Yes. Offside and goal line checks are black and white decisions and IMO VAR should only ever be used for those. As soon as subjectivity comes into it the whole point of Var is invalidated.
Personally I thought it was soft but no moreso than the one Rashford was given last week that was not overturned. You are correct that contact happened twice - once when WB pushed his elbow into Havertz from behind and the other when Casimiro simply ran into him with no intention of playing the ball. Clear and obvious contact. In fact it was worse than the Rashford one because watching the replay Havertz was NOT already going down when the second contact came from Casimiro - in fact he was clean through , in balance and in control of the ball. Whether it was enough to put Havertz down is completely irrelevant because we are told repeatedly that the bar for overturning an on field decision is very high and should only be for clear and obvious errors. This is the issue with VAR getting involved unless a decision is absolutely clearly wrong beyond all doubt. I can't stand them getting involved in pen decisions or red cards - they are up in a box trying to judge force and impact on an opponent on the field of play. If this keeps up with Var - making different determinations on similar incidents based on what they perceive as the level of force used, then I shudder to think about the leeway they have to influence games from their monitors. For example they could simply rule out goals like our winner because the set piece block was used with slightly more force than what happens on every corner. Totally subjective, but no one to hold them to account...because its all opinion and speculation.
You have just defeated the point that you were trying to make with that statement. VAR's job is to eliminate subjective sensory feelings that validate our biases. In your case, the front angle "looked" like a penalty, but the back angle showed no touch? So, in your world, they should have shown the angle that looked like a penalty? Or should they explore the best angle that reflects the true circumstance which in this case was the back angle that definitively showed that there was no contact made with Havertz right leg.
FWIW, It wasn't a penalty, but this bit in bold isn't true. There was contact. His leg hits Wan Bissaka's. However, he hits Wan Bissaka's leg, as opposed to Wan Bissaka hitting him. Wan Bissaka tried to move out the way and Havertz ran into him. Which is why it's not a penalty for me. Nonetheless, my gripe is the lack of consistency. Penalties have been given for way less than that (e.g. Szoboszlai vs Bournemouth) and you can guarantee that, on another day, the on-field decision would have stood.
There were actually 3 separate contacts BEFORE Havertz was ever going down. In my view it was not a penalty BUT there was simply no case at all for VAR to challenge the on filed decision - they have to be 100% certain to make that call and no human being could be certain.
No. Once the on field decision is made it is not about opinion anymore. Var need to be 100% certain to intervene. They could not possibly be certain because there were 3 separate contacts on Havertz on both sides of his body, prior to him going to ground.
This is not true Brunel It was a clever foul by both WB and Casimiro. They moved their upper bodies back at the last second whilst both of them put their lower bodies directly in front of Havertz run - one for each side. Havertz was in front when the contact happened so could not have possible ran into either of them, unless they had hung out a leg with no hope of getting the ball. If you are running behind someone and clip their legs its a foul.
Has there been an instance in all the years of VAR yet where the ref has been recommended to go and look at the monitor but NOT overruled their original decision and stuck to their guns? Not sure there has. Might be wrong. Instinctively most refs must now be slow walking to the monitor knowing they're only walking there because they've probably ****ed up and been told to do so by var, and will subconsciously immediately change their mind regardless.
It is quite astonishing that one of you called a blatant contact with Rashford last week a dive but you're here running endless analysis on a player that throwing himself to the ground before he threw his left foot that was already on the down at AWD's knee. Even with that, he still barely made the last ditch fake contact.
This should help - https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...penalty-cancelled-ten-hag-rant-akanji-offside There are two key differences with the Havertz penalty overturn. Firstly, Taylor gave the spot kick because he believed Wan-Bissaka had tripped Havertz when he placed his right foot -- but there was no contact with the Arsenal player at this point. Thus, Taylor hadn't described the contact correctly, and it opens the door for a review. There was contact after this, but it was judged that Havertz had initiated that by moving his left leg into Wan-Bissaka. The replay from behind the incident shows that Havertz did appear to move his foot off its natural line and into his opponent. At no point does a challenge by Wan-Bissaka cause a foul, and when Taylor was shown the rear view at the monitor, it was a quick decision to cancel the penalty. The main point there is that AWB was not the cause of Havertz going down. Implying no contact was made in relations to penalty claim. Therefore, Havertz movement to go down can be categorized as one which was premeditated before he he got into the box, or worse he opportunistcally tried to go down upon little sight of AWB challenge.
Yes. There has been one as recent as this week, i don't remember the match because i watch highlights of them all but he reversed his original decision after watching a replay.
I have watched the video in detail from all angles. Contact was made 3 times. Once by Casimiro and twice by WB I don’t know if they were enough to make Havertz fall. Neither do VAR. As for Havertz running into WB. No. He was ahead of him already when contact was made. Not sure how you run into someone behind you as you are running towards goal. There was zero reason for Havertz to dive if there was no contact. He was ahead of the defenders , with the ball , the keeper not going to get there before him. He may have decided to fall AFTER contact, but the suggestion there was no contact or that he initiated it is absurd.
That'll be why his foot caught the back of Bissakas ankle. he tried to force his way through a small gap, of course there was going to be some contact at some point but he initiated it, no pen. Are you a secret Spud that knows the rules better than PGMOL?
Exactly! It’s actually happened many times. It’s called Video “Assistant” Referee for a reason. It gives the referee time review incidents from different perspectives that they would have generally missed before deciding to make the final call. But it never implies that VAR imposes itself upon the referee.
Happened to us v Brighton a few years ago. A Brighton player fouled Hoejberg and they immediately scored. Ref was told to look at it and still gave the goal.
I’d be careful about assuming the PGMOL are in any way competent. We already had them have to apologise to us twice last year for their screw ups. … and yes Havertz trail leg caught WB just like when any forward is ahead and a defender clips the trail leg Last year the refs disallowed a perfectly good Martinelli goal against your lot. You managed to win that game in the aftermath. This year didn’t work.
**** happens (for all teams). The game is played by humans and reffed by humans at human speed. The ref can only be in one place and see anything from one angle at real speed. Unfortunately we can then watch it back in super slomo from 27 different camera angles. All in all they don't do bad for ordinary men.
Sure, but that is not the point. The ref gave the penalty. It should never have been overturned because there were 3 instances of contact. The explanation that it was overturned only because the ref though the initial lunge caught Havertz (when it did not) is absurd. Fortunately it didn’t cost us.
Of course it should have been overturned, we have now given the refs the same level of scrutiny that we have and you don't like it
