Welcome Notice

Hello and welcome to Molineux Mix a forum for Wolves fans by Wolves fans.

Register Log in

MoTD tonight

Joined
Aug 18, 2021
Messages
289
Reaction score
395
I would imagine the referees will argue that Chirewa was put on the keeper specifically to get in his way so by definition was interfering, fine from the corner itself but not when Kilman headed the ball as he was in an offside position.
 

Watfordfc

Has a lot to say
Joined
Apr 21, 2021
Messages
1,602
Reaction score
1,849
Again it comes down to subjective opinion which not sure was the intention of VAR really .

Just created more debate and confusion as proven here .

Doesn’t help that different interpretations are used across the leagues and Europe either .

Do they have the same problems elsewhere ?
 

rincewind

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
10,176
Reaction score
8,276
While I think the decision ridiculous in itself anyway, VAR is supposed to be for "clear and obvious" errors. As can be seen from the level and tone of debate here and across the football World, allowing the goal was not a "clear and obvious " error!
 

Poztin

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
3,821
Reaction score
2,333
Hear me out, just scrap the offside rule. It was created in the 19th century to stop goalhanging.

So what if Haaland wants to stand on the 18 yard line? The space on the pitch would open up. New tactics would evolve etc.

Every kickabout amongst mates has no such rule and everyone’s happy.

Why exactly do we need it in this day and age?
 

Shergar

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
5,792
Reaction score
11,036
Hear me out, just scrap the offside rule. It was created in the 19th century to stop goalhanging.

So what if Haaland wants to stand on the 18 yard line? The space on the pitch would open up. New tactics would evolve etc.

Every kickabout amongst mates has no such rule and everyone’s happy.

Why exactly do we need it in this day and age?
Imagine watching just one.. say a friendly involving 2 top teams without the offside rule, the mind boggles with inquisitive interest, just this one game would be such a spectacle.
 

SingYourHeartsOut

"Its less confusing with a smaller brain"
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
38,013
Reaction score
36,611
The laws (not just VAR) are a mess. See City 5 v Fulham 1 - Ake scores (and its allowed) whilst Akanji plays the Chirewa role. Harrington on VAR that day...

Yes, remember watching that. He's actually more offside than Chirewa as he has a flick at the ball which could potentially have affected the keeper's attempt at a save. However I remember at the time people said 'well he wasn't saving it anyway', which is both correct and the whole point.
 

Very Proud (AKA Still Proud)

Prouder than a proud thing in Proudville
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
13,160
Reaction score
18,665
So if you are the Ref/VAR and able to decide that Chirewa is in the line of sight of the keeper then you have to recognise that Chirewa is in that exact position because he was pushed in the penalty area by the keeper.

Fabianski’s offence came first so if the goal was overruled then as a minimum it should have been a Wolves penalty.

If you try to argue the Ref would say the contact wasn’t significant enough for a penalty then he must accept the keeper made contact thus influencing Chirewa’s position otherwise he may well have not impeded his line of sight.
 

lobodelsur

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jul 14, 2018
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
3,478
So if you are the Ref/VAR and able to decide that Chirewa is in the line of sight of the keeper then you have to recognise that Chirewa is in that exact position because he was pushed in the penalty area by the keeper.

Fabianski’s offence came first so if the goal was overruled then as a minimum it should have been a Wolves penalty.

If you try to argue the Ref would say the contact wasn’t significant enough for a penalty then he must accept the keeper made contact thus influencing Chirewa’s position otherwise he may well have not impeded his line of sight.
Since when have PGMOL ever applied logic ?
 

Henry Palfrey

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
3,860
Reaction score
3,696
While I think the decision ridiculous in itself anyway, VAR is supposed to be for "clear and obvious" errors. As can be seen from the level and tone of debate here and across the football World, allowing the goal was not a "clear and obvious " error!
In the end though the referee reversed his own decision!
He didn’t have to. Its almost asking him, 'do you want a WH win or a draw?'.
 

