Leicester 0-0 Wolves We've been roobbed Verdict thread:

[Penk Wolf]

There's a reverse angle somewhere which shows the ball hitting the arm

Looks like it hit his chest from this angle.

 

[AndyWolves]

Looks like it hit his chest from this angle.

To be fair that looks pretty conclusive

 

[Penk Wolf]

Jota wasn't it? Where he put it miles wide one on one.

Tbh I kind of *knew* he was offside, the starting positions just looked all wrong.

No, definitely Jiménez.

 

[darlowolf64]

No, definitely Jiménez.

The Jimenez one he actually started from inside our half. The Jota one that he spannered wide, it was clear he was offside and had he scored I was ready for VAR to take it away

 

[Penk Wolf]

The Jimenez one he actually started from inside our half. The Jota one that he spannered wide, it was clear he was offside and had he scored I was ready for VAR to take it away

There was two with Jimenez.

 

[AndyWolves]

I’m all for VAR, but surely this is what VAR is for not accidental handballs.

I wasn't feeling robbed before, but after seeing this I am

 

[The Bear]

To be fair that looks pretty conclusive

It's irrelevant anyway as Penk has already pointed out. It hit a defender after that before going to Sharp.

Which is another stupid minutiae of the new law. If it hadn't hit the attacker first it'd never hit the defender to go to Sharp.

It's a real mess of a rule.

 

[AndyWolves]

It's irrelevant anyway as Penk has already pointed out. It hit a defender after that before going to Sharp.

Which is another stupid minutiae of the new law. If it hadn't hit the attacker first it'd never hit the defender to go to Sharp.

It's a real mess of a rule.

Agreed, it's awful and tries to fix something that wasn't a problem

 

[Charlie Wolf]

not sure how other folks viewed it, but the replay i saw was inconclusive that Boly had handled. probably the reason it took over 1 minute to make a decision. if it was that unclear, then surely the original decision of a goal should have stood.

This is why I mentioned earlier about ‘clear and obvious’ errors

Like most people, I agree with the fact that VAR did it’s job, it’s the rule that is creating the controversy, as the situation differs and so possibly can the interpretation. We will have these debates week in week out, which adds no value to the game of football

So as we have here, was it a clear and obvious error? we’ll it was from the video footage we have now seen, but it cuts across the spirit of the game.

We’ll move in and be stronger as a team from this experience

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Clear and obvious is just really crap nebulous language that means nothing.

It's clear and obvious to me that Lewis Capaldi is awful but he still sells records.

 

[Dinowolf]

OK, bear with me.
Years ago I attended a local referees quiz night and one of the questions was:
How many rules are there in football (soccer)?
Answer is none, as they are all Laws.

So how many Laws have they changed for the inclusion of the VAR system? A: None
They've issued new 'Guidelines' for refs. and advised clubs and players how it's going to work.

Whether things will be amended in the near future remains to be seen, but at the moment the application of these guidelines is what has proved controversial. It seems to have removed all common-sense.

 

[StuardoWulf]

They are changing the guidelines to make the refereeing easier in this case.

It is not the way to go IMO they are in danger of bringing chaos.

I heard on the radio that in future the fans will be just as into the excitement of VAR as the match. I fucking won't its a load of bollox

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Fans in their armchairs maybe, while Winstone encourages them to bet on the VAR outcome. The fans in the ground will get no benefit really.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

We'll get the benefit of bullshit goals not being given against us and ridiculously obvious penalties not being given for us, of which there were at least two each last season (not to mention Raul's "goal" vs Spurs at home)

 

[AndyWolves]

We'll get the benefit of bullshit goals not being given against us and ridiculously obvious penalties not being given for us, of which there were at least two each last season (not to mention Raul's "goal" vs Spurs at home)

Let's hope so, consistency is all fans really want from refs

 

[VanWolfie]

OK, bear with me.
Years ago I attended a local referees quiz night and one of the questions was:
How many rules are there in football (soccer)?
Answer is none, as they are all Laws.

So how many Laws have they changed for the inclusion of the VAR system? A: None
They've issued new 'Guidelines' for refs. and advised clubs and players how it's going to work.

Whether things will be amended in the near future remains to be seen, but at the moment the application of these guidelines is what has proved controversial. It seems to have removed all common-sense.

I'm pleased you made the distinction between rules and laws. I made it towards the end of last season but it was dismissed as irrelevant by a regular poster (not Deutsch, whose knowledge of these matters is immense). The difference is important because laws cannot be changed mid-season (not quickly at all) but guidelines that serve as rulings for referees can be. I suspect they will be (Deutsch's wish notwithstanding) because they were ordained by David Elleray who is admired by a few but disliked with intensity by many!

 

[StuardoWulf]

We'll get the benefit of bullshit goals not being given against us and ridiculously obvious penalties not being given for us, of which there were at least two each last season (not to mention Raul's "goal" vs Spurs at home)

I wouldn't bet on it, Rauls maybe, offsides maybe in general, but that incident yesterday won't happen to Man City in a title clincher cus they wont go all out looking for something.

 

[Charlie Wolf]

We'll get the benefit of bullshit goals not being given against us and ridiculously obvious penalties not being given for us, of which there were at least two each last season (not to mention Raul's "goal" vs Spurs at home)

What? You mean the ones due to clear and obvious errors?
Or is that just too crap and nebulous?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Clear and obvious error isn't what VAR is there for in football though. That is a DRS term from cricket where they stick with umpire's call on marginal decisions.

Football isn't going down that route. And offside or not offside is absolutely binary.

Our non-goal on Sunday is purely the result of VAR correctly interpreting a badly written piece of guidance. The contrast with the Sheffield United goal is an excellent case in point. If there was a handball in their build up, which seems inconclusive, then the fact that it then hit a Bournemouth player before being scored seems to mean it is no longer automatically chalked off, and that seems a bit whacky races.

Plus as we can now see from the other shot, the correct decision should have been "no goal - penalty" for the tug on Boly's shirt that caused him to handle the ball in the first place.

 

[Deano]

Clear and obvious error isn't what VAR is there for in football though. That is a DRS term from cricket where they stick with umpire's call on marginal decisions.

Football isn't going down that route. And offside or not offside is absolutely binary.

Our non-goal on Sunday is purely the result of VAR correctly interpreting a badly written piece of guidance. The contrast with the Sheffield United goal is an excellent case in point. If there was a handball in their build up, which seems inconclusive, then the fact that it then hit a Bournemouth player before being scored seems to mean it is no longer automatically chalked off, and that seems a bit whacky races.

Plus as we can now see from the other shot, the correct decision should have been "no goal - penalty" for the tug on Boly's shirt that caused him to handle the ball in the first place.

Have they got the technology to make these binary decisions for offside though? You'd need to be able to track the exact moment the ball leaves the passing players boot and make sure that the 3D modelling they use is 100% accurate. I think the rules need reviewing and maybe bring back the daylight rule for offside - as in that Sterling example he gains absolutely no advantage by his shoulder being a gnats bollock ahead of the defenders shoulder and ruling out goals like this is not really why offside exists.

The hand ball stuff will throw up many contentious scenarios because what does it mean that it will be ruled out if it "leads to a goal" - how far back does the VAR check this? The ball hit Boly's arm and the goal was disallowed but what would have happened if it hit Bolys arm - the ball was touched 4 times by different players and then stuck in the net? Would it be ruled out then or not? It still contributed to the chance which led to a goal.. I think what is going to happen is we are going to get an absolute mess of inconsistency,