VAR

[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.

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.

I would disagree.  If you look at the incident again, you'll see Cavani is about level with Konsa when JJ blocks him. They are both running towards the same area. Konsa was clearly Cavani's 'man'. Would Cavani have won the ball? Probably not. Would he have been able to make some sort of challenge on Konsa to prevent a free header? Possibly.  Either way, he was prevented from doing so.  And interference includes stopping a player making a challenge.

We can't allow offside attackers to block runs of defenders to give on-side attackers a free header.  Much as I hated last night, and think they took WAY too long looking at other parts of the build-up, allowing that goal opens a whole can of worms around teams getting clever by blocking off players from offside positions.  It had to be disallowed, not matter how pissed off we all are about it.

[Smithy]

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.

I have no doubt Cavani tried to get the foul, but he didn't get it (it wasn't given as a foul). He got lucky that JJ was stood in an offside position when the ball was kicked, because if he wasn't, that doesn't get given as offside.

There are times when it's right to complain and question VAR, the Man City goal - definitely (it led to a clarification and confirmation it would be disallowed in future), the Leicester disallowed goal - definitely - and again led to clarification but the rules were clear, just not well understood.  But last night I think was the right decision, reached in a poor way, and repeatedly claiming VAR got it wrong makes us look small time.

VAR took too long, DEFINITELY.  VAR handled it badly, DEFINITELY.  VAR should be everywhere or nowhere in the FA Cup, DEFINITELY.  VAR got the decision wrong? No, unfortunately, they didn't.

[Mister E]

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.

I would disagree.  If you look at the incident again, you'll see Cavani is about level with Konsa when JJ blocks him. They are both running towards the same area. Konsa was clearly Cavani's 'man'. Would Cavani have won the ball? Probably not. Would he have been able to make some sort of challenge on Konsa to prevent a free header? Possibly.  Either way, he was prevented from doing so.  And interference includes stopping a player making a challenge.
We can't allow offside attackers to block runs of defenders to give on-side attackers a free header.  Much as I hated last night, and think they took WAY too long looking at other parts of the build-up, allowing that goal opens a whole can of worms around teams getting clever by blocking off players from offside positions.  It had to be disallowed, not matter how pissed off we all are about it.

Well, yes Smithy, if you think that Ramsey blocked Cavani. I don't. I saw Cavani run into Ramsey who put his hands up at the last second to protect himself.
Oliver deemed it to be okay. and there was no clear and obvious error in that. And - yes - I get that it was subsequently adjudged to be offside but neither ref nor linesman gave it and it was only uncovered after a TV review lasting over 3 minutes.
Players being blocked, buffeted and tugged at set pieces has - frankly - become part of the modern game; I don't like it but it is now in the game. Furthermore, look at other incidents in the game where players were blocked, without the game being stopped for an infringement.
If we're going to use VAR to check goalscoring incidents, there should be a time limit on it and after the designated time the on-field decision should stand.

[amfy]

I swear if that happens at the other end it’s a penalty to Man U!

Seriously imagine us trying to run straight into one of their attackers in the penalty area and trying to claim offside!

[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.

I have no doubt Cavani tried to get the foul, but he didn't get it (it wasn't given as a foul). He got lucky that JJ was stood in an offside position when the ball was kicked, because if he wasn't, that doesn't get given as offside.

There are times when it's right to complain and question VAR, the Man City goal - definitely (it led to a clarification and confirmation it would be disallowed in future), the Leicester disallowed goal - definitely - and again led to clarification but the rules were clear, just not well understood.  But last night I think was the right decision, reached in a poor way, and repeatedly claiming VAR got it wrong makes us look small time.

VAR took too long, DEFINITELY.  VAR handled it badly, DEFINITELY.  VAR should be everywhere or nowhere in the FA Cup, DEFINITELY.  VAR got the decision wrong? No, unfortunately, they didn't.

Nope, I disagree, they've managed to justify the decision after the fact, just like with previous ones that have gone against us, but no referee ever gives that as an offside live in play and if that was the only thing to check VAR wouldn't have got involved. For me it was a case of VAR had wasted 3 minutes checking things that were fine so they felt the need to justify the time by finding something to ask him to review. Also being annoyed at having a goal ruled out doesn't ever make anyone 'small time' and the repeated use of that term on here to kill an argument is fucking annoying.

[Smithy]

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.

I have no doubt Cavani tried to get the foul, but he didn't get it (it wasn't given as a foul). He got lucky that JJ was stood in an offside position when the ball was kicked, because if he wasn't, that doesn't get given as offside.

There are times when it's right to complain and question VAR, the Man City goal - definitely (it led to a clarification and confirmation it would be disallowed in future), the Leicester disallowed goal - definitely - and again led to clarification but the rules were clear, just not well understood.  But last night I think was the right decision, reached in a poor way, and repeatedly claiming VAR got it wrong makes us look small time.

