Refs & VAR Overshadow Exciting Draw

1 hour ago, Davo said:

I'm certain this is happening now for anything that's close.

The problem is when the lack of a call doesn't lead to a goal but still gives an advantage to the attacking team it doesn't get reviewed. What if a team breaks the defensive line near halfway, the linesman suspects it's offside but keeps his flag down, the attacker shoots and the keeper puts it behind for a corner. Now instead of having a free kick in the middle of the pitch you're defending a corner and the VAR won't check any of it.

What if instead of putting it behind for a corner a defender fouls the player, giving away a penalty and getting sent off (cough Baccus Jnr cough).

What if we just get rid of the VAR except for goal line decisions, accept that referees and linesmen are human and likely to make mistakes (though fewer than the more highly paid players on the field) and leave the discussion on possible mistakes to forums like this.

1 hour ago, Davo said:

I'm certain this is happening now for anything that's close.

The problem is when the lack of a call doesn't lead to a goal but still gives an advantage to the attacking team it doesn't get reviewed. What if a team breaks the defensive line near halfway, the linesman suspects it's offside but keeps his flag down, the attacker shoots and the keeper puts it behind for a corner. Now instead of having a free kick in the middle of the pitch you're defending a corner and the VAR won't check any of it.

What if instead of putting it behind for a corner a defender fouls the player, giving away a penalty and getting sent off (cough Baccus Jnr cough).

Yep I think it would be better if they refer to Var. Basically before decision of goal is given ref linesman get to refer anything that is worrying them before giving decision in case of baccus one. “can we check the offside leading up to it, I didn’t put my flag up because I wasn’t sure can you check it?” 

19 minutes ago, HillsPanther said:

A League refs becoming very lazy since VAR.

Undoubtedly.

Green would have been better to call the pen and get then get overuled rather than the way it happened. Immediate stoppage and overuled if an obvious error ie not a handball.

Green should have called the foul on Vedran and be prepared for the overrule.

By comparison, right or wrong, Shaun Evans in the Adelaide v Mariners game called the DOGSO. You could tell he was talking to the AR (and possibly the 4th Official) before pulling the red. He was not overruled.

Btw I’d rather they just scrap it completely but I doubt that will happen now 

Just now, StringerBellend said:

Btw I’d rather they just scrap it completely but I doubt that will happen now 

You know that FIFA have Maccas as a sponsor and so Infantino was looking for way to get the Golden Arches onto TV screens. FFA volunteered for the advertising to get FIFA onside. 

1 hour ago, StringerBellend said:

Don’t know about guaranteed this is a league referees

Cant they modify the Var rule to before they give goal, the referee checks with linesman to see is there any concern he has that he wants checking out eg.

”I kept my flag down but he may have been offside can you check it? Or there might have been a foul on keeper can you check it?” This would obvious increase referrals (as per League they will probably refer everything) but it will cut the number of goals given and then struck off and also clarify if the the linesman and referee did he see something but wanted Var safety blanket

if referees and linesman are just not making decisions thinking Var will pick it up later then that’s ridiculous 

Not only will it "cut the number of goals given and then struck off..." it will also go a long way to cut the number of spectators.  We are bellyaching over three stoppages last Friday, so what will the outcry be with more delays for referrals.  I thought the VAR was a trial.  I have a conspiracy theory.  Since spectators, coaches, players and commentators obviously hate it, the referees have come on board and the VAR referees are making such a mess of the game through VAR delays and decisions that they are doing their darnedest to make the trial a magnificent failure.

19 minutes ago, Paul01 said:

Undoubtedly.

Green would have been better to call the pen and get then get overuled rather than the way it happened. Immediate stoppage and overuled if an obvious error ie not a handball.

Green should have called the foul on Vedran and be prepared for the overrule.

By comparison, right or wrong, Shaun Evans in the Adelaide v Mariners game called the DOGSO. You could tell he was talking to the AR (and possibly the 4th Official) before pulling the red. He was not overruled.

Two questions on the Hoffman/Janjetovic incident.

1.  A video clip of the incident as it unfolded clearly shows both players in the air,  leaping for the ball, both with their eyes on the ball.  Is Hoffman entitled, under the rules, to do this and, if so, at what point did Hoffman's legal challenge become an infringement?

