The Hotel End

VAR…great innit? If you’re a Spurs fan.
They only have one job to do.

I'm all for the correct decisions being made but if VAR isn't doing that what is the point of it

Did the ball cross the line; Yes or No?
Beyond that question there really is no need for technology. If the decision following VAR intervention remains arguable then what is the point of it. Might as well just leave it to the ref…

That one wasn’t questionable. The VAR gave offside and thought it had been given as a goal. It prevents them to bring it back (with the odd exception) once it’s kicked off again. No doubt another rule change. Clearly not the first mistake but must be one of the worst.

I also thought the red was very harsh, although more subjective. Didn’t help that the first thing the ref saw was the twisted ankle still. In real time it didn’t look bad and on the slow mo you could see it got the ball and it was so quick and IMO not a dangerous action, just unfortunate. I’d say no chance of being overturned though. 
I just imagine if we were on the end of these, without factoring in they are scousers!   :P

Definite red for me and absolutely zero chance of it being overturned. Any tackle where you go in with you studs and initial contact is above the ankle is pretty much always a red card now. Making contact with the ball is almost irrelevant, if you slide off the ball onto an opponents leg it just shows you’re not in control.

I think it was Platini that said that VAR doesn't prevent the error, it just shifts it.
It looks like he is being proved right.

I don’t think he meant that in the context of this one. I don’t think anyone expected them to get the decision right and then not tell the officials/not realise what decision had been given on the game they’re officiating on.  ;D

Great audio on this.
I’ll be surprised if the rule isn’t changed by the weekend. If it happens once it’ll probably happen again.
The clear sensible approach is to get in the refs ear and call it back if a game quickly kicks off against what was intended. The bigger change would be to get the VAR on the loudspeaker, which they are talking about but would seriously slow things down. Plus a clear ONSIDE/OFFSIDE on the screen.

I think they need to change the approach to refs replays too. What they showed him on the red card was to get him to show a red card, not to look at the incident again objectively. Show it in real time and then slow mo. He may have still sent him off but they do seem scared to go against things once it goes to VAR.

Perfect result, can the same VAR team cover all of Liverpools games.

Absolutely..  Can’t fùcking stand the wànkers.

That's got to be a clear shift of the error. Just let the ref get it wrong. That sounds bad but it's made the game the beauty that it is. Overcomplicating it will ruin it.

Well all the Liverpool moaning and whining worked a treat as the ref was too scared to send off Konate for one of the most obvious second yellows you’ll ever see.
While in the Chelsea v Arsenal game VAR intervened to award Chelsea a dubious penalty but then doesn’t for Arsenal when the goalkeeper takes out the striker in a far more blatant offence.

Exactly, it's the blame shifting we were warned of by those in the game.
We are stuck with it because it benefits the tv companies who supply the video feeds. Sod the supporters in the grounds left waiting with nothing while tv lords it over them

Just watched the Man Utd highlights. Two soft pens and an awful red card decision IMO. No one picked up on the event in normal play and then the classic freeze frame to dismiss him.

One thing VAR does ensure is that any teams playing without it are playing an entirely different game these days.
They are going to have to seriously change how it is used or just scrap it.

If they are going to the trouble of using it, watching multiple angles and replays, they may as well take any decision making away from the ref on the field once anything is reviewed and the ref purely administers it.
If speed and tech improves I am sure it will be used for throws and corners etc.

I'm not sticking up for VAR. I'd get rid of it asap. But I'm sure the ref looked at the Rashford decision in real time. Slow motion, and freeze frame. IMO it was a red.

One that was up there with the rogue offside last night.

What an awful penalty decision. When one of the best refs in the world gives that after viewing the monitor, it is time to remove that farce of a process and just tell the ref what to give from the studio.
Every time it seems a forgone conclusion when they are asked to look at something. It was a clear example where he should have stuck to his guns.

One way round all this is when a decision reverts to VAR, it should then be done with AI, not another Referee. Should be quite easy to load all the rules and regulations into a computer and rule OUT human flaws. Would end the arguments because every occasion would see the same verdict so no inconsistencies.

I have a bit of experience with this. When I started running a golf society over 20 years ago, we used to do what most societies did back then, cut a couple of shots off the winner, give a shot back to the guy finishing last, that sort of thing. There was always arguments, some quite valid such as taking 2 shots of a single figure handicapper is a far bigger penalty than taking 2 shots off a high handicapper. Anyway, we came up with formulas, adjusted overtime to treat everybody fairly and now we have no arguments at all when handicap adjustments are made as no person makes those adjustments, it's as case of "The computer says".

