VAR

[sickbeggar]

If colliding with a player in an offside position is now given irrespective of whether it is interfering with play then surely sides defending a similar dead ball can engineer the same situation every time.

No, because it won't be given all the time. Sometimes it will, other times it won't be a clear and obvious error. If only you decide what the definition of that phrase is then you can basically decide what you like. Which is what they do.

[LeeB]

Also, am I the only one who saw Lidelof hauling Ollie back when he hit the bar?  He had a big handful of his shirt - how is that not a foul?  Surely it made it harder for Ollie to get his shot off?

And while we're on it, the Konsa thing. Fouls are given on the halfway line for the barest flicker of a hand towards the face, even if by the player in possession of the ball. The foulee always goes down like Ric Flair, but fine, if that's the rule then that's what it is.

Konsa last night actually got bloodied up like, well, like Ric Flair. But penalty? The idea wasn't even laughed off. Even on the Graun MBM they just skated over it with a cursory 'no penalty, but...', and I'm there yelling, HANG ON! If that was fifty yards back it would've been a foul, why as soon as it crosses the magic white line does the burden of proof shoot upwards all of a sudden? A foul somewhere is a foul anywhere, and if in the box then a penalty is awarded. But everyone just seems to accept this. I was baffled.

It's the definition of being gaslighted.

[Holte132]

I don't think and would never accuse any official - even Moss, Friend and Oliver - of cheating or deliberately favouring "big" teams BUT until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve. 

For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law.  What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.

Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it. 

As an aside I presume this routine was a Nanny MacPhee cunning plan that in the end worked against us.

It wasn't disallowed for offside. Murphy fouled Cavani by standing still and allowing the defender to run into him. Let's see how that works on Saturday if we do the same thing!!

It WAS offside, we know this because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, not a direct one as would be the case with a foul.  The element under discussion with the ref going to the monitor wasn't whether he was in an offside position (or not), which is usually where VAR comes in (because JJ clearly was in an offside position), but whether he interfered with Cavani's ability to challenge for the ball.  That's why he went to the monitor, because that's a matter of opinion, not fact, and hence the ref's call.  It wasn't a "foul" in the sense it would have been given elsewhere on the pitch, but the standards are different here because he started in an offside position so technically ANY interference counts as offside.

I was really angry last night, and I still think they took WAY too long to reach their decision, but I accept it was unfortunately the right one.

My view is that the ref saw the coming together in real-time and thought "no foul, it's just players coming together" - but he did that not realising JJ was offside.  Once he saw JJ was offside on the replay, that coming together becomes an offside offence, even if it doesn't reach the level of a 'foul' anywhere else on the pitch.  You don't have to foul them to be offside, unfortunately.

Okay. I based my comment on what I read in the paper today, and by what our very own Dave Woodhall said in his piece about the game.

[lovejoy]

If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?

[AlexAlexCropley]

As I said last night,I believe Cavani was guilty of gamesmanship and the goal should have stood ,then Cavani booked.

[Smithy]

If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?

It still has to be interfering with the player's ability to challenge for the ball.  If the JJ/Cavani incident is on the other side of the box, away from where the ball was going, I don't think it gets disallowed.

But, I do think this will change the way teams think about having players in offside positions when the ball is kicked.  We do it quite a lot, with some success, but you can't have players blocking runs from an offside position, that would be absolute chaos.

However, all of this could be avoided if players didn't, you know, go into offside positions at free-kicks and rely on the refs/VARs interpretation of 'interfering' to be in their favour.

[WassallVillain]

By it's very nature it relies on interpretation which is a matter of opinion and not fact. Opinions differ therefore what we think was wrong last night, others will think is correct.

We are no further forward in the quest for better refereeing standards and consistency  but the game is routinely spoiled by delays, the drama and emotion is flattened and the officials even more of a target.

There is no upside to VAR because it cannot be what everyone wants it to be. Very reminiscent of Brexit.

As Sickbeggar has said a couple of times, the 'clear and obvious error' rule is a deviously brilliant definition for the refs and VAR to use, as it can be used to justify any decision whichever way it goes.

If the roles had been reveresed last night and Man U scored our goal, there's no way it would have been ruled out, as it it wasn't clear and obvious. As it was us though, they can simply say that's what the rulebook says and we need to get over it.