2. A comment on another football site suggested that once Janketovic had the ball in his hands, contact from Hoffman became a late challenge.  The comment includes no explanation of how an airborne Hoffman was supposed to avoid contact.  Does this then mean that if two players contest a high ball in the field of play, the one who does not win the heading duel should then be penalised as Hoffman was on this occasion.

10 minutes ago, Harv said:

Two questions on the Hoffman/Janjetovic incident.

1.  A video clip of the incident as it unfolded clearly shows both players in the air,  leaping for the ball, both with their eyes on the ball.  Is Hoffman entitled, under the rules, to do this and, if so, at what point did Hoffman's legal challenge become an infringement?

2. A comment on another football site suggested that once Janketovic had the ball in his hands, contact from Hoffman became a late challenge.  The comment includes no explanation of how an airborne Hoffman was supposed to avoid contact.  Does this then mean that if two players contest a high ball in the field of play, the one who does not win the heading duel should then be penalised as Hoffman was on this occasion.

I'll quote you from the FFA referees website on Law 12.

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

The interpretation in this case could be charges at, jumps at or pushes. It was unusual for Green to penalise Hoffman as Vedran was in his goal box and if a keeper is is pushed or shoved there , the foul usually goes to the keeper.

There are also a lot of sour grapes because some of the journos and commentators are backing the Jets over everyone except the Smurfs.

12 minutes ago, Harv said:

1.  A video clip of the incident as it unfolded clearly shows both players in the air,  leaping for the ball, both with their eyes on the ball.  Is Hoffman entitled, under the rules, to do this and, if so, at what point did Hoffman's legal challenge become an infringement?

Players are entitled to do whatever they want on the pitch. What happens as a result of their choices is what makes things a foul or not. Eg, you can make a two footed studs up lunge at the ball but you can easily end up giving away a foul and a red card. Players are entitled to their position and if a player infringes on that position it can be a foul. It should have been a foul with or without the ball in hand as Hoffman charged/jumped into Vedran.

It's like a player holding the ball in front of them at feet, if Matt Simon comes in and levels them from behind without getting the ball it's a foul.

Generally speaking most referees will call a foul against the late comer to a heading duel if the player clearly misses the ball and jumps in carelessly.

Hoffman is meant to "avoid contact" by not jumping carelessly into a contest he's going to be almost surely late for. Now obviously players aren't going to do that, they'll jump in and accept the foul 99/100 times. 

1 hour ago, Paul01 said:

I'll quote you from the FFA referees website on Law 12.

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

The interpretation in this case could be charges at, jumps at or pushes. It was unusual for Green to penalise Hoffman as Vedran was in his goal box and if a keeper is is pushed or shoved there , the foul usually goes to the keeper.

There are also a lot of sour grapes because some of the journos and commentators are backing the Jets over everyone except the Smurfs.

1 hour ago, mack said:

Players are entitled to do whatever they want on the pitch. What happens as a result of their choices is what makes things a foul or not. Eg, you can make a two footed studs up lunge at the ball but you can easily end up giving away a foul and a red card. Players are entitled to their position and if a player infringes on that position it can be a foul. It should have been a foul with or without the ball in hand as Hoffman charged/jumped into Vedran.

It's like a player holding the ball in front of them at feet, if Matt Simon comes in and levels them from behind without getting the ball it's a foul.

Generally speaking most referees will call a foul against the late comer to a heading duel if the player clearly misses the ball and jumps in carelessly.

Hoffman is meant to "avoid contact" by not jumping carelessly into a contest he's going to be almost surely late for. Now obviously players aren't going to do that, they'll jump in and accept the foul 99/100 times. 

So basically the unwritten rules are that the goalkeeper is God inside the six yard (2 metre?) box and thou shalt not challenge within this area lest you be penalised.

An interesting aside was that replays showed Hoffman smiling after the decision, so he knew damned well what was going on.

It's a written rule in Law 12.

Quote

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when:
• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hands.

Vedran had the ball between his own hands, therefore Hoffman couldn't challenge him. It's not even a case of it having to be 'careless'. You simply cannot challenge at all once the keeper has the ball in his hands.

There should be no on field officials just the VAR. Red and yellow cards should be replaced by drones with tazers to punish naughty players. Otherwise it's much adou.

6 minutes ago, mack said:

It's a written rule in Law 12.