I’m sure AI is the future, of everything. We probably won’t have to actually play and can just download a simulation.

It's just about eliminating human error (opinion).

Another great advance would be if they took away from individual Referees how much time to be added on. Should be done with an electronic clock, stopped every time the ball is not in play, would cut down time wasting almost completely. Probably need to be only 30 minutes a half though.

I heard a debate about the sin bin proposal. The main concern was teams wasting time/slowing play down to eat up the 10 minute penalty. I thought that the only way around this was to have a dedicated sin bin clock that was controlled by a 5th official. A 10 min penalty could end up being 20 minutes plus!
I am a bit surprised that we haven't seen the rugby style timing yet, although you are right they'd have to shorten the half, maybe to 40 mins like in rugby. While we are at it we can change the shape of the ball.  :P

I believe the last time I saw a test on the amount of time a ball stays in play each half it was 29 minutes. That doesn't surprise me one jot.

There is definietly a strong argument for 60min stop clocks - would eliminate a lot of issues around time wasting and injury time etc.

I was recently reading some stats on average time the ball was in play for prem games.
The average I think was around 55-60mins, but it varied drastically from game to game. i.e. Some Stoke games (the Tony Pulis effect) were as low as 40 mins whereas the likes of Man City had games that were nearer to 70 mins. A 30 min difference of in-play time is significant for both the integrity of the game and the fans enjoyment.

Latest howler...

First Liverpool pen, questionable but probably enough not to overturn.
The second one??? Zero contact, a clear camera angle to show the keeper withdrew his hands and never touched him. It couldn't have been clearer than no penalty and a yellow for diving.

I really dislike VAR. For me, I'd like to see technology used for goal line decisions which are a binary did-it-cross-the-line-or-not question.

For everything else where it's more subjective it disrupts the flow of the game and the loss of spontaneity detracts more from the enjoyment of the game than an incorrect decision ever does. It's not even as if it's always right anyway!

Is there a sadder sight in sport than a goalscorer standing around, waiting to see if they can celebrate or not?

His elbow caught his heel.
I probably wouldn't have given it but there was no reason to overturn the onfield decision.
It's not a VAR howler, it's the subjective decision by the onfield official that you would have had without/pre VAR.  ;)

I agree, but I would add offside to the binary and non subjective "is he on or off" decisions...

What made no sense about the Jota incident is why he didn't stay on his feet and put the ball in the empty net?

I think that may have swayed the officials.

In regard offside, I'd either get rid of them all together or introduce a line across the pitch level with the penalty box. Offside was brought in to stop "goal hanging" I don't see any point whatsoever in having somebody given offside a yard inside the opponents half. It would also stretch the game, leaving more space in which to play.

I think we’ll agree to disagree on that one DC.
I’d class that as a clear and obvious error without any subjectivity.
In terms of contact, if anything his foot brushes the elbow, which in itself would never be a foul.
Would have been interesting if the official would have had the bottle to overturn it given the opportunity to watch it back. That’s the issue, there is so much inconsistency.

As to Marvo’s point, absolutely no idea why he threw himself to the ground with an open net.
I’m with Chris Sutton on this one, 3 match ban for obvious diving like that. It would soon eliminate it.

As for the handball law, they seriously need to sort that one out.

OK we all think we know better than the match officials, but if VAR can't prove otherwise within 30 seconds we should stick with the original decision.

Years ago the rule was changed so that an attacker was onside if he was level with the last defender. If VAR must draw lines across the pitch make them the same width as each players body, if the lines overlap they are level, so onside. I think that is more in keeping with the spirit of the law.

There was contact, which could have caused the player to fall over, the decision about whether it did is subjective and therefore not 'a clear and obvious error'.
That is your own subjective perspective.
If he hadn't awarded the penalty kick, there would have been some, especially of the scouse persuasion, who would have queried it.

Nope, not for me.
I haven't seen anything conclusive to show actual contact. I have seen however that IF there was the slightest contact, it didn't lead to the fall which suggested he had just been shot by a sniper. That is VERY clear on any of the replays.
I also haven't read one 'expert' who thought it was a penalty in any context, rules based or otherwise. Just a shockingly poor decision and awful sportsmanship by Jota.

I totally get the ones where the rules 'block' the 'correct' decision making, or there is ambiguity like the blocked view of the ball being in/out of play in the West Ham/Arsenal game.

