"Oh, the rules won't let me correct my error" . Exhibit Number One is the Diaz fiasco vs Spurs. Pure unadulterated PGMOL gibberish. As for listening to the dialogue between ref and VAR -- does anyone really believe that would help? It would only consist of a real-time version of the after-the-fact nonsense we hear now and could make things worse. Hearing them discuss the Diaz disallowed goal would have helped nobody, just the opposite.
Sure, but speker this has been made clear time and time again... this is generally how VAR already works, and you (and others) are in here disagreeing about what the "fair and correct" decision should be, for a bunch of calls. The Diaz offside aside (because that should never happen, really), the disagreement is in the assessment of what the "right" call is in many subjective incidents. It happens again and again. They are already conferring and going over what's "right". That's what VAR does. Diaz didn't get his goal because of an incorrect offside, and Ireland didn't go to a World Cup one time because of an egregious handball, and Argentina won a World Cup due in no small part to a blatantly intentional handball. Errors and mistakes, even big ones, happen. Only thing I'm saying is refs would need a rule change to enable them to re-referee these kinds of mistakes. For the latter 2, they got the rule change! It's VAR. For the Diaz offside category of mistake... we still need another rule change. Might not feel good to say, but its true.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cqxq7zejvnno Trialing out of bounds, using HawkEye tech. Doesn't seem a bad idea, assuming it would be real quick. But other than that, I don't like this level of granularity. Doing better on automated offsides and keeper line of sight, those seem like worthwhile pursuits.
I'm surprised there isn;t a furore over the Ekiteke disallowed goal. Sure, yes - he is offside when Van Dyke plays the ball. Van Dyke wasn;t offside - he got back on before Sboz released the cross. And the defender then blocked the ball from getting to Ekiteke, thereby nullifying his offside?? Wtf was the call?? Every defender defends that ball there meaningfully. For Christ-sakes
So, it can't have been Van Dyke. Then defender blocks this just bounced ball from reaching Ekiteke. Then Ekiteke wins the ball in a tousle and scores. That is atrocious refereeing.
It's so fvcking stupid. Every offside player is interfering with play and causing defenders to move to break up passes. Why are they not calling the other 95% of goals (not the less than 5% where the ball is going on target for a goal) scored after a player who scored was initially offsite, and causing defenders to react accordingly. Total Bullsh!t interpretation. Morons!!
That gets even weirder to analyze - Because if it was the first defensive touch it (it wasn't) - then it wouldn't matter. Because if they call a penalty - then Ekiteke is offside waiting for receipt of the ball. However, as he had already taken a sound defensive touch, Ekiteke is no longer offside, so the penalty should have been given. Or advantage - and goal...... Every fvcking week it's one garbage decision after another....
Here's the nub / rub / scrub of it ....... This REALLY PISSES me off..... Liverpool Fans Club 10h · Ekitike’s 77th-Minute Goal v Burnley Should Have Counted, So Why Was It Disallowed? In the 77th minute of Liverpool’s 1–1 draw with Burnley, a header was delivered by Virgil van Dijk from the left side of the penalty area. The ball travelled close to goal, but not towards it, moving laterally across the face of goal toward the right. Burnley defender Axel Tuanzebe read the flight of the ball. He controlled and stopped it with his chest, a deliberate and coordinated action intended to gain possession, not to prevent a goal. The ball dropped to the ground. At that moment, a new phase of play began. In this new phase, Hugo Ekitike and Tuanzebe contested the ball. Ekitike won the duel and finished the move with a goal. The goal, however, was disallowed for offside, and the match remained level at 1–1. Referring to Law 11 of the Laws of the Game, issued by IFAB, a player who receives the ball from an opponent who has deliberately played it is not considered to have gained an advantage from a previous offside position, unless the action is a deliberate save. In this situation: ① The ball was not heading towards goal ② Axel Tuanzebe’s touch was a deliberate control ③ The action was not a deliberate save Under the Laws of the Game, the previous offside position is nullified. The goal should have stood.
The offside position(s) were all sorts of complicated, but Ekitike’s handball rendered all those complications and decisions null and void. Free out. End of.
I haven't seen the angle where they catch a handball. It's not possible to tell from the highlight replay where they just show the one view. But it looks as though Ekiteke seems to have known himself that he handled it as he would not have immediately accepted his being offside (surely) once the defender played the ball. And he immediately grimaced.
Agree that the offside seemed weird. The whole "deliberate vs non deliberate" playing of the ball drives me nuts. Along with the current interpretation of passive offsides. To much subjectivity for calls that don't need to be subjective. Just take away whether it was deliberate or not and make it if a defender touches it last then it's not offside simples. You'd think they'd want to make reffing less subjective but hey here we are. Having said that this is all academic since as others said there was a clear handball in the build up. But still .... ahh nevermind weird reffing is far from unique to this code of football just ask a Bills fan.