Forza Wolves

Groupie
Joined
Oct 20, 2017
Messages
334
Reaction score
506
Just watching the Monaco game on TNT, seemingly innocuous challenge in the box, no penalty, VAR intervenes and send the ref to the monitor. She watches the incident and sticks to her guns and the original decision. Has anything ever happened like that here? Seems if the ref is sent to review, it's a guarantee they're gonna overturn
 

MikeH68

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,090
Reaction score
1,425
Just watching the Monaco game on TNT, seemingly innocuous challenge in the box, no penalty, VAR intervenes and send the ref to the monitor. She watches the incident and sticks to her guns and the original decision. Has anything ever happened like that here? Seems if the ref is sent to review, it's a guarantee they're gonna overturn
Only one I remember was, funnily enough and surprise surprise was against us, recently!
 

SingleMalt

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
875
Reaction score
1,354
Just watching the Monaco game on TNT, seemingly innocuous challenge in the box, no penalty, VAR intervenes and send the ref to the monitor. She watches the incident and sticks to her guns and the original decision. Has anything ever happened like that here? Seems if the ref is sent to review, it's a guarantee they're gonna overturn
Didn’t it happen to us against Leeds when Traoré was fouled in the build up to their goal but the ref did nothing despite seeing it on the monitor ?
 

Contrarian

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jul 14, 2018
Messages
15,002
Reaction score
23,042
While I think the decision ridiculous in itself anyway, VAR is supposed to be for "clear and obvious" errors. As can be seen from the level and tone of debate here and across the football World, allowing the goal was not a "clear and obvious " error!

Clear and obvious is totally subjective, too! The irony is that VAR has introduced this new layer of objectivity.

At the end of the day, isn't the whole purpose of VAR to cover for low standard of refereeing? If we had 30 Premier League refs, of the quality of the very best, then there would never have even been a need for it. Well, that and incessant player cheating (though that has increased as refs let them get away with it).

Thinking of our Europa League season, the standard of refs was so clearly better than we would see a few days later in the Premier League. If that was the average level, we would never need VAR.
 

Contrarian

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jul 14, 2018
Messages
15,002
Reaction score
23,042
In the end though the referee reversed his own decision!
He didn’t have to. Its almost asking him, 'do you want a WH win or a draw?'.

Exactly. And these days, awarding a penalty is asking the ref to award a goal.
 

Wolf316

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
22,541
Reaction score
34,945
Didn’t it happen to us against Leeds when Traoré was fouled in the build up to their goal but the ref did nothing despite seeing it on the monitor ?
I think he purposely let that go as he’d been getting dogs abuse from the crowd.
 

Superted

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
1,951
Reaction score
3,542
No one is saying Chirewa wasnt standing in an offside position he clearly was
The issue is interference with play
The ball was never near him,so thats not an issue,he never touched the keeper so no interference there,he didnt block the keeper from moving so no interference there either
The only possible interference was line of sight,Fabianski is 6ft 3 tall, the ball was high cross from our left in plain view to everyone,he could move at any time or like most keepers just shove him out of the way where is any interference?
GON was right in his comments when saying" if you dont understand football you could come to that conclusion" lol
My issue isn't that Chirewa was in an offside position or that Fabianski's view may have been impeded.

It's the fact that both the ref and the linesman had a clear view of Chirewa and his position relative to Fabianski in real time and they awarded the goal on the field.

Harrington then took another look and decided that Chirewa had impeded Fabianski's view despite the images being inconclusive either way.

That feels like re-refereeing the incident which we're repeatedly told is not what VAR is there for.
 

Sammy Chungs Tracksuit

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
3,289
VAR needs to be an independent body away from PGMOL. A review team, rather than a match Official constructed of previous referees or linesmen, with previous players and trained up fans.

The decision process needs to be final, not an advisory capacity to the onfield ref, if a decision is wrong (not clear and obvious, just wrong) it can be overturned.

And it needs to be open an transparent to the fans in attendance, mic'd up and on the screen.
Not only an independent body, I think the independent VAR body should be done at European level and the teams of VAR officials should only be appointed to games by random draw 1 hour before kick off to minimise the risk of match fixing. This would prevent PGMOL deviating from european standards. If seperation of VAR from PGMOL is not an option it should be binned off altogether.
 