It's exactly poor decisions like this why players will continue with simulation.
For me VAR continues to add very little, other than mistakes and delayed celebrations. We're better off without it....in which case the penalty would have been given in some instances and he would have been booked for diving in others.

If you haven't seen or acknowledge the elbow catching his heel on the TV close ups that were shown during/after the game, you are arguing in a conversation without the benefit of all of the facts, which has an impact on your subjective perspective. ???

If it is accepted that there was the faintest of contacts and that therefore means if the player throws himself to the ground theatrically, leading to the ref thinking it was a foul it's OK? Then on review there was the faintest of contacts, ignoring the fact that the ref was conned by the dive but because of any contact the ref isn't allowed to review his/her decision....then the system isn't right. The footage CLEARLY shows that any contact did not cause the fall.
I'd far rather have a retrospective ban for the dive.

Anyway, enough on this one.

Refs are human, they make mistakes...I'd expect those to be mitigated if we insist on reviewing some of the wacky decisions from multiple angles. I can see why the ref gave it but then VAR should've helped him make the correct decision. We seem to have implemented rules that actually stop the 'correct' decisions being made. Bizarre. I'm glad we don't have it in the lower leagues....I'd rather accept the sh*t refs!

As for balls blasted at point blank range resulting in pens, that's definitely not the refs fault and a simple rule change required.

I am sure AI will take over these decisions sooner than we think!

Just seen Dominic Calvert-Lewin sent off for a tackle that wasn't even a foul, absolute joke. I think VAR is good it's just the dickheads operating it

That was always going to be a red card. You can’t make that sliding challenge with studs showing and make contact with an opponent above the ankle. Surely everybody knows this now and it blows my mind that players still go in like that.

Once the ref goes to review it’s a done deal. I’m not sure why they bother.

So does that make the referee, who was 5 yards away and gave nothing, incompetent ?

I was, and still am quite harsh on some refs, but I thought he was spot on, not even a foul let alone a card.

Yep. Works for me, just thinking about Phil Crossley at Mansfield. He had a great game whilst 5 yards away from the action.

Calvert-Lewin's red card (discussed above) has been rescinded.

Pretty embarrassing for the ref and VAR officials, especially as the ref as he saw it live and on the screen.
Has this been a common occurrence or the first time VAR has been overturned?

Of course it was one of the talking points of the Carabao.

I'm still not sure why Van Dijk's first "goal" was ruled out.

And for an unbiased view that of Sterling's either.

For the VVD goal they didn't really make a decision they passed it back to the referee and monitor because they couldn't decide.

Neither decision would have produced that much controversy if both goals had stood.

And that is completely at odds with VAR raison d'etre isn't it?

Two good goals for me. No idea (other than they copped out) on why they are sending the ref to the monitor for the Van Dijk one. It is exactly why they have people making those decisions.
Missed opportunity for Chelsea to get some silverware.

The difference is that there was a player who was in an offside position, which was factual.
The decision on whether the player had an impact on the play is a subjective opinion and should only be made by the match official. The match official determined that the player in an offside position had blocked and prevented the defender the opportunity to defend.
Therefore offside was the correct decision in the subjective opinion of the match official.

Blocking happens in nearly every game, normally without sanction, unfortunately this was and was within the Law and it's guidelines.

They should just scrap offside, more trouble than it's worth. The game would be more spread and you'd get more goals.

I always admire your defence of the refs union but until they start making (or not making) certain decisions, then the little trot over to the monitor totally diminishes credibility. i.e. "The match official determined that the player in an offside position had blocked and prevented the defender the opportunity to defend." Did he, or was he ever going to decide anything else once pitch side?

I'd love to see the stats on "Go and have a look at that decision" and a ref sticking to the decision vs changing it, regardless of what the evidence shows. Must be 95%+ almost to the point that they could eliminate that element and just give it from upstairs. The red card decisions probably the most blatant thing coming once they get sent for a look in super slow mo.

In terms of the thread and VAR, I genuinely can't see how it has improved the game. Huge delays, crazy mm decisions on offsides and plenty of mistakes to choose from. They should have stopped at goal line technology, although I am sure they implement subjective blue cards eventually and make the handball rule even more confusing.

It may appear that I'm defending the officials, I can assure you that I'm not, I'm just explaining the process and procedures that we have witnessed.
I'm just as frustrated as the rest regarding the deployment and use of VAR, we don't have a problem in the leagues below the Premier League because everyone 'accepts' the Referee's decisions taking into account that they are human and only use the resources available to them.
Yes, officials get things wrong but so do players and managers, it's a human trait. In my opinion VAR is spoiling the game for the spectator, I'm so glad that we aren't subject to it.

