Watched it the same way. Shocking is an understatement. Forget red card. He should have been in jail for GBH!
1 Like
That makes no sense at all. The entire purpose of VAR was to overturn mistakes on goal decisions and red cards.
If Robbo was not impedding Donnaruma, then the ref got the call wrong so that is exactly why VAR was introduced.
3 Likes
is that Legit or is it somekind of football trump fake news thing?
i mean, how would that even enter the rules as a specific exclusion?, as they designed VAR, how or why would anyone turn around and say âthat should be excluded from VARs remitâ
its weird. beyond weird
There has been years and years of discourse over what VAR is directed to not get involved in and why
yes, but they at least, kinda, maybe, make sense if you squint your eyes and tilt your head slightly anti clockwiseâŚblanket rules so to sayâŚ
this is such a specific clause it beggars belief
Its not a specific clause. The piece is trying to apply the clause, to not rereferee the game over disagreements of subjective decisions, to the specifics of the situation. That the company line in this case is utter bollocks doesnt change what the company line is - interference is a subjective call and bot subject to VAR overrule
There was a point made on a BBC article that asked fans about rule changes, I went with the changes in time. I think football is getting worse and worse for stoppages.
Most went for changes to VAR but one suggested if it takes more than a minute to spot something then it goes back to the onfield decision.
I do think the managers/captains challenge might be the most sensible and then remove everything that isnât sent technogical. Could limit them to two per game and 38 over a whole season so they arenât used as superfluous
1 Like
I can already hear Arsenal fan complaints that the âbad decisionsâ they got in September was just a ploy to rob them of all their challenges for the season 
They got Oliver for their match against their friends Spurs I see. 
Man City win.
Taking the piss now. Robertson penalized, Forest player on⌠What the fuck.
1 Like
It will be lost in the noise from today, and we certainly were at fault for letting the game slip away after that, but games turn on moments like that - and to have our equaliser ruled out last week but see that one given in the context of last game is fucking appalling from the refs, it really is.
3 Likes
Ultimately the refs think you can stand in an offside position right in front of the keeper you just cannot move to get out of the keeperâs way. This is another rule they turned into a confused stupid mess by tweaking it incrementally season after season until it turned into a frankensteinsâs monster of stupidity
2 Likes
âitâs an important point you make about line of vision but in this case there are other factors to consider.â
Thatâs Howard Webb talking about the Robertson incident against City.
In that instance the linesman, stood perpenficular to the incident and not in line, immediately states Robertson is in line of vision impacting the keeper and is then encouraged to flag it as offside. Once he does that the VAR has to find reason to overturn it. The linesman can not possibly say Robertson is in line from where heâs stood and the Webb justifies the decision by saying itâs Robertson moving out the way thatâs the reason it is disallowed despite the fact the keeper is never unsighted and dives before Robertson ducks.
Now their goal yesterday Alissonâs vision is clearly obstructed as the ball flies towards goal. But you watch that bald prick justify it by saying because the offside player doesnât move then itâs not offside despite the the keepers vision clearly being blocked.
If the game is at the point where you can obscure the flight of the ball but not be offside simply because you stand still but making an attempt to get out the way makes you offside then I donât want to watch football anymore.
Weâre playing shit but thatâs two critical decisions that are highly similar where theyâve come up with polar opposite decisions, both in the favour of our opposition and theyâll jump through a million mental hoops to say both were correct.
5 Likes
Aside from the fact that our current form is shit.
We cannot overlook this.
We are being shafted.
5 Likes
There was also a big difference in the time taken by VAR, analysing both incidents. Yesterday they decided very quickly, that the goal should be allowed, when it was clear to most people that it shouldnât.
1 Like
âŚand the linoâs interpretation of where Robbo was relative to the keeper in the process of impacting him is falsified by the video replayâŚthe exact sort of error we keep being told VAR is there to focus on.
2 Likes
I wonder what came out of our complaint?
Stockley Park on Saturday.
âŚâŚ.Tell them the goal stands because the Forest player wasnât interfering.
4 Likes
I would personally scrap VAR, apart from the new Offside system everything is still subjective and as you say a confused stupid mess.
Regarding the VVD disallowed goal, the Assistant flagged Robbo offside - which he was - but justified it by saying he was in the line of vision which he wasnât. Why is an Assistant referee influencing the referee with an opinion, he is square on and so cannot possibly see this.
What we gotâŚIs an over excited AR2, almost pleased he has grassed up a fellow pupil to the teacher. Audio: âRobertson, Robertson, Robertson.
Robertson, is in line of vision, right in front of keeperâ.
It was like he was looking for an offence.
What I would expect from a professional organisation:
Assistant 2: Raises Flag or keeps it down, but communicates with the Ref. âChris, Robertson was in an offside position, possible affecting the Keepers viewâ how do you see it?
Referee: In my opinion he was/wasnât but let me get a Replay. âShockleyâ Park, can you please replay the Goal from various angles.
Referee: upon reviewing the replay, I agree/Disagree.
It is letting the Referee judge his own call made in the moment.
By going to Stockley park, the referee is almost always told what his decision should be, based on a tick box process, which is still subjective.
If it was disallowed after he reviewed it again then fair enough. I may still disagree but at least he has not been influenced/told what his decision should be.
I would be interested to see if VAR over turned the Goal if it was given on the pitch.
I have played as a Goal Keeper across various formats of Football and in these moments your vision is always partially obscured, usually by your own defender.
I have watched this over a few times, Donuramna sees the header and dives in reaction to this header.
No hesitation in the Dive.
No adjustment in his dive from the Robertson movement.
His leading arm, from the point of the header was always in correlation to the flight of the ball.
The reason he didnât save it, was purely because it was a great header coming back from the direction of the cross which resulted in Donuramma making a slight foot adjustment which restricted the range of his dive.
One thing I noticed from the VAR clips is that in the Stockley Park exchange, one of the VAR assistants asks if there is a high def view from behind to see how high he is (Robertson) in the line of vision. He is then talked across by someone else who says I think he is offside and then the decision is made. Why was no consideration given to the other potential camera angle, it is not using all evidence. To me it shows a hierarchy in the decision making process and a failure to carry out a complete process.
Nb. I have now seen Ref watch and Bothroyd raises the same points I made.
I have also seen part of Carraghers analysis and what is he on?
1 Like
Your theories and proposals would only work if bias and corruption wasnât a factor.
3 Likes