VAR Discussion

[mypost]

UEFA backs up the official

And that should have been the end of the discussion.

Instead, it raged on. I just needed one replay to decide that it was a clear-cut handball offence. That has been given in many VAR games in the past, and many in the future. Since the year dot, you can't handle the ball in the box, and if the ref doesn't spot it nowadays, the VAR will.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Neymar was rather less gracious. I wonder if he'll be cited for his social media posts, certainly managers have been done for less.



Yup: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47672436

I don't know if this is the first case of a player being cited for criticising VAR, but certainly it's the most high profile.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Yup: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47672436

I don't know if this is the first case of a player being cited for criticising VAR, but certainly it's the most high profile.

Banned for three European games: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/48071175

[pineapple stu]

I thought VAR had been banned there for a sec!

This doesn't really have anything to do with VAR as such; a tirade like that deserves a ban

[NeverFeltBetter]

Quite right, I note it here because I think it might be the first punishment for criticising VAR specifically. I think.

[osarusan]

I have a question about VAR and offside that I'm wondering about while watching the Australia Italy WWC game. A couple of times, there has been a pretty clear offside, but they let play go on until that attack is over. I understand this, good to let things pan out, then if there is a goal you go back and check VAR for offside.

What I don't get is that when the attack comes to nothing, the referee blows up for offside pretty much immediately, without any apparent check of VAR at all.

If it is so clearly offside that the ref/lino can give it without VAR once the attack ends, why can they not do it before that?

[NeverFeltBetter]

Interesting VAR controversy at the end of Argentina/Scotland, not so much with the system and the decisions it led to (an injury time penalty, then retaken for the keeper being off the line) but for the ref seemingly not adding on the time at the end of the match. She played maybe five minutes when there could have been eight easy. What a weird decision to make.

[pineapple stu]

Have been watching a bit of the Women's World Cup, and the VAR has been an absolute disaster. Even just now, England have scored against Sweden, and about 90 seconds later, the game is called back for a review, and the goal is ruled out for a fairly marginal decision. It just ruins the whole emotion of the game that way. Far from the first time it's happened either.

[sidewayspasser]

The WWC has shown a lot of VAR problems. It's clear that VAR still has to improve if it's there to stay.
I would suggest something like a "clear and obvious" rule. If the refs are still not sure after say 3 replays or 30 seconds of deliberation, the original decision should stand.

[pineapple stu]

Maybe "clear and obvious" is something you can spot at normal speed?

I agree that a lot of what's being picked up is not clear and obvious. England's disallowed goal in the semis for example - I think it was offside, but it was very marginal, and far from "clear and obvious"

[NeverFeltBetter]

The general issue I've had with VAR during the WWC has been how slow its been, sometimes for things that should need just one look at replay monitor, if even that. There are plenty of decisions that the VAR official should be able to adjudicate on without the need for the ref to run off the field for minutes at a time.

At the same time, since of the commentary on it, especially from the likes of George Hamilton, has verged close to hysteria. Marginal or not, VAR has spotted things refs and linesmen havent or aren't able to. That semi offside is the perfect example, as was the penalty England botched later in the half.

Refs - especially, if I may dare to say so, female refs - need more time and experience with VAR, so they learn to use it effectively, not excessively, and that it's an assist, not a crutch.

[osarusan]

Maybe "clear and obvious" is something you can spot at normal speed?

I agree that a lot of what's being picked up is not clear and obvious. England's disallowed goal in the semis for example - I think it was offside, but it was very marginal, and far from "clear and obvious"

Offside isn't one of the 'clear and obvious' things though - it's either offside or not. The ref doesn't even check the video themselves for offside.

[pineapple stu]

Hmm. The ref did check the video in this case though?

I've seen some decisions communicated to the ref by earpiece which I think works ok. But I still think ruining the moment of goals takes away more than getting decisions millimetre correct.

[NeverFeltBetter]

As the ref remains the final arbiter on everything, think they can review anything they want, even if it is as obvious as an offside call.

VAR used quite well today. Shocking error by the Dutch defender that the ref was unsighted for. Ref could have gone to VAR for other things, but didn't.

[osarusan]

Hmm. The ref did check the video in this case though?


Did the referee go to the sidelines to check a monitor? My memory is that the offside was just communicated to her and she never checked. I may just have forgotten though.

The late disallowed goal for Man City against Spurs in the CL is an example though, given as offside without the ref going over to check the monitor.

I saw something interesting on the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/48903289) about VAR in the premier league next season.

Here's a quote from Mike Riley:

He said, as an example, that the winning penalty for the Netherlands against Japan at the Women's World Cup would not have been awarded in the Premier League.

"We consider that to be a natural position of the hand. You don't expect defenders to have their arms glued to their side, so if the hand is in a natural position then it's not an offence," he said.

I've thought the handball laws are way too harsh, so I'm pleased to read that, but on the other hand, the interpretations of laws really should be universal (even if that won't ever be possible), and I'm surprised to see him say it so openly.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Riley has some welcome comments to make generally, especially on ref's trusting what VAR officials are telling them, but I guess we'll see how likely his "delay of game only once in five matches" will be.

[mypost]

Hmm. The ref did check the video in this case though?

I've seen some decisions communicated to the ref by earpiece which I think works ok. But I still think ruining the moment of goals takes away more than getting decisions millimetre correct.

It was not a goal, so there's nothing to ruin. It was offside, the tv camera picked it up, and the final decision was therefore clear and obvious. That's the way it should be and it has to be. The ref did not check the video. The VAR team can judge offside calls from their base.

The Maradona attempt to con the referee v Sweden didn't work, because unlike in 1986, handballs can now be spotted and dealt with on the spot, therefore referees won't be banned for life, as happened back then. You may only score valid goals at the highest levels of the game from now on.

Despite all the penalties awarded, it's amazing that the use of VAR has effectively eliminated simulation in the penalty area. We don't talk about dives winning penalties anymore, now that players realise there is a camera following their every move and they can't do it anymore.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Players will still simulate though, even if they don't outright "dive". Sarah Morgan in the first half of the WWC Final took a nudge in the back while in the Dutch penalty area and fell somewhat theatrically. The ref told her to get on with it, and there was no VAR check as far as I could tell. Looking at the TV replays I did wonder if, by the letter of the law, a penalty would have been awarded if it had gone to VAR.

[mypost]

I didn't think it was a dive, there was contact, so I was surprised it didn't go to VAR. A theatrical fall is not an automatic dive. Eventually the Dutch physicality went too far, and VAR spotted the foul that brought about the penalty. That is what it's there for.

[mypost]

If only we had it when we really needed it in Paris, or Brussels, or Gelsenkirchen...

[pineapple stu]

It was not a goal, so there's nothing to ruin. It was offside, the tv camera picked it up, and the final decision was therefore clear and obvious.
I think this is almost autistic-like in terms of missing the point. It was a goal - for I would say 90 seconds, it was a goal. I stand corrected that the TV wasn't checked, but it took over two minutes for the goal to be ruled out. For the first minute of that, it wasn't even apparent there was a problem. So the goal was celebrated as per normal, then celebrations started dying down, and only then was there an issue flagged. Then another delay, and finally the goal is ruled out.

Previously, the goal would have been legal because the rules stated that the attacker should be given the benefit of doubt in narrow offside cases. So it would have been a perfectly legit goal.

I would argue the game has lost something by virtue of adding in long delays in the game in order to check something which it already had rules for. I've previously said I don't mind offside or other decisions being checked in effectively real time with a TV crew, as has happened at times in fairness. But these huge delays will ruin the game.

BTW, VAR I think would have done nothing for Brussels, because the throw was a separate passage of play. However, in the interests of balance, you have to include things like the decisive second goal v Hungary in 1989, which was a blatant free out. Would VAR have ruled out the goal? Would Hungary have equalised? Would things have changed so ultimately they qualified for Italia 90? Is it really relevant whether it did or not? Football is about the moment, and this tedious drive towards absolute correctness could come at the expense of what makes the game great in the first place.

Clarification that the Japan handball is nonsense is to be welcomed of course.

[mypost]

It's not nonsense. The arm was out, making herself bigger, unnatural position etc. It's a clearcut penalty imo, and I would personally expect most on field refs to give it, as that one did. The incident is analysed in minute detail, in the referee press conference during the tournament.

The ball was out of play in Brussels in the build up, so we were robbed of a chance to play in that World Cup. I have watched the goal v Hungary many times down the years, I have never seen any foul. We finished 4 points clear of them in the group.

With VAR, there is zero tolerance with offsides, even in England. If it is offside it will be, and is, spotted. It may only be an inch, but it's as good as a mile. It's still offside. The provisional decision was to allow the goal. Even before the ball went in, I wasn't sure it was onside. Once we all discovered what really happened, the final decision was clear and obvious, and automatic.

Every goal with or without VAR in operation, has been and is, provisional until play resumes. It's true that we are losing something with VAR. We're losing wrong decisions, that have blighted the game since the year dot. Nowadays, referees don't just get "one look" at a decision, they are able to see all the evidence they need to, and make an informed judgement. Now teams win or lose on merit, not from an official's mistake, as in most sports across the world.

[DeLorean]

I'm 100% supportive of using VAR for offside and, by its nature, it's going to be marginal a lot of the time. Why should the attacker get the benefit for almost timing their run right?

I did feel it lost the run of itself in the WWC a bit though for other decisions.

[pineapple stu]

I'm 100% supportive of using VAR for offside and, by its nature, it's going to be marginal a lot of the time. Why should the attacker get the benefit for almost timing their run right?
Because if the alternative is that we have a minute of celebrating a goal and settling back for tip, and only then realising that something's wrong, and then another minute to review it, meaning the whole emotion and pace of the game goes out the window, then it's by far the lesser of two evils.

And again, I have seen some offside decisions given by earpiece to the refs very quickly, and I don't mind that.

Though you'd wonder how long it'd be before offside could be done electronically? It would struggle with interfering with play (as maybe we all do!), but could the linesman get a ping in his ear when a pass is made to say "Green 9 off"? The linesman would then just need to decide if Green 9 is interfering with play

[pineapple stu]

It's not nonsense. The arm was out, making herself bigger, unnatural position etc. It's a clearcut penalty imo, and I would personally expect most on field refs to give it, as that one did. The incident is analysed in minute detail, in the referee press conference during the tournament.
The one where her arm is right down beside her side as the ball is slammed at her from a few yards away? Daft if that's a penalty.


The ball was out of play in Brussels in the build up, so we were robbed of a chance to play in that World Cup.
Well we weren't going through as it stood, so we were technically robbed of nothing - as in France actually.

But my point is that does VAR go back to previous plays? I'm not sure it would have extended back to the decision to give the throw. How far back could it go otherwise? The previous throw decision? The previous one again?


I have watched the goal v Hungary many times down the years, I have never seen any foul.
Here's a hint - the bit where Houghton sticks his hand out and pushes the guy in the back. It's quite blatant.

[mypost]

I don't need a hint, I just don't see the foul.

The incident in Brussels was part of the same move that led to the goal seconds later, so VAR would investigate it. It's not a different play, as such. Unfortunately, we didn't have it then, so the ref didn't see it, play was allowed to continue and the goal that resulted, knocked us out of the World Cup.

A similar throw in question was investigated by VAR for the Holland-Japan penalty. Throw in calls are checked if they're part of the same move. The ball was found to be in play so the penalty for a clear handball stood. Under the current rules, any handball by a forward or defensive player, is liable to be penalised.

Part of the delay for the England-USA incident, was due to a sub made by the USA while the VAR check was in progress. Everyone was aware before the tournament, that every goal scored is subject to VAR confirmation. The time it takes is not important to me, all I want is the correct decision, and I'm prepared to wait as long as it takes, for it to be made. We cannot restrict VAR to offside calls, as doing so would bring back diving again. Now the resources are available to clean up mistakes, and the dark arts out of football, we must use them. We must have justice on a football pitch.

[pineapple stu]

I don't need a hint, I just don't see the foul.
Then you're blind. Seriously. Houghton gives the defender a little shove in the back and he falls over. The goal killed Hungary; if it doesn't happen, they could have come back to win the game and then they finish level with us and could take our place. It's hypothetical of course - but so are your examples in Brussels and Paris, neither of which cost us a place in the World Cup.

And this is the point - what goes around, comes around.


The time it takes is not important to me, all I want is the correct decision, and I'm prepared to wait as long as it takes, for it to be made.
If that's what you want, then fine.

But it'll ruin the experience of the game. And that's more important than being correct.

[mypost]

No it's not, that's why it's here. It enhances the game. Cheating and wrong decisions ruin football, that other sports don't have to put up with.

There is no similiarity in the consequences. We were already winning against Hungary at the time of the incident. We were level with Belgium at the time the illegal goal was scored, that decided the game and knocked us out of the World Cup. Ditto Paris.

Everybody wants football, even with VAR. With it, they will leave the stadium knowing that all the major decisions were correct, as they should be. So they won't be talking about wrong decisions given against their team 30+ years later.

[DeLorean]

Because if the alternative is that we have a minute of celebrating a goal and settling back for tip, and only then realising that something's wrong, and then another minute to review it, meaning the whole emotion and pace of the game goes out the window, then it's by far the lesser of two evils.

We're miles apart on this. I don't see it as the lesser of the two evils at all. The only evil in my view is the wrong decision being made, but clearly the whole thing needs to be tidied up a bit. It's still early days though.

[osarusan]

But it'll ruin the experience of the game. And that's more important than being correct.

I can't agree with this. Getting the big things right has to be the first priority.

At the moment it is impacting on the experience of the game, but people will just get used to it, as they have done with rugby and American football.

At the moment, for anything subjective the on-field ref will leave the pitch and check the monitor. This is part of ensuring that the ref still has the final authority over decisions, and it also causes a lot of the delay. But I wouldn't be surprised if, in a few years, that aspect is done away with, and all calls are made by the VAR team.

[mypost]

The general issue I've had with VAR during the WWC has been how slow its been, sometimes for things that should need just one look at replay monitor, if even that. There are plenty of decisions that the VAR official should be able to adjudicate on without the need for the ref to run off the field for minutes at a time.

At the same time, since of the commentary on it, especially from the likes of George Hamilton, has verged close to hysteria. Marginal or not, VAR has spotted things refs and linesmen havent or aren't able to. That semi offside is the perfect example, as was the penalty England botched later in the half.

Refs - especially, if I may dare to say so, female refs - need more time and experience with VAR, so they learn to use it effectively, not excessively, and that it's an assist, not a crutch.

In fairness, FIFA were in a difficult position. If they allow VAR to be used at the WWC, the refs are criticised for their lack of experience with it. If they don't allow VAR to be used, they're branded "sexist", and all the usual tall tales about discrimination that go with it, for only allowing the Men's WC to have it. In the end, they allowed the Women to use it. And I think that was the right decision.

Referees leave the pitch for up to 30 seconds at a time, not "minutes", so they can see for themselves all the facts around an incident and make an informed judgement based on those facts. Most delays are for the finger to the ear. Sometimes decisions are complex, sometimes 2 or more parts of the same move have to be checked where just 1 decision can be reached. It takes a bit of time sometimes, but it's worth it if the right decision is ultimately made, as is usually the case.

If you thought Hamilton was hysterical, it wasn't a patch on the daily rants against VAR from Paul Dempsey covering the Copa America. Some of these fuddy duddies and luddites just don't get it. It's not a question of if VAR will stay, it's a question of how will it expand and how soon will it do so. This is the way it's going to be from now on. Embrace the positive difference it makes or reminisce about the bad old days. Your choice.


Riley has some welcome comments to make generally, especially on ref's trusting what VAR officials are telling them, but I guess we'll see how likely his "delay of game only once in five matches" will be.

It's not likely, but he is trying to play the populist line atm and reassure the sceptics, who have been put off VAR by all the negative headlines in the media.

The pace of English football, coupled with all the appeals for penalties and offsides etc, inevitably means most games will see VAR used at some point. Goals will be ruled out that previously stood and vice versa. For or against it though, people are just going to have to get used to it. It's success is judged by how often the final decision is accepted as the correct one. Which will be the case at least 99% of the time.

[osarusan]

First day of VAR in the EPL yesterday. One thing happened during the Man City West Ham game that confused me. Aguero missed a penalty (saved, Declan Rice cleared). Retake given after VAR, with the commentator saying that Rice had encroached before Aguero kicked the ball, but not only that, the commentator said that if the keeper had saved it for a corner, there wouldn't have been a retake, as the encroachment needed to have a direct impact - which it did, as it was Rice who cleared it.

I'm pretty sure that's a different rule/interpretation of the rule we have seen in the past, where any encroachment at all resulted in a retake. So either the rule has changed a bit, or else FIFA are allowing different leagues/associations to interpret rules differently, which seems fairly silly in the long-term to me.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Certainly seems like the EPL refs are taking a different tack. Only saw the Man Utd/Chelsea game, two VAR checks (for a penalty and a possible red card), both very quick, no need for the ref to trek off to the sideline, both upheld original decisions. In the WWC both of them might have stopped games dead for two or more minutes.

[osarusan]

A question about VAR checks, which came to me while watching MOTD2.

If there is a tackle on an attacker right at the edge of the area, and the referee decides it's not a free kick/penalty and plays on and at the next stoppage, VAR checks it as a potential penalty...and privately concludes that it's a foul alright, but happened outside the area so it's not a penalty.

Do they bring it back for the foul, or just carry on from whatever/wherever the stoppage was?

Edit: Or, I suppose they actually go the other way and start from the position of the tackle and, upon seeing it's outside the area and not a penalty issue, make no further decisions at all.

[osarusan]

EPL reporting 4 failures on the part of VAR so far:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/49683036


227 incidents in total that were 'VAR-worthy', of which 6 were changed by VAR, and 4 that they now say should have been. That's not a great strike rate, albeit a low total number so far.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Is there a way to compare to other leagues and see if the EPL is an outlier or normal? That seems like a poor rate for tech that's been around for a few years at this point.

[OwlsFan]

Not sure what all the fuss was about the disallowed Chelsea goal. The player was offside. Sky pundits/Kloop would have been moaning if the goal had stood. Souness complained that the linesman should have spotted it - an ankle ahead ! There was obviously no reset in the play so good decision. Now that they can't moan about refs, they moan about VAR.

[osarusan]

EPL with a clear policy of having the TMO just make the decision for the ref to announce on the pitch, rather than suggesting to the ref that he visit a pitchside monitor to review a decision.

I think that conflicts with what was VAR policy at one point, but I suppose the policy has changed since then.

Just from watching Brighton-Everton on MOTD tonight, Richarlison was manhandled in the box (not massively so, but the defender absolutely intended to grab and impede him), and VAR did not intervene. Later, Michael Keane, in a very natural motion, brought his foot down on Connolly's foot, and VAR gave the penalty after.

I think it has been really inconsistent so far in the EPL. I never expected it mean we get the right decision every time, but I do think we are still seeing genuinely poor decisions either not corrected by VAR, or worse, made by VAR. Having said that, I have to consider the possibility that I just don't know how the rules are interpreted these days.

[CraftyToePoke]

EPL with a clear policy of having the TMO just make the decision for the ref to announce on the pitch, rather than suggesting to the ref that he visit a pitchside monitor to review a decision.

I think that conflicts with what was VAR policy at one point, but I suppose the policy has changed since then.

Just from watching Brighton-Everton on MOTD tonight, Richarlison was manhandled in the box (not massively so, but the defender absolutely intended to grab and impede him), and VAR did not intervene. Later, Michael Keane, in a very natural motion, brought his foot down on Connolly's foot, and VAR gave the penalty after.

I think it has been really inconsistent so far in the EPL. I never expected it mean we get the right decision every time, but I do think we are still seeing genuinely poor decisions either not corrected by VAR, or worse, made by VAR. Having said that, I have to consider the possibility that I just don't know how the rules are interpreted these days.

All of this to one side, its ruining the matches for fans the way they are implementing it. Big delays, the ground not knowing why and goal celebrations becoming null & void, which is what people pay in to enjoy. MOTD is now the VAR show its dominating everything there also.

[OwlsFan]

All of this to one side, its ruining the matches for fans the way they are implementing it. Big delays, the ground not knowing why and goal celebrations becoming null & void, which is what people pay in to enjoy. MOTD is now the VAR show its dominating everything there also.

It used to be the criticise the the referee show and now VAR has taken its place. I think they don't use the screen on the field for the referee to take the pressure on the ref from the players out of the equation - the decision now being made by some faceless person. Mind you, it's now gone on to the third official with the managers sounding off at them. Klopp and Guardiola both had hissy fits directed at the poor Official on Sunday. VAR needs to speed up and call a foul a foul even if the ref didn't. I just think Henry in Paris so I will always favour VAR.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Found Steven Gerrard's comments interesting after the Scottish League Cup Final yesterday (for anyone unaware, Celtic's winner had numerous players offside, no VAR in use): https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2019/1209/1097891-gerrard-wants-help-for-officials-after-rangers-loss/


"I think VAR has taken something away from the game, so I'd be a liar if I said I'm 100 percent in favour of it.

"But one thing I do know is that the officials up here do need some support and help. Because there are too many things, not just for our club but across the board, that they maybe miss and need a bit of support on."

He didn't go into any detail about what he meant. Is there any middle ground between the current standard/operation of VAR and "some support and help"? I've seen variations of this sentiment expressed a bit over the last few months.

And is it fair to say that opinions in favour of VAR will increase the more clubs now lose out to bad officiating in competitions where there is no VAR? (which is not to say that Rangers were 100% losers because of the officials in this instance: they missed a penalty after all).

[DeLorean]

VAR for offsides is less subjective anyway. I can see why managers would now be even more annoyed at conceding an offside goal now, given the technology is in use elsewhere. It's not so clear that the Celtic goal was offside though, with other angles showing Helander drifting back in between some of the Celtic players, just as the ball was being struck.

[mypost]

Found Steven Gerrard's comments interesting after the Scottish League Cup Final yesterday (for anyone unaware, Celtic's winner had numerous players offside, no VAR in use): https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2019/1209/1097891-gerrard-wants-help-for-officials-after-rangers-loss/

He didn't go into any detail about what he meant. Is there any middle ground between the current standard/operation of VAR and "some support and help"? I've seen variations of this sentiment expressed a bit over the last few months.

And is it fair to say that opinions in favour of VAR will increase the more clubs now lose out to bad officiating in competitions where there is no VAR?

Everyone wants VAR until they have it, then when they have it, they don't want it again. They want it when it suits them but that's not how VAR works.

There is no middle ground. Calling for it, then saying they're not 100% in favour of it, doesn't make sense. You have to be 100% in favour or else you really don't want it. Because when VAR is in, you can't go back to the game before it.

VAR is essential at the highest level of the game now to catch out the conmen and correct the injustices. If that means taking some more time to get the right decision, that's the way it has to be.

VAR should be used in the cup final of every major competition, including the FAI Cup Final. Lansdowne has the resources in place to use them. It's going to use them in the Euros after all.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Noises being made about "semi-automatic" systems to notify linesmen of offside cases being used in Qatar, partly in response to how long VAR calls are taking: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2021/0408/1208565-wenger-expects-automated-offside-at-2022-world-cup/

[NeverFeltBetter]

Some interesting takes here: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2021/0802/1238689-changes-to-var-set-to-lead-to-fewer-penalties/

Officials essentially admitting they ignore fouls if players stay on their feet just confirms something we've all known for a while, that is a much bigger contribution to a culture of simulation than other factors I think. Other than that they are essentially changing the offside law to favour the attacker by introducing a "daylight" element. It'll mean more goals for sure, but we're about to see a potentially very divisive debate on just what "simulation" is, if ref's are being asked to interpret it as happening even if there is contact that might necessarily also be a foul. Will someone be denied what should be a legitimate penalty because they "were looking for it"?

[OwlsFan]

Don't like that work "simulation". Prefer deception or cheating. It sort of allows the cheat off the hook. He's a simulator as opposed to he's a cheat.

[John83]

Don't like that work "simulation". Prefer deception or cheating. It sort of allows the cheat off the hook. He's a simulator as opposed to he's a cheat.
It's refereeing jargon. Simulation is a different category of cheating from exaggeration. Both describe types of cheating, but referees need to be able to distinguish between them if they're treated differently.

[osarusan]

Any thoughts on tonights VAR controversy for Mbappe's winning goal against Spain?

For those who haven't seen it, a through ball is played for Mbappe, who is half a yard offside. Eric Garcia knows Mbappe is behind him and attempts to cut it out. He makes contact but only slows the ball down, Mbappe collects it and beats the keeper to score.

There's no doubt he was offside when the pass was played, so obviously the touch from Garcia is key here, but what is a defender to do?

I actually thought the rule had been changed about a year ago after something very similar happened which made it clear that the rule as it stood (or interpretation of it, if there is even a difference) wasn't fit for purpose.

[jbyrne]

Any thoughts on tonights VAR controversy for Mbappe's winning goal against Spain?

For those who haven't seen it, a through ball is played for Mbappe, who is half a yard offside. Eric Garcia knows Mbappe is behind him and attempts to cut it out. He makes contact but only slows the ball down, Mbappe collects it and beats the keeper to score.

There's no doubt he was offside when the pass was played, so obviously the touch from Garcia is key here, but what is a defender to do?

I actually thought the rule had been changed about a year ago after something very similar happened which made it clear that the rule as it stood (or interpretation of it, if there is even a difference) wasn't fit for purpose.

he was offside when the ball was played and clearly benefited from that given he was on the ball less than a second later before sticking it in the net.
even if the goal counts under the rules its a complete nonsense.

anyone see the norths red card on saturday? a complete nonsense that would never happen to a bigger team.

[mypost]

The latter is not a VAR issue. Refs are allowed to give yellow cards for taking too long to take throw ins and have done in the past to all sorts of teams. The question should be, does a player need 20 seconds to take a throw in? It's not really the most difficult discipline in the game. It's not really the wisest thing to do if you're already on a yellow, and he can have no complaints about getting booked for it.

As for the goal above, the VAR applied the rules as they stand. You're not offside if you receive the ball from an opponent, never have been, never will be. It's another example of why you keep the flag down until the end of the move, to see how it plays out.