Vedran had the ball between his own hands, therefore Hoffman couldn't challenge him. It's not even a case of it having to be 'careless'. You simply cannot challenge at all once the keeper has the ball in his hands.

Not wanting to be seen as nitpicking, but the video clip and the still frame available on "Around the Bloc" clearly shows both Janjetovic and Hoffman in the air, challenging for the ball BEFORE Janjetovic has the ball in his hands.  So the question now is, was Janjetovic in control of the ball?  The fact that he dropped it might suggest to some that he was not in full control at any time.

Yes because it was between his hands. That's all law requires for a goalkeeper having control.

Hoffman can jump, but ended up challenging/charging/jumping into Vedran at a point where Vedran had the ball under his control. Which is an immediate foul.

12 minutes ago, mack said:

Yes because it was between his hands. That's all law requires for a goalkeeper having control.

Hoffman can jump, but ended up challenging/charging/jumping into Vedran at a point where Vedran had the ball under his control. Which is an immediate foul.

Not sure that we are looking at the same pictures, Mack.  In the second of the three still frames  you could say the the ball is near the hands, and argue whether this is enough to count as being between his hands.  The third shows the ball now being dropped, so no control.  However the first of the three shows the ball still free in the air  and not in, on, between or near Janjetovic's hands as I described above.

2 hours ago, Harv said:

Not only will it "cut the number of goals given and then struck off..." it will also go a long way to cut the number of spectators.  We are bellyaching over three stoppages last Friday, so what will the outcry be with more delays for referrals.  I thought the VAR was a trial.  I have a conspiracy theory.  Since spectators, coaches, players and commentators obviously hate it, the referees have come on board and the VAR referees are making such a mess of the game through VAR delays and decisions that they are doing their darnedest to make the trial a magnificent failure.

Don’t get me wrong I’d rather it scrapped and no referrals at all.

it may increase referrals but I’d prefer that then the ludicrous awarded of goals, a celebration then just before kick off it’s disallowed also I’d rather the linesman and referees were explicit when they are letting this go thru as they aren’t sure 

the Ikonomidis goal should have gone something like 

referee checks with linesman

linesman says I think he was onside but it was too close to call let’s juat check it 

Var says yep it was offside 

no goal 

Rather than what we got.. 

similar for the Vedran incident 

Hoffman was also committing the foul of carelessly jumping/charging an opponent (regardless of the Goalkeeping control law).

8 minutes ago, mack said:

Hoffman was also committing the foul of carelessly jumping/charging an opponent (regardless of the Goalkeeping control law).

What  can you see in the first of the three pictures to suggest that Hoffman is guilty of carelessly jumping/charging an opponent?  Then look at the third picture and you will notice that the ball has been dropped and Janjetovic, though still in the air, is still basically upright and showing no signs of having been charged by an opponent.  Had this occurred then surely the force would have at least knocked him away from the vertical.

He hit Vedran in the shoulder and wasn't even close to the ball. That's a foul.

Goalkeepers always have benefit of the doubt in the box. That’s been the precedent since Jesus was a boy 

18 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

Don’t get me wrong I’d rather it scrapped and no referrals at all.

it may increase referrals but I’d prefer that then the ludicrous awarded of goals, a celebration then just before kick off it’s disallowed also I’d rather the linesman and referees were explicit when they are letting this go thru as they aren’t sure 

the Ikonomidis goal should have gone something like 

referee checks with linesman

linesman says I think he was onside but it was too close to call let’s juat check it 

Var says yep it was offside 

no goal 

Rather than what we got.. 

similar for the Vedran incident 

I believe we would all like the correct decision all the time.  My concern is that we will end up with a system like Rugby League where mistakes are still made  by the reviews, and I don't know how this could be avoided.  Look at the discussion that has arisen over the three VAR decisions from last Friday, with some saying all VAR decisions correct, others saying all VAR decisions wrong, and all options in between.  I'm fully with you with your preference for the VAR being scrapped and no referrals at all.

15 hours ago, Harv said:

What if we just get rid of the VAR except for goal line decisions, accept that referees and linesmen are human and likely to make mistakes (though fewer than the more highly paid players on the field) and leave the discussion on possible mistakes to forums like this.

Absolutely, had it's time as an experiment, keep goal line tech and leave the rest to ref as always has been,  crucify match officials ( or praise them)  in the bar & forums  later in good old time honoured fashion.