Definitely agree with all you've said here. VAR football and "normal" football are poles apart aren't they?
We will soon have a Rugby League and Rugby Union style split where "Elite" Football has different rules to "pure" Football

Well you're never going to get VAR at grass roots level so there was always going to be divergence.

Be interesting to see VAR get involved in some of the decisions club linesmen used to make on the Racecourse.

I think the problem is that VAR has not been the panacea for reffing errors that everyone thought it was going to be. The is and always will be a certain amount of subjectivity to some decisions.

Fast forward and I am sure AI will make the game we see today unrecognisable, not necessarily for the better.

TV companies including Sky, BBC, BT,  etc praise VAR without bothering to mention they are the companies that get paid to provide the video to make the decisions.
It also completely misses the point. The offside rule was created to prevent goalhanging, not to decide if a strikers toe was a millimetre beyond the arse of a defender. Let the linesman's decision take precedence, at least he had the decency to turn up.

Who is it that craves these millimetre accurate decisions?
Let a game that is played by mostly less than perfect human beings who make numerous mistakes per game be reffed by less than perfect human beings who in actual fact make far fewer mistakes per game.
One thing is for sure VAR will drive down the overall standard of refereeing. why would a referee need to completely focus on incidents when he can just call on VAR?

'Notts' Forest  ;D

Think they are going to be in hot water.

I don’t really understand why they’re going on about him being a Luton fan as I’m not sure why an Everton win is better for Luton than any of the other possible two. Three definite penalties for me though, shocking from the officials!.

Weirdly in the cup semi final VAR has got the right decision by ruling out Coventrys potential winner, but without it and Coventry coming back from 3-0 down to win 4-3 we would have ended up with one of the most amazing football matches of all time.

It may have been correct, but is that what it is about? It was introduced to assist the referee, not find any reason whatsover to overule him. It ruined a great game.
Good job its not at this level, cos Bayos tits would be offside.

Yeah I fully agree, watching that game I felt flat wishing VAR wasn’t there to rule out an amazing winner by a few cm whether correct or not.

Not sure I agree on the three pen view. The first challenge was soft. The handball was very close and his arm was in a natural position. I thought the handball pen against Man Utd was harsh too. I guess that opens the 'handball' debate and how it is applied. Players may as well have their arms tied behind their backs these days.

The third one, yep, totally a foul and VAR should have had the ref over at the monitor who I'm sure would have then given it.

The Coventry offside must have been frustrating for every neutral watching! I'm surprised if the lino didn't flag. They usually do when it is close.

Swedish clubs refuse to use VAR, our Scandinavian cousins again showing us the way to go.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/13136567/premier-league-clubs-to-vote-on-scrapping-var-next-season

No chance of it being withdrawn- too many vested interests here.

I think it will help fast track some much needed changes to how it is used. I'm glad we don't have to endure it. Having to wait for muted goal celebrations is getting as bad as rugby.

Whilst most (but not all) VAR decisions are correct - it’s the delay factor that ruins the flow of the game - for me if the VAR officials need more than 30 seconds to make a decision it should revert back to the pitch official’s original decision.

Even if it's wrong?
I don't believe that VAR should be binned but the process needs streamlining, although the automated offside system should help speed up that process for next season.  ;)

Not that it's a major concern for us just yet.

Yes, my point is if the VAR officials can’t confirm the on field officials got it wrong in a short time span it suggests it’s marginal and therefore let the game flow at the risk of an occasional error - after all that’s how the game is played in 99.99% of all games

I agree, but when the pundits disect it in their own time and with ultra slow motion, they'll still complain that they didn't spend a bit more time on it "to get it right".
Unfortunately, for those decisions that are subjective, not offside and/or goal line technology, you'll never have 100% agreement.

I hope the automatic offside settles a lot of the issues. I couldn't understand how in a world where complex art, music and written word can be created in seconds by AI how we are relying on blokes drawing dodgy lines on something resembling an Atari.

Just get rid of it..

The simple solutions are usually the best.

I don’t know, the big problem for me is how subjective a lot of the laws are. Is the contact sufficient to give a foul? is the hand in in a natural position? Is the player in an off side position interfering with play? When does careless become reckless become violent?. Would technology be best used just for matter of fact decisions.

Perhaps get rid of the ball altogether and let AI decide the outcome of the match so the bookies know who to give the money to. That's all most matches are to most people.

