Welcome to another Monday VAR thread. Some protocol bits to explain around some decisions. Fill yourself with rage.
Including:
- Timo Werner disallowed goal / Ward-Prowse red
- Penalty to Leeds?
- Watford "goal"
- Tim Krul on Matej Vydra
- Liverpool v Man City incidents
Starting with Timo Werner's disallowed goal against Southampton.
This all comes down to VAR protocol and what constitutes the Attacking Phase, and is something which I particularly dislike about the process.
To begin with, Attacking Phase isn't reset by a failed clearance.
We get one of these in the Premier League every now and again but as VAR in the PL usually doesn't go back too far in the Attacking Phase, it's rare.
In other leagues fouls some way back in the Attacking Phase are penalised far more regularly.
So the following are not considered to reset the Attacking Phase (from IFAB Video Review Protocol):
- A save, deflection or rebound that does not result in control of the ball (by the defending team)
- A clearance that does not reach or is not controlled by a teammate
So when Jan Bednarek (35) cuts out the ball here, and it drops back to Cesar Azpilicueta to cross, rather than a Southampton teammate, it isn't considered a new phase.
If Romelu Lukaku scores from this secondary cross, you can sort of accept the decision.
This is where it gets very subjective, and I'm confident with another VAR (this was Mike Dean) or on another day the goal isn't disallowed.
The question is whether the Southampton defence has reset when Callum Hudson-Odoi collects the ball out wide.
I absolutely think it has.
There have been 3 goals disallowed for a foul this season - the same number as the whole of 2019-20 and 2020-21.
Disallowing this goal after 17 seconds after the challenge, when the ball has already been knocked out of the box from the original move feels too much.
For James Ward-Prowse's red card, his problem is two-fold.
1. He goes in with force 2. With the sole of the boot and studs leading. This is always judged more harshly
In this instance, there is always a high chance of a red card.
On to Leeds vs. Watford, and frankly poor decisions from referee Simon Hooper and VAR Lee Mason.
First, Leeds should have had a penalty for William Troost-Ekong's challenge on Daniel James. There is no intention to play the ball here, only prevent James from doing so.
This is the grab which shows why Simon Hooper disallowed the Watford "goal."
Christian Kabasele does have his hands on Liam Cooper at this point, but they have both been holding each other and in such cases we're told it's 50-50 and there's no foul by either player.
What makes it worse here is Simon Hooper blows just before the ball crosses the line. That means play is already dead and VAR cannot review to award the goal.
And it's not the first time Hooper has blown his whistle just before the ball has crossed the line.
So onto a missed intervention in Burnley vs. Norwich.
There has always been a reluctance to penalise goalkeepers going for the ball unless it's a really bad challenge (see Paulo Gazzaniga vs. Chelsea).
For whatever reason, they have free rein to come out more aggressively.
But in this instance, a penalty has to be a better outcome. We saw this at Euro 2020 with Hugo Lloris. He lightly touches the ball but then connects fully with the head of Danilo.
The referee awarded a penalty and booked Lloris. They are very similar.
What many of these incidents really tell us (along with several others in recent weeks) is there's still uncertainty about when the VARs should intervene when there's a lighter touch.
I think VARs are still second-guessing themselves at times on clear decisions.
Now Liverpool vs. Man City, to explain why VAR couldn't get involved in most of the key incidents in this game.
There's no doubt this should have been a second yellow card for James Milner, but VAR cannot get involved in second yellows and there's good reasons for this.
Firstly, if you have multiple players on a yellow, and possible second yellows are reviewable, it means every challenge by a player on a booking becomes a reviewable incident.
It's felt that this would overstep the line of the "minimum interference, maximum benefit" ethos.
Also, if second yellows are reviewable, what does this mean if the first yellow was wrong? It means a player could be sent off for a second yellow through VAR when the first yellow shouldn't have happened.
The frequency of bookings means using VAR isn't desirable.
On the earlier Milner incident, the foul contact is outside the area so it isn't a penalty and not in VAR's remit. The second contact isn't the foul.
A foul "continuing into the box" is for pulling. For a foul tackle, it's the contact which causes the foul which is used.
That said, there's a shout for a red card here for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
The question for the VAR is whether he feels Joel Matip is close enough to deem it not an obvious goal-scoring chance for Foden.
Milner was lucky to avoid a red on two occasions.
On Newcastle's goal at Wolves, it would have been far better game management by Graham Scott to stop the play so Jose Sa could get treatment.
But it wasn't a foul on the goalkeeper, so VAR can have no role in the goal.
It seems only right that we pay a visit to our old friend, the subjective element of offside. It's now a weekly feature!