VAR took too long, DEFINITELY.  VAR handled it badly, DEFINITELY.  VAR should be everywhere or nowhere in the FA Cup, DEFINITELY.  VAR got the decision wrong? No, unfortunately, they didn't.

Nope, I disagree, they've managed to justify the decision after the fact, just like with previous ones that have gone against us, but no referee ever gives that as an offside live in play and if that was the only thing to check VAR wouldn't have got involved. For me it was a case of VAR had wasted 3 minutes checking things that were fine so they felt the need to justify the time by finding something to ask him to review. Also being annoyed at having a goal ruled out doesn't ever make anyone 'small time' and the repeated use of that term on here to kill an argument is fucking annoying.

I disagree, but that's okay, it's a game of opinions :-)

My personal view is that the ref saw the collision in real-time, deemed it wasn't a foul, which it obviously wasn't - but when shown JJ was offside it immediately became "interference", where the threshold is much lower than for a foul.  The ref didn't see it on the monitor and then think "I got that wrong, it WAS a foul", he saw JJ was offside (which is why the first view they gave him off the incident was side on)

We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.

[Mister E]

We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.

Yes, hence the indirect free kick.
The point is: it took over 3 minutes to uncover that 'clear and obvious error', which is not really what VAR should be about.

[chrisw1]

We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.

Yes, hence the indirect free kick.
The point is: it took over 3 minutes to uncover that 'clear and obvious error', which is not really what VAR should be about.

Much as I hated this decision and the time it took, I have to point out that 'clear and obvious error' does not come in to play with offside decisions.  The reason it took so long is they were desperately trying to fine 3 other reasons to disallow the goal before hitting the jackpot with the fourth.

[nick harper]

We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.

Yes, hence the indirect free kick.
The point is: it took over 3 minutes to uncover that 'clear and obvious error', which is not really what VAR should be about.

But I think Smithy explained earlier, they looked at the fact based incidents first - was Ings offside, did he handle it? The JJ incident was a subjective decision for Oliver. Did he interfere from an offside position?

It just took too long to decide if Watkins toe nail had touched the ball.

[Mister E]

We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.

Yes, hence the indirect free kick.
The point is: it took over 3 minutes to uncover that 'clear and obvious error', which is not really what VAR should be about.

Much as I hated this decision and the time it took, I have to point out that 'clear and obvious error' does not come in to play with offside decisions.  The reason it took so long is they were desperately trying to fine 3 other reasons to disallow the goal before hitting the jackpot with the fourth.

Which is why VAR decisions should be timebound.
And, if you look at the use of the Video ref in Rugby Union, the refs usually ask for a specific issue to be checked, not have a carte blanche for anything that perhaps might have taken place. In this instance, it would have worked thus:
Oliver: "Darren, I'm concerned that Ings may have been offside when he scored. Can you check that for me, please."
D England: "Michael, Ings was onside when he put the ball in. You may award the goal."

Used this way, both the VAR and the onfield ref retain their integrity ... even if some minor, rarely-used rule that could have been invoked is not so.

[Simon Page]

If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.

Admittedly I've hit peak paranoia, but I reckon if he was onside they'd have spent another 30 seconds in ultra slo-mo before deciding it was a foul. Obviously, we'll never know.

There are many, many, many reasons to hate modern football, but as I watched a frame-by-frame infinite repeat of the ball rolling over Watkins' outstretched leg I almost started considering Nordic skiing as an alternative source of entertainment. Talk about sucking all the joy out of a sport.

[LeeB]

Even with that incident, whilst had Watkins got the merest of touches Ings would have been 'offside', but is that really what the thing is supposed to be for?

[paul_e]

I disagree, but that's okay, it's a game of opinions :-)

My personal view is that the ref saw the collision in real-time, deemed it wasn't a foul, which it obviously wasn't - but when shown JJ was offside it immediately became "interference", where the threshold is much lower than for a foul.  The ref didn't see it on the monitor and then think "I got that wrong, it WAS a foul", he saw JJ was offside (which is why the first view they gave him off the incident was side on)

We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.

I agree that it can be interpreted that way, in much the same way you could interpret the Leicester one as correct, and the man city one but the point is that the laws of football are all about the refs interpretation and the precedent, in the premier league, is a different interpretation than the ones given in all 3 cases so why is it decisions that have a negative impact on us have so often involved a reinterpretation of an obscure law?

If this was the first time it had happened I'd be much more willing to agree with your view but this is 3 or 4 (depends on your view of the trez penalty) times in a couple of years now.

[London Villan]

Can the PMGOL be happy with how this is developing?

More ridicule, more scrutiny, the whole of English football saying it's a mess. Last night, a massive TV audience and a team denied a deserved goal by some technicality and odd interpretation of the laws. Only makes them look worse.

[ChicagoLion]

Can the PMGOL be happy with how this is developing?

More ridicule, more scrutiny, the whole of English football saying it's a mess. Last night, a massive TV audience and a team denied a deserved goal by some technicality and odd interpretation of the laws. Only makes them look worse.

I am sure their Cayman Island Financial Advisor will lighten the mood.