It doesn't stop just because it is the end of the season.

Attempted grab or deliberate elbow?  :P
I saw Keane at an airport once and he doesn't have the demeanour of someone you'd want to ask for a selfie.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/roy-keane-arsenal-fight-headbutt-court-emirates-var-b1161096.html

Total f*ck up in the French game. The ball had passed the keeper before he flinched. You can always rely on the English officials to screw it up.

The referee sat next me has read out the wording of the offence, which basically was to do with the offside player interfering with the ability of the goalkeeper to be able to dive for the ball - interfering with play even if he had no intention of going for the ball.

The lino was right, as was VAR. The "screw up" was the referee not spotting it, which is why you have a linesman and why they have VAR.

But that’s the point. He wasn’t interfering. If you watch it on freeze frame the ball was passed him in a split second. No way it prevented a potential save. The screw up was the English VAR.

Just seen the freeze frame and Shearer is right, his lower foot wasn't in a position to be able to push off to dive. Not something that is a easy quick real time decision, so good job there is VAR, if only they could get it right. 😂

That’s the frustrating thing. From the initial TV freeze frame you could see the Dutch player was to the side and behind the keeper. Then the ball was struck well beyond any chance of getting to it.
Then they take an absolute age…and get it wrong.  ???

Bloody VAR, ruining the game. 😊

No clear and obvious error the ref shouldn't even be sent to look at the screen

 ;D ;D ;D

If that penalty had been given against the Cobblers we would all be up in arms and JB would definitely received a yellow card if not a red one. I don't see how the defender can challenge for the ball without his studs showing and although it may have been given as a foul elsewhere on the pitch the same could be said in other instances. Defenders in the box regularly are holding attackers with both arms wrapped around them and get away with it but elsewhere on the pitch they are penalised. Referees should instruct teams that they will give penalties for holding in the box and enforce it and it would soon eradicate it.

Last night the referee did not give the penalty, the linesman did not flag for for the penalty, the commentator and his summarisers said no penalty, the adjudicator they went to said no penalty and I understand Linaker and Neville on the other side said it was not a penalty. I think the Dutch have every right to feel aggrieved.

But if you watch the perpetrator immediately after the foul his body language tells a different story. He thought he'd committed a foul and was in trouble.

"although it may have been given as a foul elsewhere on the pitch the same could be said in other instances"
That's the problem, people believe that it must be "more of a foul" for a penalty, when the Laws don't differentiate between the two, a foul is a foul wherever and whenever (first or last minute) it is committed.
I always enforce the Laws appropriately on the field of play, irrespective of where and when required.

I’d say most refs must also believe that it must be “more of a foul”
How many innocuous free kicks are given during almost any game that would never be given in the penalty area? As for shirt pulling?!
That’s people’s perception as it’s their lived experience every game, regardless of the actual rules.
I guess there are many rules like that one though. Not sure if anything is still in place for keepers holding the ball but you never see an offence there, the same for the amount of foul throws never picked up. That stops after the kids game.

As for Kane’s last night….the vast, vast majority of ‘experts’ suggested it shouldn’t have been a pen and I tend to agree, or else defenders may as well forget putting a challenge in. I’m glad it was though!!

Goalkeepers keeping hold of the ball is very rarely punished, unless they are blatantly taking the piss. A quick word with the skipper to warn them that the next time will be a caution.
Regarding foul throws, it frustrates me how many times in our own and Premier League games they aren't picked up, I'm surprised when on the odd occasion they are!
There have been quite a few in the Euro's as well.
I always pick up any foul throws early and accompany it with a "that's schoolboy stuff guys" which normally enforces and solves the problem. You'd be surprised at how many I've had to remind them of how to legally take a throw in because they didn't know what they were doing wrong!!

I'm curious, when did the law change to allowing the throw-in taker to stand on the line rather than stand behind it or has it always been on the line?
If the law has changed, why do you think that is?

It hasn't changed.
Law 15 Procedure:
At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must:

stand facing the field of play

have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline

throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play

All opponents must stand at least 2 m (2 yds) from the point on the touchline where the throw-in is to be taken.

The ball is in play when it enters the field of play. If the ball touches the ground before entering, the throw-in is retaken by the same team from the same position. If the throw-in is not taken correctly, it is retaken by the opposing team.

If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.

The thrower must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player.

So having part of your feet over the line has always been allowed. Blimey, must be losing it, could have sworn that wasn't the case 40 years ago.
Seems strange to me that all of the ball has to cross the line for it to go out of play yet all of the feet can be in play, on or over the line, at the point of taking a throw-in.
Is that a correct interpretation?

