DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100084--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle vs City- Kavanagh/Attwell
DIR By: Marvin Grapevine
Date: January 14, 2026, 3:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Haaland was offside due to the positioning of Pope and Thiaw. I
really don't think that is debatable.
However, and this is my major issue, we are told that he has to
be interfering with play to be offside. We've gone over similar
decisions where goals have been allowed (Ouattara v Chelsea) or
disallowed (Van Dijk v Man City) and there is absolutely no
consistency.
Let's go through them in order.
Ouattara - clearly offside, middle of goal, attempts to kick the
ball. VAR doesn't even consider his offside position (as
highlighted on the Mic'd Up show). Webb says this decision is
correct despite him having the most impact - by actually trying
to kick the ball - out of these three incidents. Goal allowed.
Van Dijk - keeper was not getting anywhere near the ball,
Robinson doesn't try to play the ball, has no impact on the
keeper's actions. Goal disallowed. Webb says this is a
defendable decision.
Semenyo - keeper has actively jumped the wrong way. Ball
absolutely flies off Semenyo past Haaland (about a yard away)
who does not attempt to play the ball, and is jostling with
Thiaw, who also had no chance to play the ball given his
proximity and speed of the ball. VAR does at least notice the
offside (unlike Ouattara) but then makes the error of thinking
he is interfering.
We've got this all about face. The clearest offside offence saw
the goal given (due mainly to the VAR not even considering it)
and the other two - which should have stood - are disallowed.
VAR is absolutely shambolic, and that's before we get to the
SAOT breaking down and the absurd length of time it's taking.
This check took 5+ minutes, the one for Ouattara was cleared in
under 20 seconds.
#Post#: 100085--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle vs City- Kavanagh/Attwell
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: January 14, 2026, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That ludicrous long wait for a wafer thin decision sums up for
me what is wrong about football at this level now. The
authorities are trying to turn it into a science and thus the
excitement will be completely drain away. Why not dispense with
players and opinions and just play subbuteo instead. Then the
officials can employ their dividers, protractors and setsquares
and get 100% accuracy every time [emoji6]
#Post#: 100088--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle vs City- Kavanagh/Attwell
DIR By: TA_Ref
Date: January 14, 2026, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If the main reason for the long check was due to the failure of
SAOT then I have a little more sympathy for VAR than I did at
the time. But as someone correctly pointed out, the technology
has to be improved so it doesn’t fail on us occasionally.
As for the decision itself, it’s one that I really don’t like. I
understand why it’s backable in law but it’s just searching for
a way to disallow a goal in my opinion. When I first watched a
replay, nothing seemed to occur which would’ve led to a long
check. Let’s take the scenario if Haaland was not next to Thiaw
- I’d say it would’ve been difficult to make a play on the ball
considering how close he was to the initial shot so I don’t
think he would’ve stopped the goal. If we had no VAR, it
would’ve been a goal and we probably would be saying absolutely
nothing about the goal. So for me, it doesn’t fall under the
requirement of a clear and obvious error.
Like I said, I really don’t like the decision but I can somewhat
understand why it was given.
#Post#: 100089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle vs City- Kavanagh/Attwell
DIR By: Ashington46
Date: January 14, 2026, 7:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TA_Ref link ---
>
> If the main reason for the long check was due to the failure
of SAOT then I have a little more sympathy for VAR than I did at
the time. But as someone correctly pointed out, the technology
has to be improved so it doesn’t fail on us occasionally.
>
> As for the decision itself, it’s one that I really don’t like.
I understand why it’s backable in law but it’s just searching
for a way to disallow a goal in my opinion. When I first watched
a replay, nothing seemed to occur which would’ve led to a long
check. Let’s take the scenario if Haaland was not next to Thiaw
- I’d say it would’ve been difficult to make a play on the ball
considering how close he was to the initial shot so I don’t
think he would’ve stopped the goal. If we had no VAR, it
would’ve been a goal and we probably would be saying absolutely
nothing about the goal. So for me, it doesn’t fall under the
requirement of a clear and obvious error.
>
> Like I said, I really don’t like the decision but I can
somewhat understand why it was given.
>
--- End Quote ---
DOn't lose sight of the fact that Wissa was wrestling with
Semenyo, in fact he was holding him, however, he stayed upright
and managed to swivel to possinly touch the ball, although I
thought that it came of Wissa's backside.
Had the ball hit the post, play would have continued because
neither the referee nor the AR thought that there was anything
untoward happened which is why a goal was given onfield.
VAR only got involved because a goal was scored and I am not
convinced that they got that right because I am not sure who
played the ball, Semenyo or Wissa.
