Threat of villa

[RD2910]

No, we shouldn't. That 'ghost' goal happened in the first half and there were still nine games to go after that one. We could also point to the game at Palace earlier in the season when we had a perfectly good equaliser from Lansbury not given, which was later admitted to have been a mistake. So, the Sheff U goal was karma for us not getting that palace goal. Although every single decision that goes against us since this goal is seen as karma because of it. Quite boring now as much as its incorrect.

As for the Man U goal - it demonstrates to me that VAR is still not fit fir purpose. Rather than 5-6 minutes drawing lines for a kneecap being offside, or going back for a possible push, then back to see if someone brushed someone calf with their sock, it should be for moments like this. Yes, if the ref blows and a player stops or the game stops, but in this particular instance the blown whistle had no impact on what happened next. In rugby if a try is awarded and its seen to be incorrect the decision can be reversed. This should be no different.

Its also like the Liverpool goal at Tottenham (as funny as you may find it), there is no reason why the ref can't stop the game and say, 'sorry, it was a goal'. This is what VAR is for, righting obvious wrongs and not piddling around for ages on lines. Its also funny how the referee blew for full-tile (I think) at brighton a few seasons back, but was still able to bring the players back for a Man U penalty!

I don't blame the ref either. Inexperienced or not its just a mistake. Its VAR that's the issue. Anyway, I'm happy with Europa. Its still European competition.

The ref's whistle has to be a red line, otherwise you'd have VAR adjudicating on whether the opponents had reacted to the whistle or not. Your comparison with the Brighton incident is wrong as the action that penalty was given for obviously came before the whistle, not after.

I don't even think it's that bad, it would have just looked like Rogers kicked the ball out of the keeper's hands from the ref's position. Clearly he should have waited, they're directed to, but the law's such a bizarre jumble I'm not sure VAR would have been able to overturn it anyway. I can't see how VAR can be blamed here at all.

 

[Lanolin]

The ref's whistle has to be a red line, otherwise you'd have VAR adjudicating on whether the opponents had reacted to the whistle or not. Your comparison with the Brighton incident is wrong as the action that penalty was given for obviously came before the whistle, not after.

I don't even think it's that bad, it would have just looked like Rogers kicked the ball out of the keeper's hands from the ref's position. Clearly he should have waited, they're directed to, but the law's such a bizarre jumble I'm not sure VAR would have been able to overturn it anyway. I can't see how VAR can be blamed here at all.

Yep, it's definitely not a VAR issue and trying to argue it is just shows a complete lack of understanding of the game to be honest. It's only being seen as a big deal because of the scenario it happened in really, as a standalone decision it was incorrect but not really noteworthy in any way. There are about half a dozen examples in every single game of the referee giving a foul when if you go back and look at it again it probably isn't, this was just the same thing.

 

[peterw]

The ref's whistle has to be a red line, otherwise you'd have VAR adjudicating on whether the opponents had reacted to the whistle or not. Your comparison with the Brighton incident is wrong as the action that penalty was given for obviously came before the whistle, not after.

I don't even think it's that bad, it would have just looked like Rogers kicked the ball out of the keeper's hands from the ref's position. Clearly he should have waited, they're directed to, but the law's such a bizarre jumble I'm not sure VAR would have been able to overturn it anyway. I can't see how VAR can be blamed here at all.

Why should the whistle be a red line if its an error and blowing the whistle has no impact on the game? As I said, if by blowing the whistle a player has stopped then VAR can judge that action. Where blowing the whistle hasn't impacted the game or anyone, such as the Villa goal, then it should be easy to do a quick check and say that the ball was going into the goal, no players around that either stopped who could have prevented the goal or stopped in trying to tackle/block the player before he shoots towards goal. Its a simple system for VAR to get right.

As for VAr intervention if it had been allowed and you think it won't have been given. Yes it would. Not one outlet, including any referee association have defended the call and all state it was wrong. the referee himself admitted it was a mistake. Not one person anywhere sees it anything other than an error. Even those in Stockley park say they couldn't have done anything but it was an error. I'm not sure how you can surmise that it wouldn't have been overturned when it was as clear an error as you're likely to see. Yes, the ref on the spot missed it, I'm guessing many did, but there's no doubt it would have been overturned.

Saying that - this penalty was given in real time, and then upheld when it went to VAR:



Always Man U...

As for the Brighton, you're wrong. The ref blew the full-time whistle and was advised to go to the monitor. after which he gave the penalty.

Brighton vs Man United: The law that explains why United were awarded penalty after full-time

It was within the laws of the game

www.givemesport.com

 

[peterw]

I think that day was more memorable for it raining the letter 'a' throughout...

 

[Thomasc]

I don’t feel sorry for them one bit.

Would the majority of their fans feel sorry for us? No of course not.

 

[RD2910]

Why should the whistle be a red line if its an error and blowing the whistle has no impact on the game? As I said, if by blowing the whistle a player has stopped then VAR can judge that action. Where blowing the whistle hasn't impacted the game or anyone, such as the Villa goal, then it should be easy to do a quick check and say that the ball was going into the goal, no players around that either stopped who could have prevented the goal or stopped in trying to tackle/block the player before he shoots towards goal. Its a simple system for VAR to get right.