Chuck Murray

Has a lot to say
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
682
Not only an independent body, I think the independent VAR body should be done at European level and the teams of VAR officials should only be appointed to games by random draw 1 hour before kick off to minimise the risk of match fixing. This would prevent PGMOL deviating from european standards. If seperation of VAR from PGMOL is not an option it should be binned off altogether.
Sad that we must contemplate match fixing as a factor, but with the calls/non-calls we've seen almost exclusively against Wolves mounting up, you can't dismiss the possibility, can you? WWFC must send a signal, we will not be anyone's patsy or panto serial victim, Shi's statement this weekend was a good start ... but query why this wasn't stated earlier in the season? It's really ALL just been WAY too much, over the top.
 

Ginger Chimp

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
11,001
Reaction score
8,440
So if you are the Ref/VAR and able to decide that Chirewa is in the line of sight of the keeper then you have to recognise that Chirewa is in that exact position because he was pushed in the penalty area by the keeper.

Fabianski’s offence came first so if the goal was overruled then as a minimum it should have been a Wolves penalty.

If you try to argue the Ref would say the contact wasn’t significant enough for a penalty then he must accept the keeper made contact thus influencing Chirewa’s position otherwise he may well have not impeded his line of sight.
My head is about to explode.
 

old wittonian

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
7,424
Not only an independent body, I think the independent VAR body should be done at European level and the teams of VAR officials should only be appointed to games by random draw 1 hour before kick off to minimise the risk of match fixing. This would prevent PGMOL deviating from european standards. If seperation of VAR from PGMOL is not an option it should be binned off altogether.
There should be absolutely no connection with the VAR officials and PGMOL. Mates judging/criticising mates absolute b******s.
 

Very Proud (AKA Still Proud)

Prouder than a proud thing in Proudville
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
13,160
Reaction score
18,665
There should be absolutely no connection with the VAR officials and PGMOL. Mates judging/criticising mates absolute b******s.
Bottom line is we brought in VAR because PGMOL weren't competent enough/money changed hands, now we're trying to think of ways around the fact we can't trust PGMOL to use it properly, erm maybe we should just get rid of PGMOL.
 

old wittonian

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
7,424
Bottom line is we brought in VAR because PGMOL weren't competent enough/money changed hands, now we're trying to think of ways around the fact we can't trust PGMOL to use it properly, erm maybe we should just get rid of PGMOL.
I agree. However, who would it be replaced with? The same people under a different name?
 

Very Proud (AKA Still Proud)

Prouder than a proud thing in Proudville
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
13,160
Reaction score
18,665
I agree. However, who would it be replaced with? The same people under a different name?
My suggestion is all referees are employed directly by The FA. That there is a level of open accountability and rules that are focussed on integrity and consistency are developed. The attempts to improve the quality of officiating, PGMOL and all its self-interest and arrogance (watch Dermot Gallagher dismissing Neil Lennon) is a failure, VAR is a disaster, the whole thing is ruining a simple game that used to be enjoyed by millions.

They should be immediately accountable to us, the fans.

We know The FA aren't great at everything but at least they're not The Premier League or PGMOL.
 

AndyY

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
6,784
Reaction score
8,501
1. We should forget all about the "clear and obvious" crap - its either an offence/ foul or it isnt. Use the technology to get to the correct decision.
2. Forget all about the "arm was in an unnatural position or not", its handball if it hits the arm/ hand below the shoulder.
3. Forget about "offside only of deemed to be interfering with play or not", its offside if a player is in an offside position.
4. If its a foul/ offence in the "outfield", its a bloody fould/ offence if its inside the box.

End of. Its a bloody simple game being ruined by stupid interpretations!
 

Perton Wolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
17,231
Reaction score
13,582
Dermot Gallagher said offside on Ref Watch by the way.
In contrast to Halsey on Talksport this morning.

Seems like opinion among former pro refs is split, which would perhaps point to it not being a 'clear and obvious' error, regardless of anything else.
 

Watfordfc

Has a lot to say
Joined
Apr 21, 2021
Messages
1,602
Reaction score
1,849
Dermot Gallagher said offside on Ref Watch by the way.
In contrast to Halsey on Talksport this morning.

Seems like opinion among former pro refs is split, which would perhaps point to it not being a 'clear and obvious' error, regardless of anything else.
Like so many decisions which has been made worse by VAR tbh as it takes time out of the game and the refs are just undermining each other really .
 

Very Proud (AKA Still Proud)

Prouder than a proud thing in Proudville
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
13,160
Reaction score
18,665
Dermot Gallagher said offside on Ref Watch by the way.
In contrast to Halsey on Talksport this morning.

Seems like opinion among former pro refs is split, which would perhaps point to it not being a 'clear and obvious' error, regardless of anything else.
I'd love to sit in a TV studio and ask him why they are all hell bent on destroying the game, for their love of rules. Would Sky ever consider such a ting? I very much doubt it, but we can keep on hashtaging in SSN I guess.
 

Ginger Chimp

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
11,001
Reaction score
8,440
1. We should forget all about the "clear and obvious" crap - its either an offence/ foul or it isnt. Use the technology to get to the correct decision.
2. Forget all about the "arm was in an unnatural position or not", its handball if it hits the arm/ hand below the shoulder.
3. Forget about "offside only of deemed to be interfering with play or not", its offside if a player is in an offside position.
4. If its a foul/ offence in the "outfield", its a bloody fould/ offence if its inside the box.

End of. Its a bloody simple game being ruined by stupid interpretations!
???

Weren't these the Laws we all played to in the 70s and 80s (and maybe before then too).

The Laws that had existed for c100 years or more?
 

Willywolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
May 3, 2021
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
3,334
Dermot Gallagher said offside on Ref Watch by the way.
In contrast to Halsey on Talksport this morning.

Seems like opinion among former pro refs is split, which would perhaps point to it not being a 'clear and obvious' error, regardless of anything else.
Clattenburg also says the goal should have stood. With so many differing opinions, and the fact neither the ref or linesman gave it initially, Fabianski nor the defenders appealed, surely that is evidence of no clear/obvious error.

Gallagher is protecting the ref/var imo. For the reasons already explained by many, Chirewa is having zero impact on Fabianski - goal should have stood and Gallagher and his cronies at pgmol are clearly not football people if they believe otherwise.
 

AndyY

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
6,784
Reaction score
8,501
???

Weren't these the Laws we all played to in the 70s and 80s (and maybe before then too).

The Laws that had existed for c100 years or more?
IFAB have changed the rules by introducing interpretations like "not interfering with play", arm in a natural/ unnatural position etc.
 

Perton Wolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
17,231
Reaction score
13,582
Clattenburg also says the goal should have stood. With so many differing opinions, and the fact neither the ref or linesman gave it initially, Fabianski nor the defenders appealed, surely that is evidence of no clear/obvious error.

Gallagher is protecting the ref/var imo. For the reasons already explained by many, Chirewa is having zero impact on Fabianski - goal should have stood and Gallagher and his cronies at pgmol are clearly not football people if they believe otherwise.
Gallagher said that the Ref/VAR were right in terms of being to the letter of the law, but that perhaps the law needs claryifying/changing.

One for IFAB perhaps, as the whole GK eyeline/impacting on has become rather confusing.
 

Sammy Chungs Tracksuit

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
3,289
Sad that we must contemplate match fixing as a factor, but with the calls/non-calls we've seen almost exclusively against Wolves mounting up, you can't dismiss the possibility, can you? WWFC must send a signal, we will not be anyone's patsy or panto serial victim, Shi's statement this weekend was a good start ... but query why this wasn't stated earlier in the season? It's really ALL just been WAY too much, over the top.
If match fixing is ever a factor then money is the likely factor and I doubt that it is anti-Wolves but it may be affecting clubs like Wolves more because there is less post match scrutiny of terrible decisions. Take Fulham v Wolves for instance. It was televised match with no other Premier League game in play at that time and hence heavily betted on world wide. Pulling play back a couple of minutes for a penalty that could not in any way be seen as conclusive stinks to high heaven. Both penalties aganst Wolves were extremely dubious in that game. Do that against a big club and there is hell to pay in the media, do it against Wolves and its forgotten by the media within a couple of days.
 
Back
Top Bottom