Everton and VAR

[Seamus Colemole]

I guess I have issue with 3 things on this:

1) What is "clearly obstructing?" Dictionary seems to suggest this means prevent or hinder. I don't know what level of "in the way" = obstruction of sight, but I would presume it is more than 1%, and so "marginally in the line of sight" does not equal "clearly obstructing." It's of course impossible to know what De Gea's line of sight is, but it does appear that De Gea is clearly tracking the ball before and after deflection in an unhindered manner.
2) "Clear and obvious" error seems a 2x issue when laid on top of "clearly obstructing." I know it's argued that offsides is binary, but this is not an issue of whether he was offside, it is an issue of whether he was obstructing, which is a value call. Is it "clear and obvious" that the ruling on the field was incorrect?
3) Finally, is Maguire's deflection considered "an opponent who deliberately plays the ball" ? If so, then it's not even offside to begin.



This is really #2, again. Whether you consider it potentially disallowable or potentially allowable is very different from whether you consider the decision on the field a "clear and obvious error." The correction should be based on incontrovertible evidence.

Yeah, it's pretty much not a "clear and obvious" mistake by the onfield ref, but we've seen all season that when it comes to offside, PL VAR officials are going by "was it offside or not" regardless of the clear and obvious bit. As for Maguire, i don't think thats considered a "deliberate play" because using common sense can usually tell the difference between that and a deflection, which this was. He adjusted his feet and took a step as the ball hit his heel but i don't think he was trying to play the ball, it just hit him. I know he's pretty bad but not bad enough to do that.

Like i said before, i think it should have stood, but i can see what the justifciation was in law for disallowing it.

 

[Minimeister]

Watching Ask the Ref or whatever it’s called on Sky Sports, you could see the exasperation on the Sky interviewer’s face when Dermot Gallacher refuted his argument that it should have stood, and then Warnock also said it should have been given! On the plus side, Carlo has made us relevant again, him going onto the pitch has meant half the country is arguing over this.

This is a massive point for me. For years teams have been robbed and nothing ever gets questioned. It all helps to keep the establishment at the top. The fact he has done that has meant it can't be swept under the carpet.

Also I could never imagine Moyes doing this because he worried about his future career prospects. Carlo doesn't have such worries.

 

[LEONARD]

If our finishing could be a bit more clinical, we could live with these dodgy VAR decisions.

We could and should have been 3-1 up, and none of this would have mattered.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Yeah, it's pretty much not a "clear and obvious" mistake by the onfield ref, but we've seen all season that when it comes to offside, PL VAR officials are going by "was it offside or not" regardless of the clear and obvious bit. As for Maguire, i don't think thats considered a "deliberate play" because using common sense can usually tell the difference between that and a deflection, which this was. He adjusted his feet and took a step as the ball hit his heel but i don't think he was trying to play the ball, it just hit him. I know he's pretty bad but not bad enough to do that.

Like i said before, i think it should have stood, but i can see what the justifciation was in law for disallowing it.

I haven't paid attention to Maguire on the replay, but that makes sense. Regarding Sigurdsson, I'm afraid Moss stupidly conflated offside (which is a binary decision, per rules implementation) with obstruction, which is not a black or white issue, so to speak.

 

[Tipp blue]

When seeing decisions that cause debate I do always try and think how I'd feel if it was against Everton, in this case I feel that I would have accepted that it was a penalty for the foul on Gilfi but I probably would have argued that the offside could have gone either way given the vagueness of the rules.. so in my opinion on this event if you are disallowing the goal then it must be a penalty.

 

[TommyDavo]

Yeah, it's pretty much not a "clear and obvious" mistake by the onfield ref, but we've seen all season that when it comes to offside, PL VAR officials are going by "was it offside or not" regardless of the clear and obvious bit. As for Maguire, i don't think thats considered a "deliberate play" because using common sense can usually tell the difference between that and a deflection, which this was. He adjusted his feet and took a step as the ball hit his heel but i don't think he was trying to play the ball, it just hit him. I know he's pretty bad but not bad enough to do that.

Like i said before, i think it should have stood, but i can see what the justifciation was in law for disallowing it.

The off-side law was changed so that “goals” like Sunday’s were not disallowed. VAR is examining every goal and looking for a reason to disallow it, which I am sure was not the intention.

 

[blue61]

The off-side law was changed so that “goals” like Sunday’s were not disallowed. VAR is examining every goal and looking for a reason to disallow it, which I am sure was not the intention.

