[Football] Turf Moor Thriller Tonight

[nickjhs]

I’ve circled the ball in flight in red, high up centre, and another red circle to mark the point where Morris headed it. The blue line taken by Trafford clearly shows he has miscalculated the length of the cross, there is no way on earth that he could have reached the circled yellow ball from that position, no chance. He should have taken the yellow line, and he knows it.

More to the point if this kind of examination is needed to clarify the decision then the the original decision (be it to allow or disallow), should stand. I fully appreciate why you have gone to these lengths (to show how dishonest Trafford is being) but this is what they do to determine offside and hard to spot conclusions its bloody ridiculous, if lines need to be drawn on a stationary image to determine an outcome then it obviously was not "a clear and obvious" error by the Refs

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I’ve circled the ball in flight in red, high up centre, and another red circle to mark the point where Morris headed it. The blue line taken by Trafford clearly shows he has miscalculated the length of the cross, there is no way on earth that he could have reached the circled yellow ball from that position, no chance. He should have taken the yellow line, and he knows it.

Is that relevant though? Forward does back into him so we'll never know if he could have made it.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

More to the point if this kind of examination is needed to clarify the decision then the the original decision (be it to allow or disallow), should stand. I fully appreciate why you have gone to these lengths (to show how dishonest Trafford is being) but this is what they do to determine offside and hard to spot conclusions its bloody ridiculous, if lines need to be drawn on a stationary image to determine an outcome then it obviously was not "a clear and obvious" error by the Refs

I just don't know why the ref can't check all goals himself. He might have come to the conclusion it was a foul by himself without the VAR rooms involvement and that would be fine.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

A different view, I still do not think its a foul

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I'm no fan of VAR, but I'm struggling to see what it did wrong here.

The on-field official gave the goal and the subsequent VAR review decided there was no clear and obvious error worthy of the referee taking another look.

Many think it was a foul, and a roughly equal number think it was a valid goal. As you say - a subjective decision that was allowed to stand as originally called. That's what we want, isn't it?

If VAR carries on like this, it may have a future.... Nothing to over rule the goal on reply/quickly came to decision

 

[Thunder Bolt]

A different view, I still do not think its a foul

It isn’t. From what I had read I thought it was a deliberate move to impede the keeper.
That shows a coming together in a contact sport. No foul.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I get the angst from some quarters, but we're just back where we've always been with football: The ref gave a decision that could have gone either way. If it goes for you, it was the right decision, if it goes against you it was the wrong decision and neutrals are roughly torn down the middle.

(I'm not sure it was the right decision. I was out in the car listening to the commentary on the radio, where they (can't recall who the commentator and pundit were) thought it was a valid goal, suggested the forward was just standing and Trafford piled into him. When I subsequently saw it later on, I'm not sure I agreed with that interpretation!)

But that's the issue (for some people). VAR was meant to solve problems/errors. But, because of the subjectivity (within pundits, in this thread, everywhere), it's never going to do that. Hence the ongoing debate.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Are you telling me there would not have been a RAGING ref thread appearing in NSC SECONDS later ?

I thought it was a foul. But it shows how grey these areas are. Luton players were clearly thinking so too.

Let's start a poll. If this was against Albion, was it a foul ?

Yeah, I think that’s a great question and I agree with you. Many people’s perspectives change when it is against their own team. The reality is that there would have been howls of outrage if it was against us. We would be told all refs are shit and there is nothing wrong with VAR, just the people who operate it. For many people the one definitive truth is the one that matches with their own opinion. The reality is that much in football is subjective. You think it was a goal, I don’t. But the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.

 

[OzMike]

No foul, rough and tumble.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Subjective decision - another example of why the VAR system isn't fit for purpose.

I was interested to see the ex-footballers and Jules convinced it was a foul. The cynic in me reckons that they just went against the VAR to undermine it. If the decision was overturned, maybe the post-match chat would be about how THAT was the wrong call.

Savage at the time didn’t think it was a foul ….does he count?

 

[seagullwedgee]

Is that relevant though? Forward does back into him so we'll never know if he could have made it.

Yes it is relevant. The keeper has made a cataclysmic error of judgment in the 93rd minute, after taking every high ball cleanly all day long and (falling flat on his belly every single time to waste a few more seconds each time). He knew it, he never would have got within 3 metres of punching or catching that ball. Deep down, he knows, VK knows, everyone knows. He misjudged it and the contact had no bearing whatsoever on proceedings.

 

[Wozza]

Burnley family in tears. Lovely stuff!

 

[Bozza]

But that's the issue (for some people). VAR was meant to solve problems/errors. But, because of the subjectivity (within pundits, in this thread, everywhere), it's never going to do that. Hence the ongoing debate.

I think last night was VAR done right.

I don't think VAR should get involved in 50/50 decisions. Nor 60/40 and 70/30 for that matter. When you get to around 75/25, you're in the realms of clear and obvious error, where VAR should intervene if the on-field decision has gone with the 25% verdict.

Maybe, I've stumbled upon the solution here: each game has a panel of experts - officials and players/ex-players - and for each contentious decision they vote. If the 75/25 threshold is exceeded, then the referee is invited to take another look. Anything below this bar, and the on-field decision stands!

 

[Bakero]

 

[Napper]

Keepers are over protected but that is a free kick all day long

We would be livid if happened to us

 

[London Irish]

I think all this shows is that a lot of people want the rough-and-tumble football they watched when they were a kid back, when football was a man's game, when players took their lumps and didn't complain, when players could craftily leave their mark on the opposition and that was regarded as a streetwise skill, when we didn't have foreign players coming over and cissying it all up with their antics, all that kind of thing, I'm sure you've heard it a million times.

Kompany asked after the game what would now stop him deliberately coaching his forwards to back into keepers in open play and set pieces. Well, the obvious answer is those actions are nearly always blown up as fouls. The fact that it wasn't yesterday doesn't really change that, it's pointless coaches training their players for unusual, outlier decisions by refs. VAR of course has grown increasingly reluctant to overturn on-pitch refs because VAR officials know full well fan sentiment is against them intervening over-actively (or pretty much them even being there in the first place) so that explains the second part of yesterday's mystery.