On these decision: there was one occasion salah was clearn through but was about 2 yards off. the lino flagged instantly. Now..... if we ae talking "consistency" for the whingers then surely the lette rof the law is to let these things play out and see if salah decapitates ederson in goal before flagging? As the time i just thought, typical of these officials but it is another clear inconsistency off rule application.
Because they are required to review things in the order they happened. What I found more astonishing was what happened in the Arsenal vs Leeds match; Gabriel wad sent off but the ref then decided (having reviewed VAR) that Bamford fouled him initially so what happened afterwards didn't matter. Ridiculous, Gabriel kicked out and should have seen red regardless.
The directive seems to be that if it’s super clear and obvious then flag (which is fine tbh). Don’t think seen one happen yet where they’ve flagged and it’s given right away but they’re actually onside. Closest can think is the coutinho v city one but that was close and they waited and then only flagged when ball came back out of area. I guess it looks inconsistent because all we see is sometimes they flag, sometimes they don’t, but I guess they’re only flagging for very obvious ones then you won’t see it happen that often as it’s normally a lot closer so they let the var do it’s stuff
Not sure was quite like that. Gabriel still got a yellow so ref clearly thought he’d done something just didn’t class it as dangerous and reckless when reviewing it. Tbh not sure how it was a foul by bamford. The defender tried to block him, was starting at him and ran in the way to block bamford last run. Bamford just carried in his run to the ball and was stronger.
It’s the inconsistency that riles people. Taylor started on the basis that he will let the game flow and he’ll let so called 50-50 fouls go. He was consistent up to the City “ goal” Tbf. on the City goal, I straight away thought that Haaland kicked the ball out of Alisson’s hands and so the goal should be ruled out. But the VAR incredibly asked Taylor to look at another phase of the game, the pull on Fabinho, which he had clearly signalled as ok before. So this was not only not a “clear and obvious “ error but also a case of “re-refereeing “ . Asking the referee to look again at an incident which he had previously deemed ok. No wonder everyone is confused with VAR. if it favours you, you think it’s fine but hate it if its decision is unfavourable to your team.
Why we should hear what's going on. Common sense would suggest the ref is asked "did you see the shirt pull?" and then the answers are either: "Yes, but I didn't think it was enough" - leave it there "Yes, but I thought the player was going down anyway" - leave it there. If it's "no", then go and have a look.
ithink it makes total sense No this is not how var works. Re-refereeing is just another buzzword to say you "don't like the decision" It's crystal clear the haaland foul on fabinho (when Danny ****ing Mills and dermot Gallagher agree its a foul ffs) was reviews as it sin the same phase of play. Haaland is in the kicking the ball out of alissons hands. That's no re-reffing anything. At best Anthony Taylor can claim he didn't see the shirt pull due to the glint of diamond encrusted rolexs in his eyes. At best. It's a **** call, and that's what var is for or scrap the whole thing and just stuck to brown envelopes to get decisions.
This game highlighted the dilemma (at least for me it's a dilemma) of VAR. Without it we would clearly not have won that game which would have been a real confidence blow.
My concern is that had the referee thought the fabinho pull was OK, then he would have given the goal. No chance VAR would have said oh and look at this **** too
what people have not reckoned yet is just who was in that var booth. We had basically a man city fan reffing a man city game yesterday. He gave every call to them really, waved off every foul and never looked like booking them. Who was actually in the booth? Paul Tierney. another manchester referee. The only shock here is that they actually reviewed the thing. I mean city couldn't get any better of a dream ticket assembled to benefit themselves as these two (and it was the exact same dream team that covered the away game at city's ground last season that assured city of the title by 1 point) All this says is that the errors were so glaringly obvious no man nor beast could deny it. YET MICAH RICHARDS COULD. I'd say lesson learned here for the pair of manc bribe takers. They'll be utterly brazen in the away game (where they will be myseriously selected again) 3 red cards and 4 pens inbound.
Thought it was interesting that city rewlly focussed everything down their left in order to try exploit Milner/Elliott/Salah and it in effect left de bruyne on his own over on that side and couldn’t link up as much. Targeting our RB slot isn’t new and you’d prob think it’s right thing to do, but when have de bruyne in such good form, you’d think would play to your own strength. Was it a case of pep trying to be too clever again?
Absolutely. Transparency is key and would help VAR go a long way. We need to hear the discussion between the VAR and the on field ref. Or do they even discuss? The secrecy does no one any good. The previous excuse of affecting the flow of the game doesn’t hold as these VAR things takes minutes on occasions .
It's still subjective though. Ask a City fan what they think of the decision. To me it was an obvious foul and I couldn't understand why the commentary team kept bringing it up as though it were somehow controversial. Several of the pundits who have questioned the decision will also disagree. If there were no VAR the decision - whichever way it was given, would frustrate the team who suffer because of it. This time we benefited, plenty of times we don't. I fall back on what I've said all along, refereeing decisions are arbitrary - we all see the same thing but draw conclusions according to our own perceptions and prejudices. All those pleading for consistency - me included - are in reality. What constitutes excessive force - like so many aspects of the game - is an opinion. Controversial decisions will continue to happen, and we will continue to moan about them. For ever - or at least for as long as the game is played by human beings.
Quite often I'm amazed Klopp gets away with the things he does. On the other hand, Pep was raging at the ref for going to look at the monitor and gave him dog's abuse throughout and for several minutes afterwards, but didn't even get a mild rebuke that I saw.
Does that matter? Surely "violent conduct" is the pertinent element here, and that should be a red regardless of whether or not actual harm is done.
yep. Whether bamford committed a foul or not is immaterial. The red should have been given for retaliation and him making contact or not is not relevant (contact could have caused serious injury). VAR is wrong again here. It seems that the referees become different individuals whether they are on the pitch or VAR.
The difference for me in the argument is the very, very fine margin for error now when the league is won with 1 point difference. I could go along with the old way of swings and roundabouts on decisions but when technology has been introduced, even acknowledging that humans operate it, to make it more transparent and fairer, I'm not sure whether I would still rather risk the chance of a correct VAR decision over no possibility of the right call being made without it when the league has hung on 1 point a couple of times now. I constantly think back to the Mané goal at Arsenal (season before VAR) that was ruled out for offside when it was very much onside. We drew that game and it should have been a win with the goal counting. VAR would have given us the goal and us losing the league by 1 point would have been us winning the league by 1 point. It's, like I said earlier, now become such a fine margin. That's my dilemma with it anyway.