As for VAr intervention if it had been allowed and you think it won't have been given. Yes it would. Not one outlet, including any referee association have defended the call and all state it was wrong. the referee himself admitted it was a mistake. Not one person anywhere sees it anything other than an error. Even those in Stockley park say they couldn't have done anything but it was an error. I'm not sure how you can surmise that it wouldn't have been overturned when it was as clear an error as you're likely to see. Yes, the ref on the spot missed it, I'm guessing many did, but there's no doubt it would have been overturned.

Saying that - this penalty was given in real time, and then upheld when it went to VAR:

View attachment 310187

Always Man U...

As for the Brighton, you're wrong. The ref blew the full-time whistle and was advised to go to the monitor. after which he gave the penalty.

Brighton vs Man United: The law that explains why United were awarded penalty after full-time

It was within the laws of the game

www.givemesport.com

Because you've changed the fixed point, the ref's whistle, to a floating line of subjectivity. What if Rogers had hit the post and a Villa player scored on the rebound, a Utd player had gone with them but without conviction because the ref had essentially stopped the game? Who decides? I obviously haven't checked every outlet. Is one of them Alan Shearer?

I'm not wrong about the Brighton thing. For that to be relevant Maupay would have had to handle the ball after the final whistle. That would be insane.

 

[PITA]

Aren't they in a real situation with FFP now? The more I think about it, the worse I feel for their fans.

The Premier League doesn't anyone outside the 'big six' doing well unless you're funded by a nation state.

It's grotesque.

Will never accept that Spurs with their two titles are a big 6 team.

 

[peterw]

I don’t feel sorry for them one bit.

Would the majority of their fans feel sorry for us? No of course not.

I guess you have to set aside your bitterness for one second and ask whether you know the majority of Villa fans.

 

[peterw]

Because you've changed the fixed point, the ref's whistle, to a floating line of subjectivity. What if Rogers had hit the post and a Villa player scored on the rebound, a Utd player had gone with them but without conviction because the ref had essentially stopped the game? Who decides? I obviously haven't checked every outlet. Is one of them Alan Shearer?

I'm not wrong about the Brighton thing. For that to be relevant Maupay would have had to handle the ball after the final whistle. That would be insane.

I haven't changed anything. I'm dealing with the incident at hand. You've added extra layers to the scenario. If the Man U defender had have gone in with a player tapping in the rebound then VAR is more likely to judge that the whistle then may have had an impact on the defenders reaction and the goal may not be scored. That's the added subjectivity. You added it, not me. This is and should be a quick win for VAR but because of the whistle going it can't get involved, when this is an easy decision to get right that was hidden behind the whistle.

Brighton is relevant. Because the final whistle had gone. The ref had blown his whistle. Just like he blew this all encompassing law giver and decider at Old Trafford. Except at brighton the whistle didn't actually mean a great deal as they could go back and check something. Therefore, its the whistle process and when blowing it means something and when it doesn't.

 

[peterw]

And no-one has to feel sorry for us. We're in the Europa league on the back of a good season that could have been a great season. What is the take away from this is an interesting talking point about what VAR should and shouldn't be able to do and when. Yes it has repercussions for finances and players coming and going, but that's all.

 

[RD2910]

I haven't changed anything. I'm dealing with the incident at hand. You've added extra layers to the scenario. If the Man U defender had have gone in with a player tapping in the rebound then VAR is more likely to judge that the whistle then may have had an impact on the defenders reaction and the goal may not be scored. That's the added subjectivity. You added it, not me. This is and should be a quick win for VAR but because of the whistle going it can't get involved, when this is an easy decision to get right that was hidden behind the whistle.

Brighton is relevant. Because the final whistle had gone. The ref had blown his whistle. Just like he blew this all encompassing law giver and decider at Old Trafford. Except at brighton the whistle didn't actually mean a great deal as they could go back and check something. Therefore, its the whistle process and when blowing it means something and when it doesn't.

if they decide that the ref's whistle isn't a red line, every possible situation has to be considered though. They can't say the ref's whistle doesn't matter just this once.

I don't even know where you're going with the Brighton thing. An incident wasn't seen, and later the ref stopped the game. The VAR recommended the ref change his decision, then a penalty happened. It's no different from any other penalty recommended by VAR, with clearly different considerations to what occurred here.

 

[peterw]

The difference being the whistle had gone for the game to end, but wasn't the end because of a penalty. Yet, a whistle being blown as the ball travels into the net is the end, even if it stops a goal. Seems you can use a whistle in one place for finality but not another.

 

[RD2910]

The difference being the whistle had gone for the game to end, but wasn't the end because of a penalty. Yet, a whistle being blown as the ball travels into the net is the end, even if it stops a goal. Seems you can use a whistle in one place for finality but not another.

The ref blew the whistle again so the penalty could be taken, restarting the game. Nothing that occurred between the ref stopping the game and starting it again counted as part of the game. You're struggling here, Peter.

 

[peterw]

The ref blew the whistle again so the penalty could be taken, restarting the game. Nothing that occurred between the ref stopping the game and starting it again counted as part of the game. You're struggling here, Peter.

I'm really not and you're really not getting it. So pointless carrying on.

 

[RD2910]

I'm really not and you're really not getting it. So pointless carrying on.

Ha, I agree.