Fiddling about with the laws of the game is a huge part of the problem. I've never liked this 'secondary phase' thing. Offside should be offside when the initial ball is played, which in this case is DCL's shot. Sadly, in my eyes it's offside.

 

[TommyDavo]

Fiddling about with the laws of the game is a huge part of the problem. I've never liked this 'secondary phase' thing. Offside should be offside when the initial ball is played, which in this case is DCL's shot. Sadly, in my eyes it's offside.

But that is not the current law. If the 61 in your name refers to a d.o.b, then we are of a similar age and I agree with your sentiment, but it is no longer a black and white decision, hence for me it should stand

 

[blue61]

But that is not the current law. If the 61 in your name refers to a d.o.b, then we are of a similar age and I agree with your sentiment, but it is no longer a black and white decision, hence for me it should stand

You are correct in your assumptions, my point was that the law change has only caused more argument, proven by the bit in bold. The modern game is becoming a farce, I'd rather run the risk of another 'Clive Thomas' incident than have to put up with the farce of VAR for all eternity.

 

[Cool_Blue]

I like that fella who argues with ferret head Gallagher.

I'd love him to go one further and say to him "with all these mistakes that referees are doing week in week out, along with the VAR official, it's no wonder that no wonder none were selected for the last World Cup and surely that trend is set to continue as its only got worse"

 

[Jeff Jones]

I've been following this controversy on the match thread and have read only the last five pages of this VAR thread. Has there been any mention of the incident where Moise Kean was held down with hands on his shoulders in the goalmouth a few minutes earlier? It was very clear and very obvious so why didn't VAR do the job it's there for and give the penalty?
On the matter of the disallowed goal, it's been reported that VAR chalked it off because Sigurdsson blocked De Gea's view of the ball when and after it was kicked. We now know that he had a clear view of it, so, VAR got it wrong. There can be no more argument. The Everton haters won't give up on it, but I don't care.

 

[bcblue1878]

Var is perfect for refs on the pitch. If there not sure they just go to var. They don't have to make a decision now. If they make a decision and var overturns it there is no comeback on them. Great time to be a premier referee

True this, and it's ruining the game! Should be used as it is in Rugby, there the referee uses it when unsure of a decision and requests its use to get the decision correct (most of the time)! It's never if ever being used for "clear and obvious" decisions - how can it be when two virtually identical handballs in the same game are treated differently (Leicester v Man City)? How is it clear and obvious when someone can be offside by an armpit or a big toe?

The responsibility for running the game should be with the referee on the pitch, and not lie with the VAR to go looking for reasons to disallow a goal!

Finally, and I've said it before on here, what do we really expect when the bloke responsible for the implementation of VAR is Mike Riley - one of the most incompetent of a very long line of incompetent referees to ever (dis)grace a football pitch!

 

[mrb85]

Yeah, it's pretty much not a "clear and obvious" mistake by the onfield ref, but we've seen all season that when it comes to offside, PL VAR officials are going by "was it offside or not" regardless of the clear and obvious bit. As for Maguire, i don't think thats considered a "deliberate play" because using common sense can usually tell the difference between that and a deflection, which this was. He adjusted his feet and took a step as the ball hit his heel but i don't think he was trying to play the ball, it just hit him. I know he's pretty bad but not bad enough to do that.

Like i said before, i think it should have stood, but i can see what the justifciation was in law for disallowing it.

But the fact that it was a call that has split opinion means that it should have never have been made in the first place - fine if the ref has requested the VAR official to call it but not where the ref has already decided. Then when Fatboy Moss has the benefit of video to make that call how on earth does he come to the conclusion that Sigurddson was in any way interfering with play (particularly as Sigurdsson hadn't interefered with play for the previous 93 minutes!).
I don't believe that any refs are consciously biased - but then again the subconscious mind is a very powerful human influence.

 

[mrb85]

If our finishing could be a bit more clinical, we could live with these dodgy VAR decisions.

We could and should have been 3-1 up, and none of this would have mattered.

Not relevant to this debate.

 

[mrb85]

Fiddling about with the laws of the game is a huge part of the problem. I've never liked this 'secondary phase' thing. Offside should be offside when the initial ball is played, which in this case is DCL's shot. Sadly, in my eyes it's offside.

I'd agree with your first sentence, totally, particularly where the laws are being changed in order to facilitate decison-making for the VAR official (as with the crazy new handball rule). But the issue on Sunday was not a secondary phase issue; it was purely to do with interfering with play and whatever segment of the video is looked at there is absolutely no way Sigurddson is interfering with the course of events, whether it's before or after DCL gets off the shot.