4:58 of video. Sometimes it's necessary with paywalls or lack of specific highlights, but not sure why we need to rely on written descriptions when video is so readily available. Your description is inaccurate; Haaland is penalized for interfering with Thiaw, not Pope. Going in reverse order... 1) When was VAR on the rails? I mean, this sort of call has been happening from the jump. 2) The whole process takes way too long, yes. But to be fair the check component took about four minutes and then you had to get Kavanagh involved because it is subjective. Do we know what those four minutes were spent on? Was the VAR team focused on the lines themselves or were they adjudicating the potential interference? Either way, way, way, way too long. But I'd be interested to know why it took that long. 3) The problem is that in today's game, if offside position is established for Haaland, this unfortunately is a clear error. He's physically engaged with Thiaw; he's making an obvious action that impacts Thiaw's ability to play the ball. The commentators raise the idea that they are grappling each other, but that's irrelevant; Haaland is the one in the offside position so you have to look at it from the perspective that Thiaw is being forced to physically engage someone who is in an offside position. This is offside. Again, once you establish position it's pretty open and shut. Now, should this be offside? I go back to wishing the "would anything different have happened if you removed the offside player" standard was in place. If it was, you could probably make the judgment that Thiaw couldn't reach the ball anyway and award the goal. Unfortunately that's not the regime we're living under right now. All that said, this is ridiculous. It's ridiculous in England--the place where they have always seemed most worrried about too many delays--they also seem most unbothered by taking their sweet time once the VAR gets actively involved. It's actually mind-boggling to me how inefficient English VARs are. But, unfortunately, they do ultimately arrive at the correct decision here per the Laws and using the available technology. To your point of "VAR going off the rails," I think this is more of a "this was always the unintended consequence of VAR."
But that is replay in every sport except tennis. It always goes off the rails because a) there is this obsession of getting it "right" at all costs and b) because subconsciously replay officials have to get involved to show everyone how smart they are and justify their employment/existence. Its why you see more and more ridiculous reviews across all sports. Replay is basically gotcha refereeing and with that people have defended the farcical review in the college football game on the other night. It is a replay official showing everyone how smart they are and what a keen eye they have.
It’s a very clear offside offense. No reason it should have taken that long unless there were serious issues in establishing that Haaland was in an offside position.
Yeah, with how many times you see this happening, just have to accept that your desired "would he really have been able to get the ball" is out the window. It's much easier and more straightforward to see a defender impacting a defender who's anywhere close to the ball and call it offisde than open the can of worms with subjectivity. That's because every tennis decision is an objective boundary decision with a hawkeye camera while almost everything else with foul contact is subjective. But I don't think it's fair to say that replay only exists to stroke the replay official's ego, and that's sad to hear on here, usually that kind of comment is reserved for the referee-hating masses. Wanting to get a call as correct as you can when there's a dozen 4k cameras focused on the decision while moving frame by frame and that the people involved in the sport, media, and fans will be in an uproar if you get it wrong isn't "trying to show off how smart you are"
I can only laugh when people say something like “anywhere close to the ball” and then imply they are speaking objectively. That’s definitionally subjective. Here, he’s probably a 1.5 yard reach away from the ball or so. If Haaland wasn’t there at all, maybe he could react. So I think you have to call it. But you aren’t calling it if the ball goes in on one post and the interference is on the other—at least I hope not. So 8 yards isn’t close enough. What’s the standard, though? Three yards? Five? Is it only about 1.5 and this is stretching the limits? And this excludes arguments about a defender being able to locate himself in Spot X if his mark wasn’t taking up a position in Spot Y. Almost every decision in our game has multiple levels of subjectivity to it. Pretending otherwise is an underlying reason why so many people hate VAR.
I’d just note that he doesn’t even have to make an obvious action. This is the bullet that doesn’t squarely fit the four main bullets on interfering with an opponent: “a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12”
Per another forum, the SAOT failed because there were too many players close together, so it could draw its images. That could explain the delay as presumably they were checking on that before resorting to line drawing to determine OSP.