Yes, as long as the heel isn't raised during the act of the throw.

Thanks DC.

It was a clear penalty. Anywhere else on the pitch and the crowd would be screaming at the ref and lino for a free kick.

But the referees apply different rules for incidents inside and outside the penalty area, they give free kicks for holding but how often do you see a penalty given for all of the grappling that goes on in the penalty area?  Listening to other peoples views and looking at other posts I would say 90% of people think it wasn't a penalty.

You know when Deepy doesn't come on to defend a decision or make a rational argument that it is deemed a 'dodgy decision' in the reffing community.
The female 'expert' was on the telly saying how it wasn't a pen seconds before he went trotting over to the screen. The only thing that is certain is when they go to view the monitor you know what's coming next, I was celebrating the moment he set off!!

In this instance I don't think any of us mind.  ;D

It was a subjective call by the on field official, he could have awarded it either way.
The fact that he didn't was his decision and because it was 'subjective', as far as I'm concerned it wasn't a clear and obvious error either way, therefore the VAR should not have intervened.
Once VAR got involved, especially from the different angles and slow motion, rather than the one in real time from his Mark 1 eyeball, it was only going to go one way.
Apart from Kane writhing around in agony, something that he's probably picked up at Bayern, I can't remember anyone else appearing to be appealing for it?

At least 4 England players appealed for the penalty immediately.

I stand corrected, I didn't see the game, only brief highlights.  ;)

🫨

Well it's not like we don't keep on getting to semi finals of major competitions and we were bound to get one more game.

https://www.theifab.com/logapp/

Ready for the new season?  ;)

Man Utd  ;D ;D ;D

That west ham penalty yesterday should never be given ever

VAR check on David Coote.  ;D

I think that this could be compared to a point I made quite stridently about the absolute stupidity of allowing yourself to be filmed, whilst doing/saying things that will come back to bite you. Yet another example of someones weapon of choice being a camera. And I dont think much of his mate who chose to release it either.
A wise man once said, "the less people that you trust, the less chance there is of you being sh@t on"

Now outed himself as one of those 'bitchy gays'. Sun exclusive.  ::)

Pathetic response to being caught out.  His sexuality (which I doubt that anybody cares about), in no way contributed to his previous actions.
Stop your sobbing Davy boy, its game over.

Yeah, I would imagine the LGBT+ community are disowning him as we speak!
Worse still to go to the press (wonder if there was £ involved?) whilst he is still under investigation. There were more genuine tears on the Traitors.

It goes to show that whatever your colour, gender and sexual orientation, you can still be a bit of a ****.

Just take your punishment and move on.

Been a bit quiet on the VAR thread.

Man Utd are clearly 'friends' of the system. First they benefitted from not having it in the cup, then on Saturday they escaped a likely late defeat.

A cop out (or mistake) to not show the other angle. Despite Young going down as though a sniper had shot him (in which case why no second yellow?), there was a clear shirt pull from de Ligt. The decision was over turned because it was shown that McGuire didn't foul him, which the ref gave the original decision for. It is no justification that he thought another player fouled him, or didn't see that actual offence. Otherwise VAR couldn't be used (for example) if a ref incorrectly identified a player in any situation, which has happened.

VAR should have either kept out of it, or shown the other angle. I am pretty confident the ref would have continued with the penalty with the full picture.
Gallagher saw it like this and I rarely disagree with his view on things.

I'm sure we don't see as much controversy in other sports using multiple replays. Maybe we do but they are not as high profile.

As it is...United are still ****.

In other sports VAR isn't used as a someones personal opinion so it works better

Ie cricket is someone is either out or not where as a foul is subjective and down to a individual so works better in other sports

Although interestingly (maybe!) the umpires decision still makes a difference. Hawkeye can have the ball hitting the wicket in exactly the same place for two different balls but one could be out and one not out depending on the original umpire call.

I find that pathetic and it needs to be changed. If the review is going to be used the umpires decision is irrelevant. Mind you they shouldn't be called umpires any more, they should be called referrers as you never see one make a decision on a stumping, run out or the ball carrying for a catch these days. What ever happened to "if in doubt, not out"?

I was just thinking while watching Real Madrid v Arsenal. Do you remember before VAR? Arsenal wouldn't have received a penalty and Real Madrid would. Whatever your opinion on VAR, and the decisions took far too long, surely it is an improvement?