keeper in an offside position, and then jumping up with that keeper as he attempts to collect the ball, actually make physical contact with that keeper to make his job of collecting the ball impossible, becoming a factor in why the keeper has to punch it away, should not be ruled offside? Presumably you subscribe to the idea that Godfrey WASN'T interfering with play?!

Edited January 17, 2022 by canarydan23

[Jim Smith 2,578]

12 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Richarlison was offside when the cross came in but that’s irrelevant as he didn’t touch the ball in that phase or interfere with Krul etc and he certainly wasn’t offside in the next phase when he scored. 
 

Godfrey was also offside and he challenged Krul for the cross but he didn’t make contact with the ball-I think it was Keane-so I’m not sure if that would have been given, and I’m not sure if there was a foul on Krul.

Pretty sure if any offside player challenged Krul for the ball they become active and thus offside.

with Richarliason it’s a bit more nuanced because I think it depends if Kruls touch counts as a save or not. But it’s irrelevant because Godfrey was offside. 

[chicken 3,071]

7 minutes ago, Danbury Yellow said:

No consistency.  Or do people feel it’s genuine bias?  

I'm not sold on any "genuine" bias... but I am more and more inclined to believe that there is at least subconscious bias going on in the premier league these days.

I feel it's a circle that feeds itself. The media is all hyped for the top sides and the newly promoted sides, or relegation threatened sides barely get a mention. The PL is the same in it's own approach to selling itself. The top sides ARE more important. They bring in more money. More revenue.

I think there was an article someone once linked to, just about the psychology of a ref being able to address each player in a team on a first name basis. Perhaps that's true for a lot of fans too, we could probably give the full names of most of the players in the top six sides and our own, but may struggle outside of that unless you are incredibly committed and able to / want to memorise things like that.

And if you know someone on a first name basis, how does that play out on the pitch? I can't help but see how extreme the media has become about the 'top six' hype now and it simply has to have some influence in some way shape or form.

VAR though is just shockingly implemented. Again, it will favour the top sides in this division more, because typically they have the better players to attack with so have more decisions in the opponents half than the other way around. If you only get one or two reviews a game compared to 6-7, it stands to reason that more decisions will come out on top for the 6-7 than the 1-2.

[It's Character Forming 1,204]

Good spot by the OP, that's a shocker of a decision, should've been an easy one for VAR to spot.

[Mr Angry 1,977]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

So standing still in front of a keeper in an offside position despite the fact that the keeper could clearly see around said player, and said player never came close to contact with the keeper, is correctly ruled offside by VAR.

But standing still in front of a keeper in an offside position, and then jumping up with that keeper as he attempts to collect the ball, actually make physical contact with that keeper to make his job of collecting the ball impossible, becoming a factor in why the keeper has to punch it away, should not be ruled offside? Presumably you subscribe to the idea that Godfrey WASN'T interfering with play?!

I said I wasn't sure-I checked the offside law after the Todd incident and again after the Aubameyang goal but I couldn't remember what it said in every situation.

I've just read it again and yes, Godfrey challenging for the keeper, having been offside when the cross came in, should have been given offside