The thing is, people seem to care less about getting every decision "right" than about minimizing VAR-related delays. As you know, I'm a Newcastle fan, and I would have been perfectly fine with that goal being allowed to stand. For most people, "clear and obvious" means that it's such an obvious mistake that the VAR can make such a determination quickly. So anytime a decision takes an excessively long time, then by definition it can't be "clear and obvious".
The situation where the offside player is on one post and the shot is on the other is pretty much the only time I’m seeing this not called offside. Every other time if the ball goes somewhere in the vicinity of the offside player, he’s getting called for offside. You’ve said the same thing on multiple offside decisions, thinking that the defender who was impacted by the offside player didn’t have a realistic chance at the ball, but it’s called offside anyway. That’s the new standard clearly. And subjectivity exists for everything. Me thinking the distance to the ball is subjective. You thinking “the defender couldn’t have a genuine attempt at the ball” is subjective as well.
And it's a pretty big stretch to claim that any decision that is subjective is also "clear and obvious"....
You have either a very misguided understanding of either what "subjective" means or what "clear and obvious" means. Objective vs subjective simply means we are talking about facts vs opinion. That's a different thing from "clear and obvious", which is basically to say "95% of referees at this level would disagree with the call on the field". A decision can be both subjective and clear and obvious (this encompasses like 90%+ of non-offside VAR reviews); an objective decision could also be not clear and obvious (for example, in a league without lines or semi-automated offside technology like MLS, an offside position may not be clear enough to overturn the call on the field, despite being an objective decision).
I'm curious about the differences between the Haaland offside yesterday and Gyokeres not being offside here today, if anyone would care to delve into this: https://streamff.com/v/65c3ca11
It's Wednesday and yesterday was Tuesday? I mean, I've got (almost) nothing. Rapid fire dart throwing... 1) The public fallout from yesterday's decision resulted in Webb telling VMOs to be more liberal on this? 2) Someone adheres to my more general philosophy, realized the Chelsea defender isn't even looking at the ball so would never stop it, and just let this slide? Of course, he's not looking at the ball because he's looking at the offside attacker... but details, details. 3) English VARs are notoriously inconsistent or incompetent, so one got this right and one got this wrong? I think you can make a colorable argument that either one of these is the "worse" offence, so they do both feel like they are in the zone where both should be called or neither should be called.
Do you have any other replays of this? Hard to comment on it from this camera, I feel like I can hardly see what’s going on.
My thinking is that is a decision is subjective, then there is NEVER going to be enough consensus that either option is the correct decision to label either option as a clear and obvious error. Using your logic, you're never going to get 95% agreement on any subjective decision....therefore I would argue that no subjective decision can be considered a clear and obvious error.
I get it. You want to abolish VAR. (Well, I do, too.) But in soccer either we review at least some subjective decisions or we don't have VAR except for OSP, interfering with play, boundary decisions, and accidental HB by attackers who score. Even the Suarez HB on the line is at its heart a subjective opinion--was it deliberate? I think we'd easily meet the 95% threshold that it was deliberate, with perhaps only his mother arguing it wasn't. But clear and obvious doesn't mean--and really can't mean--that no one would ever disagree. And once that standard is in place, of courser it softens with time. I'm not going back, but I'm sure there were dozens of posts on here before the first games with VAR about the inevitability that it was going to slide to something closer to re-refereeing, as every video review system ever implemented has had mission creep over time.
United -City, dalot with 10th minute knee high challenge on doku; yellow instead of red, reportedly because of “lack of force”. Four of us watching all immediately said red but then I realized this is England and it’s glancing It is going to take a career ending injury to a major star to change things and maybe more than one
Yes, and we know Taylor will go red on this in a UEFA or FIFA match. This is clearly what the league wants
laughable, the leg clearly buckled from the force...and it cleared VAR in about 30 seconds...total joke.
2012519139521470748 is not a valid tweet id Just gross officiating all around. I wish we had Dale's word salad for this.
This also highlights error of commission versus error of omission. If you believe SFP is SFP (with some wiggle room for truly borderline cases) then Man U essentially won this match due to a grave referee error of omission. Yet we won’t hear *much* about it. Had a phantom penalty been awarded to decide the game, however…
And that explains why the Premier League is the way it is. From the top down, perception matters more than reality.