It is my belief also that the role reversal would have had a different outcome in that the defender deliberately charged into the offside (non interfering until that point) attacker to take him out of the play so the incident is nullified by the awarding of the goal. Sad that an official of Oliver’s standing could not stand by his own decision of an incident that happened directly in front of him.

[Chris Smith]

If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?

It still has to be interfering with the player's ability to challenge for the ball.  If the JJ/Cavani incident is on the other side of the box, away from where the ball was going, I don't think it gets disallowed.

But, I do think this will change the way teams think about having players in offside positions when the ball is kicked.  We do it quite a lot, with some success, but you can't have players blocking runs from an offside position, that would be absolute chaos.

However, all of this could be avoided if players didn't, you know, go into offside positions at free-kicks and rely on the refs/VARs interpretation of 'interfering' to be in their favour.

“Interfering” will mean different things dependant on who it benefits. There is no way they’d spend three and half minutes trying to rule out a Manu goal.

[sickbeggar]

An own goal maybe.

[Smithy]

If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?

It still has to be interfering with the player's ability to challenge for the ball.  If the JJ/Cavani incident is on the other side of the box, away from where the ball was going, I don't think it gets disallowed.

But, I do think this will change the way teams think about having players in offside positions when the ball is kicked.  We do it quite a lot, with some success, but you can't have players blocking runs from an offside position, that would be absolute chaos.

However, all of this could be avoided if players didn't, you know, go into offside positions at free-kicks and rely on the refs/VARs interpretation of 'interfering' to be in their favour.

“Interfering” will mean different things dependant on who it benefits. There is no way they’d spend three and half minutes trying to rule out a Manu goal.

It's up to the interpretation of the ref, unfortunately, which guarantees inconsistency, but the threshold for 'interference' is WAY lower than for a foul.  Getting in a player's eye line can count as interference.

I'm sure the coaching staff will be tweaking our set-pieces this week to ensure it doesn't happen again.

[LeeB]

An own goal maybe.

"Rule 24 part Z - An attacker can be offside even though the defender made the last touch, if the moon is in it's waxing gibbous phase and the player lives in Alderley Edge.

[lovejoy]

If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?

It still has to be interfering with the player's ability to challenge for the ball.  If the JJ/Cavani incident is on the other side of the box, away from where the ball was going, I don't think it gets disallowed.

But, I do think this will change the way teams think about having players in offside positions when the ball is kicked.  We do it quite a lot, with some success, but you can't have players blocking runs from an offside position, that would be absolute chaos.

However, all of this could be avoided if players didn't, you know, go into offside positions at free-kicks and rely on the refs/VARs interpretation of 'interfering' to be in their favour.

Cavani was nowhere near being able to get to the ball though, so your point about "the other side of the box" suggests it wasn't a free kick.

[paul_e]

As I said last night,I believe Cavani was guilty of gamesmanship and the goal should have stood ,then Cavani booked.

Cavani was lazy and lost his man, realised he'd fucked up and ran into JJ to buy a free kick, as evidenced by him lying on the floor and appealing for the foul. I don't care if there's a way of twisting the rule to justify it, everyone (other than Man U fans and our neighbours) who saw that knows it was wrong, just like the Ramsey goal at Leicester, just like the Man City goal last year, just like the Trez penalty against Brighton, over and over again in the last 2 1/2 years we've had to put up with bad decisions going agianst us being justified by "but the law says..." as if people aren't aware of exactly what the 'normal' interpretation of those laws are.

I get why Gerrard doesn't want to say anything but I'd fucking love Purslow to make a statement about this shit happening so often, not a sulk but a question of why it's always us that seems to be on the wrong side of these. At the same time I'd love him to raise the fact that the threshold for yellow cards against us seems to be really high right now, with some players (Shaw last night) commiting multiple fouls that could've been bookings without even a meaningful warning.

[john2710]

It's not necessarily the incident last night or the efforts they went to to find a reason to disallow the goal. It the combination of incidents over an extended period of time all favouring the same team.  As bad as the decision last night was it wasn't the worst we've seen against this shower & I have no confidence we won't see more at the weekend.

A compilation of these incidents would make shocking viewing.

[Abbeyfealeavfc]

 Apologies if already posted

https://mobile.twitter.com/LukeRoper/status/1480861042385297411?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet