REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
These 3 users liked this post: kazza tiger76 KateR
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
I think there is an argument about VAR, but it's an argument that has never been made at official level so far as I know. There should be an argument about whether it's right to have different laws for VAR games as for other games. At any game where VAR isn't operating, Wood's goal is legal because he is level. Where VAR is operating, it is no longer possible to be level.
The law was changed 30 years ago to allow level players to be onside, specifically because they wanted more goals and wanted to give the forward a bit more distance. Are VAR correct in trying to overturn that law change, or at least water it down to only half strength?
Excellent report as usual. Thanks.
The law was changed 30 years ago to allow level players to be onside, specifically because they wanted more goals and wanted to give the forward a bit more distance. Are VAR correct in trying to overturn that law change, or at least water it down to only half strength?
Excellent report as usual. Thanks.
This user liked this post: IanMcL
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
A player is in an offside position if:
+any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
+any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.
The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... ---offside
This Law applies to all football matches, with VAR or not.
I assume the interpretation was that Wood's foot was nearer the goal.
+any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
+any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.
The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... ---offside
This Law applies to all football matches, with VAR or not.
I assume the interpretation was that Wood's foot was nearer the goal.
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
The law applies differently to non-VAR matches. Are you seriously saying that linesmen in lower league matches genuinely give their decisions on the basis that Wood's toe is an inch further forward than the defender's armpit? I am certain that a linesman seeing that incident would never try and give the decision based on where the Leicester man's armpit was. He would say they were level.
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
An assistant referee will give his decision the best he can, as will referees that don't have the benefit of assistants, or at least reliable ones such as in park football. Of course he can't be as accurate as VAR. It's the accuracy that's the difference. In any case without VAR and television there should be no arguments although of course there are!
On MotD it gave the impression that as Cornet pulled up with his hamstring injury, the Leicester fans were cheering. I hope that's not how it was.
On MotD it gave the impression that as Cornet pulled up with his hamstring injury, the Leicester fans were cheering. I hope that's not how it was.
-
- Posts: 18048
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3861 times
- Has Liked: 2070 times
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
Not something I have ever thought about but are you saying a GKs arms aren't included in any offside call? Or just as an attacking player?Hipper wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:29 pmA player is in an offside position if:
+any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
+any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.
The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... ---offside
This Law applies to all football matches, with VAR or not.
I assume the interpretation was that Wood's foot was nearer the goal.
If a keeper came out and punched the ball from a cross, with a defender going on the line to cover, the ball comes back in and it's between the forward and keeper for the offside decision. The keepers arms must be included as he can use them?
This user liked this post: dsr
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
But the point is that referees' guidance thirty years ago was that offside is to be judged by the human eye, and if a player looks to be level to the human eye, then he is level. They specifically excluded the odd toe or foot. VAR has changed that for top level football, and it needs to be discussed whether it was right to do so.Hipper wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pmAn assistant referee will give his decision the best he can, as will referees that don't have the benefit of assistants, or at least reliable ones such as in park football. Of course he can't be as accurate as VAR. It's the accuracy that's the difference. In any case without VAR and television there should be no arguments although of course there are!
On MotD it gave the impression that as Cornet pulled up with his hamstring injury, the Leicester fans were cheering. I hope that's not how it was.
It would certainly help if the lawmakers gave a definition of level. Do they, as VAR believes, mean literally level to a millimetre or less, and that a linesman at any level who gives Wood onside is plain wrong?
-
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:59 am
- Been Liked: 265 times
- Has Liked: 3606 times
- Location: North Yorkshire
-
- Posts: 2347
- Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 5:46 pm
- Been Liked: 412 times
- Has Liked: 87 times
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
Lowton asked the assistant if the goal was fine and he got a positive reply back
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
The rules of the Premier League must always be honoured.
If it had been a Leicester goal, then it would be onside, as they are a more favoured team. As it is Burnley - not seen as a revenue generator for the Premier, then VAR must be used to assist the right outcome, which is to favour Leicester.
If it had been a Leicester goal, then it would be onside, as they are a more favoured team. As it is Burnley - not seen as a revenue generator for the Premier, then VAR must be used to assist the right outcome, which is to favour Leicester.
These 3 users liked this post: Woodleyclaret SalisburyClaret clitheroeclaret3
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
As for feet and a nose etc being the dinner, I thought their new 'thicker line' eradicated that.
Football needs goals.
Football needs goals.
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
Firstly it's the Laws of the game that are saying this (not me).Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:44 pmNot something I have ever thought about but are you saying a GKs arms aren't included in any offside call? Or just as an attacking player?
If a keeper came out and punched the ball from a cross, with a defender going on the line to cover, the ball comes back in and it's between the forward and keeper for the offside decision. The keepers arms must be included as he can use them?
'The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered'. I presume 'all players' means exactly that, both attackers and defenders.
Therefore my interpretation of this Law means the keeper's arms are not included to determine if the forward is in an offside position. We need a current referee to tell us what they would do (or have done) in that situation (I haven't refereed for years).
When presented with any unusual situation we were taught to ask ourselves 'what do the Laws say?'. Here the Law seems clear.
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
What has changed the Laws is televised football.dsr wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:55 pmBut the point is that referees' guidance thirty years ago was that offside is to be judged by the human eye, and if a player looks to be level to the human eye, then he is level. They specifically excluded the odd toe or foot. VAR has changed that for top level football, and it needs to be discussed whether it was right to do so.
It would certainly help if the lawmakers gave a definition of level. Do they, as VAR believes, mean literally level to a millimetre or less, and that a linesman at any level who gives Wood onside is plain wrong?
We (fans, players, press) always knew referees and their teams got it wrong sometime but since television has become so dominant at the top levels it's been made obvious to millions of viewers too. The result is the demand for consistency and accuracy and this has led to professional referees and technology. The Laws have had to evolve to deal with this and continue to do so.
In previous version of the Laws there was the phrase 'in the opinion of the referee'. This would end all arguments. In the modern era this concept is no longer acceptable, at least at the top.
-
- Posts: 6418
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:36 pm
- Been Liked: 1835 times
- Has Liked: 962 times
- Location: cloud 9 since Dyche appointed
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
'...That’s ten points lost in those circumstances now and add those to the two we’ve got and how comfortable would we be looking..'
we'd be 5th on 12 points!
and if we had also beaten Arsenal we would be top of the league!
UTC
we'd be 5th on 12 points!
and if we had also beaten Arsenal we would be top of the league!
UTC
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
I have to say I’m very confused by the VAR interpretation of offside, particularly in relation to the image shown on MOTD last night. I understood the thicker lines used were in order to give the striker the benefit of the doubt. Woods foot is on but not over the thick line level with the Leicester defenders foot so surely he should have the benefit of the doubt (you have to ignore the extra pixels that are clearly not part of Wood’s foot but mysteriously extend it across the line).
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
That’s exactly what happened and I’ve seen photographs showing the abuse he was receiving as he walked round. Used to be a decent visit there but they are so arrogant since winning the league.
Not sure why this thread should have turned into a VAR debate. I was almost in line and didn’t even celebrate. When you see the pictures he’s offside.
This user liked this post: KateR
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
The point being that dropping so many points from winning positions is of great concern following on from last season.claretblue wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:36 pm'...That’s ten points lost in those circumstances now and add those to the two we’ve got and how comfortable would we be looking..'
we'd be 5th on 12 points!
and if we had also beaten Arsenal we would be top of the league!
UTC
This user liked this post: KateR
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
It seems to me that the screenshot you've posted is MOTD's own graphic rather than the official VAR graphic, which for some reason doesn't seem to have been made available (or I've not seen it at least(.martin_p wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:52 pmI have to say I’m very confused by the VAR interpretation of offside, particularly in relation to the image shown on MOTD last night. I understood the thicker lines used were in order to give the striker the benefit of the doubt. Woods foot is on but not over the thick line level with the Leicester defenders foot so surely he should have the benefit of the doubt (you have to ignore the extra pixels that are clearly not part of Wood’s foot but mysteriously extend it across the line).
44F9CCE4-257A-42C2-823C-98B17EB67B94.jpeg
But the way I understand things the two lines drawn by the VAR are thicker, and an incident will only be offside if the two lines don't overlap, so this wouldn't have anything to do with Wood's foot overlapping the line on your screenshot.
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
And it's a concern that at the moment we seem powerless to stop it.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:00 pmThe point being that dropping so many points from winning positions is of great concern following on from last season.
-
- Posts: 2957
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:54 am
- Been Liked: 807 times
- Has Liked: 1522 times
- Location: France
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
What a lot of nonsense. It was offside. End of story.IanMcL wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:18 pmThe rules of the Premier League must always be honoured.
If it had been a Leicester goal, then it would be onside, as they are a more favoured team. As it is Burnley - not seen as a revenue generator for the Premier, then VAR must be used to assist the right outcome, which is to favour Leicester.
These 2 users liked this post: simonclaret KateR
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
If you honestly believe that rather than look with your eyes then you might as well pack in going.IanMcL wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:18 pmThe rules of the Premier League must always be honoured.
If it had been a Leicester goal, then it would be onside, as they are a more favoured team. As it is Burnley - not seen as a revenue generator for the Premier, then VAR must be used to assist the right outcome, which is to favour Leicester.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:16 pm
- Been Liked: 19 times
- Has Liked: 10 times
- Location: OSM, Devon
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
For their second goal, should VAR not check the 'attacking phase of play' for any infringements ?
As this started when JBG was wrestled to the ground, could SD/Mee not ask for VAR to look at it (assuming they didn't)?
As this started when JBG was wrestled to the ground, could SD/Mee not ask for VAR to look at it (assuming they didn't)?
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:16 pm
- Been Liked: 19 times
- Has Liked: 10 times
- Location: OSM, Devon
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
For their second goal, should VAR not check the 'attacking phase of play' for any infringements ?