In Liverpool vs Man City, Raheem Sterling is not in Alisson's line of vision to the ball from Kevin De Bruyne's shot, and makes no move to the ball either.
But in West Ham vs. Brentford, this is definitely a case whereby if the goal was disallowed on the pitch VAR would not have overturned.
Michail Antonio looks to be in David Raya's line of vision but as he's not close, it's not deemed an obvious error to allow the goal.
And last but not least, it was a clear decision to disallow Everton's late goal at Manchester United.
Yerry Mina was well ahead of the ball when Tom Davies squared the ball to him.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Why don't leagues have a chip in the ball for semi-automated VAR offside?
🖥️ Tech by Kinexon
⚽️ Centre-mounted chip in ball developed & patented by Adidas
❌ No league uses Adidas
Adidas would need to share/licence, or other ball companies find an alternative to house chip.
Who are the ball manufacturers for the different leagues?
Premier League (Nike this season, Puma from 2025-26)
LaLiga (Puma)
Bundesliga (Derbystar)
Serie A (Puma)
Ligue 1 (Kipsta)
Kinexon has worked with Adidas, Derbystar and Puma so far.
It's not easy to overcome, as Kinexon went through 1000s of prototypes until it achieved a ball that was actually FIFA-approved, in weight and the counterweight and the balance, and that provided good results.
So it's not as simple as saying "put a chip in the ball".
🔷 How many places in Champions League for Serie A
🔷 What happens to place in UCL for the UEL titleholders
🔷 What happens to seeding for the 2024-25 UCL, 👀 Barcelona
Pull up a chair a moment.
1. How many places will Serie A get in the Champions League?
We know Italy will have 5 teams in the UCL next season as they have one of the 2 extra places for league performance.
Atalanta are 5th. If they finish 5th, and 5th only, Italy will have 6 teams in the UCL.
AS Roma are guaranteed to finish in 6th, so they are left waiting on Atalanta's final position.
If Atalanta finish 5th, AS Roma will be in the UCL.
If Atalanta finish 3rd or 4th, AS Roma will be in the UEL.
Atalanta sit two points outside the top 4 with a game in hand.
Sick of keepers holding the ball for 30-40 seconds to waste time or slow down play?
The [unenforced] law says a keeper can only hold the ball for 6 seconds. Any longer and it's an indirect FK to the opposition.
We now have details of The IFAB trial to change it.
Thread. 👇
As well as wasting time, a goalkeeper holding the ball for too long is considered an unfair tactic because the opposing team has no possibility to regain possession.
That's because a goalkeeper cannot be challenged when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
A keeper holding the ball for more than 6 seconds should be punishable by an indirect free kick.
However, we have got to the stage where this is rarely enforced by referees, which in recent years has been exploited tactically.
Mauro Icardi's offside in Galatasaray vs. Manchester United gives us a good illustration of how semi-automated technology will be more accurate and reliable - yet may lead to more goals being disallowed.
This was ruled out on the field, but stay with me.
There's a common misconception that handball starts at the bottom of the sleeve.
This isn't the case.
It's the arm point level with the armpit - if you had it by your side - around the whole arm.
Basically, the area of the arm which can't increase body size if you move it.
The starting point for offside (and handball) is therefore an imaginary line on the arm.
With the old tech, the point on the attacker and defender is plotted manually by the VAR and operator.
This obviously has to cause inconsistencies, and it's why there's a tolerance level.
This is what happened with the Luis Diaz "goal" which Liverpool had disallowed vs. Tottenham.
There will be a deeper dive in the Monday VAR thread, but in simple terms the VAR took the wrong onfield decision - it led to the goal being disallowed.
So the VAR, Darren England, checked offside thinking the onfield decision was "goal."
It was a quick offside check because it was clear Diaz was onside, so he told the referee "check complete".
In telling the ref "check complete" he is saying the onfield decision was correct.
So the "human error" by the VAR team is getting the onfield decision wrong. Not by failing to draw lines etc.
The lines were drawn and Diaz was clearly onside.
The huge, quite unbelievable error was misunderstanding the onfield decision.
So the dust has settled on the first VAR audio show of the year with Howard Webb.
Time for a little old-school VAR thread to go through it.
I'll include the video clips.
We got 2 of the 3 big errors in the Premier League this season - the penalty not given against Andre Onana vs. Wolves + the offside goal Man City scored against Fulham.
It didn't include Alexis Mac Allister's red card, which has been the main point of complaint in my comments.
It would have been better to include that Mac Allister red, especially as it was overturned on appeal.
But then if you include Mac Allister, you drop something else (Zaroury?). And you absolutely have to include the examples of good process to show where VAR works.