#Post#: 100092--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle vs City- Kavanagh/Attwell
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: January 14, 2026, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
VAR / Kavanagh should have spent a bit of time looking at the
challenge on Semenyo and I think they would have seen it was
clearly a foul with Wissa’s only intent being to try and push
Semenyo away from the ball. If they had as fastidious in
reviewing that then having decided that the goal couldn't stand
they should have awarded a penalty.
#Post#: 100093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle vs City- Kavanagh/Attwell
DIR By: rustyref
Date: January 14, 2026, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: El Referee link ---
>
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=7612.msg100073#msg100073
date=1768346198]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=7612.msg100069#msg100069
date=1768345244]
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=7612.msg100068#msg100068
date=1768344919]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=7612.msg100065#msg100065
date=1768344408]
> Ultimately I think they have eventually got to the correct
decision. However, it should not be taking anywhere near this
long to make a decision. If the technology isn’t up to scratch,
they need to bin it. If they have to go back to basics either
the lines, I’d much rather a time limit was put in place. VAR
was in no way brought in for people to sit round for 6+ minutes
whilst a decision is made.
>
--- End Quote ---
They need to fix the technology, that is a given. But a time
limit would be a really bad idea, people don't work well when a
clock is ticking on them and that would just lead to even more
mistakes. For all it took a long time they looked very calm, I
can guarantee they wouldn't look calm if a 2 minute countdown
was ticking down over their heads.
[/quote]
They work under pressure when they’re on the field of player.
Always have and always will. So I don’t see why it needs to be
any different when they’re in the VAR booth. Once you get to 6
minutes, how on earth can you deem it C&O?
They’re going down the route of having specialist VARs, so they
need to be able to work under the pressures.
[/quote]
Because they are trying to get a video angle that will let them
draw lines. Looking at tonight's incident I suspect it took 2
minutes before they realised SAOT wasn't going to work, they
were then reliant on the video operator to get them an angle
that allowed lines to even be drawn. Can you not imagine the
pressure that puts you under, it is totally different to
refereeing as with that you see something and make a decision
there and then. And to add extra pressure someone thought it
would be a good idea to let the TV cameras focus on the VAR
officials whilst they try to deal with it.
Perhaps I'm leaning on my experience in IT here. Whenever there
is a big issue there is someone looking over your shoulder, if
it is mildly important it is your boss, a bit more important it
is the department head, a major outage and it is the CTO, and if
all hell has broken out it might be the CEO. It is very
difficult to work when all eyes are on you and you are put under
time pressures, even more so when something is on fire, it just
leads to more mistakes.
[/quote]
I see, so 6+ minute VAR reviews for an idea that was only ever
brought in to clear up absolute clangers is acceptable and okay
in your mind. Interesting.
[/quote]
No, it should never take 6 minutes and it wouldn't have had the
SAOT not failed. And as I've said, that is on PGMOL and the EPL
for thinking they could do SAOT better than the other leagues
that are already using it. We know it failed otherwise we would
have seen the 3D model of the decisions rather than the lines on
the grass, I would guess they spent at least 2 minutes trying to
get it to work before they gave up so that leaves a 3.5 minute
decision, part of which was the on-pitch review.
#Post#: 100094--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle vs City- Kavanagh/Attwell
DIR By: Claretman
Date: January 14, 2026, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
SAOT is the problem, the pgmol and premier league have paid less
for a sub standard piece of equipment, so the problem lies
totally at their doorstep.
Another case of individuals thinking they can pay less and do
better when they cant.
#Post#: 100095--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle vs City- Kavanagh/Attwell
DIR By: mac
Date: January 14, 2026, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Three pages in now, this can’t be what it was designed to be!
The idea of VAR is that threads about refereeing decisions
didn’t exist.
A clearly wrong decision is corrected by someone with the
technology to have another look. That was its sole purpose.
Everything about VAR has been a total disaster. I don’t blame
the guys using it or managing it, I just think it’s been proven
that’s, at least in its current form, it doesn’t work in
football.
#Post#: 100097--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle vs City- Kavanagh/Attwell
DIR By: TA_Ref
Date: January 14, 2026, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I see Pep has gone on a long rant about VAR in his post match.
All I’d say then, stop voting to keep it in the pre-season
meetings.
It’s the clubs choice whether they want VAR or not. If they no
longer want it then it is within their power to get rid of it.
#Post#: 100099--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newcastle vs City- Kavanagh/Attwell
DIR By: george dixon
Date: January 14, 2026, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Having watched all the constant replays on TV whilst VAR were
reviewing it, I came to the opinion that it was as close to
level as I've ever seen on a review, does the system allow for
level (Onside), or does it have to differentiate between onside
or offside and produce the lines accordingly?
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page