As this started when JBG was wrestled to the ground, could SD/Mee not ask for VAR to look at it (assuming they didn't) - or was it reviewed?
As this started when JBG was wrestled to the ground, could SD/Mee not ask for VAR to look at it (assuming they didn't) - or was it reviewed?
-
- Posts: 5785
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1881 times
- Has Liked: 839 times
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
Very concerning although we looked a different team with Vydra and Cornet for the first half to suggest we can turn this around. Fingers crossed they both stay fit for the majority of the season.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:00 pmThe point being that dropping so many points from winning positions is of great concern following on from last season.
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
We can bleat all we want about VAR, but if we'd taken our chances, Wood early in the 2nd half especially, then that game would have been done and dusted long before Vardy's late leveller.
And this is the story of our season, playing well for long periods of matches, but not converting those good spells into goals.
Leicester doesn't seem to be the happiest hunting ground for us either, Brady got a bad injury there, and Cornet & Vydra both went off yesterday, hopefully only with minor niggles, as both were superb in the opening 45 minutes, and already there is signs of them forming a good understanding.
Alongside the injury woes, VAR doesn't appear to do us any favours at the KP, Wood denied yesterday, as he was a couple of seasons ago late on for the supposed foul on Evans, and there is certainly grounds to question why Leicester's 2nd was allowed to stand after the apparent foul on JBG.
Surely we'll get a VAR decision going in our favour soon, next week would be the ideal game for that to happen.
Playing well and not winning is a concern, but compared to a year ago our overall performances are miles better, so we just need to keep plugging away, and the results will come.
And despite the disappointment of losing the lead late on, holding Leicester to a draw should give the squad belief that even visiting the better sides in this league we can be competitive, and crucially pick up points.
And this is the story of our season, playing well for long periods of matches, but not converting those good spells into goals.
Leicester doesn't seem to be the happiest hunting ground for us either, Brady got a bad injury there, and Cornet & Vydra both went off yesterday, hopefully only with minor niggles, as both were superb in the opening 45 minutes, and already there is signs of them forming a good understanding.
Alongside the injury woes, VAR doesn't appear to do us any favours at the KP, Wood denied yesterday, as he was a couple of seasons ago late on for the supposed foul on Evans, and there is certainly grounds to question why Leicester's 2nd was allowed to stand after the apparent foul on JBG.
Surely we'll get a VAR decision going in our favour soon, next week would be the ideal game for that to happen.
Playing well and not winning is a concern, but compared to a year ago our overall performances are miles better, so we just need to keep plugging away, and the results will come.
And despite the disappointment of losing the lead late on, holding Leicester to a draw should give the squad belief that even visiting the better sides in this league we can be competitive, and crucially pick up points.
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
All that tie end stuff was supposed to have been eliminated and yet we lose a goal through it. A lino could never spot a big toe, so yes I do believe there is one rule for some and another for others.ClaretTony wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:32 pmIf you honestly believe that rather than look with your eyes then you might as well pack in going.
If you have not seen enough to conclude that there are some very peculiar decisions, then perhaps that same question could be asked of you!
-
- Posts: 15228
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3155 times
- Has Liked: 6742 times
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
There may be odd decisions, but that wasn't one of them.IanMcL wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:31 pmAll that tie end stuff was supposed to have been eliminated and yet we lose a goal through it. A lino could never spot a big toe, so yes I do believe there is one rule for some and another for others.
If you have not seen enough to conclude that there are some very peculiar decisions, then perhaps that same question could be asked of you!
Clear offside.
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
Not according to the foot picture.
-
- Posts: 15228
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3155 times
- Has Liked: 6742 times
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
But if Wood’s foot overlaps the line then so would another line drawn parallel to the end of his foot.Rileybobs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:17 pmIt seems to me that the screenshot you've posted is MOTD's own graphic rather than the official VAR graphic, which for some reason doesn't seem to have been made available (or I've not seen it at least(.
But the way I understand things the two lines drawn by the VAR are thicker, and an incident will only be offside if the two lines don't overlap, so this wouldn't have anything to do with Wood's foot overlapping the line on your screenshot.
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
If we are messing with a foot end, then something remains wrong with VAR and the Premier League.
-
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1696 times
- Has Liked: 789 times
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
Ignoring all the intricacies of OFFSIDE and VAR, I thought yesterday we rediscovered the art of defending. Some of the blocks and tackles, particularly Lowton & Tarks were outstanding. Westwood and Brownhill must have covered some ground, and particularly in the first half we gave the Leicester team no time to settle and play. Leicester had more chances to score but they were lucky not to lose 3 points at the end
These 2 users liked this post: Steve-Harpers-perm tiger76
-
- Posts: 16844
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6951 times
- Has Liked: 1479 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: REPORT: Vardy and VAR deny the Clarets
I’m not being facetious here, and it does highlight how daft VAR can be, but this also depends on how thick the blue line is. As I believe the one you’ve shown to be MOTD’s graphic - both lines drawn by VAR may be much thinner.