Newcastle United v AFC Bournemouth

Is Howard Webb clearly and obviously explaining why the referee had to have the rule explained to him by VAR for several minutes.
The law being clear it is quick and easy decision

Watch it again Jim, the ref didn't need the rule explaining to him. The two VAR guys discuss what happened and get to the right conclusion. They call the ref over to review the foul, tbh I don't know why because the missed foul was clear and obvious, and the ref already knows the rule. You can hear him say "didn't have a chance [to be offside]".

It wasn't quick and easy but it was right.
 
That's not what happened.

The ref didn't see the shirt pull, the lino gave offside and so the ref gave the offside - he was offside so they were correct about that.

VAR checked the offence and determined that it was a foul - it was a foul so they were correct about that.

The VAR official determined that according to the laws of the game that the foul took place before the offside had a chance to become an offence. They were correct about that.

I don't like this rule or VAR and I would scrap both in a heartbeat if it were up to me... but PGMOL got all right on this occasion other than the ref not seeing the initial short pull.
Really good to see insightful commentary on this. Much of the discourse from the Newcastle fans I know is born out of muddy understanding of an increasingly complicated offside law.

I don't have a problem with VAR per se, just how it's being implemented. We were told it would be for 'clear and obvious' errors, but so many of the instances seem to be either 5 minutes of deliberating over 17 camera angles to determine whether the defender took down the attacker or if the attacker kicked his leg into the defender, OR whether an attacker is a gnat's fanny hair offside. For me, a clear and obvious error should be just that; nigh on immediately identified.

Handball and offside seem to me to be the most frequently misunderstood, and that's because to me they've become unnecessarily complicated. Honestly, it seems they've become complicated to remove agency from the referee, to make binary what is often a judgement call.
 
Someone running back from an offside position to where the ball is in possession by the other team is not challenging for the ball until they reach the player with possession, when the ball is loose after a free kick or a corner and not in *anyone's* possession then everyone running towards where the ball is going is challenging for it.

Don't understand this tbh. You're not offside if the other team is in possession are you - the ball needs to be deliberately played by a member of your side.

Either way.. running towards the ball isn't challenging an opposition player for the ball.
 
Really good to see insightful commentary on this. Much of the discourse from the Newcastle fans I know is born out of muddy understanding of an increasingly complicated offside law.

I don't have a problem with VAR per se, just how it's being implemented. We were told it would be for 'clear and obvious' errors, but so many of the instances seem to be either 5 minutes of deliberating over 17 camera angles to determine whether the defender took down the attacker or if the attacker kicked his leg into the defender, OR whether an attacker is a gnat's fanny hair offside. For me, a clear and obvious error should be just that; nigh on immediately identified.

Handball and offside seem to me to be the most frequently misunderstood, and that's because to me they've become unnecessarily complicated. Honestly, it seems they've become complicated to remove agency from the referee, to make binary what is often a judgement call.

I just hate VAR full stop tbh. This whole decision swung the game and took an age to sort out, same as last time we were at Newcastle with a very debatable handball that no player or fan saw as a penalty given as a pen after an age of VAR delay. Is the game better off with these long delays to sort out marginal decisions? Not for me.
 
I just hate VAR full stop tbh. This whole decision swung the game and took an age to sort out, same as last time we were at Newcastle with a very debatable handball that no player or fan saw as a penalty given as a pen after an age of VAR delay. Is the game better off with these long delays to sort out marginal decisions? Not for me.
Yeah we've been on the end of horrific VAR stoppages as well. We were minutes away from doing the double over PSG in the Champions League when the European interpretation of the handball law gifted them a penalty and the equaliser. That one VAR stoppage cost us 2pts, progress into the knock out stages, and the riches and 'glory' that comes with it.

I've also got a pet theory that, as VAR stoppages increase in frequency and length, the players bodies are experiencing periods of cooldown which is increasing the likelihood of soft tissue injuries, and contributing to lapses in concentration.

I'd happily bin off VAR for all but a few exceptions; contested penalty shouts and red cards.
 
Yeah we've been on the end of horrific VAR stoppages as well. We were minutes away from doing the double over PSG in the Champions League when the European interpretation of the handball law gifted them a penalty and the equaliser. That one VAR stoppage cost us 2pts, progress into the knock out stages, and the riches and 'glory' that comes with it.

I've also got a pet theory that, as VAR stoppages increase in frequency and length, the players bodies are experiencing periods of cooldown which is increasing the likelihood of soft tissue injuries, and contributing to lapses in concentration.

I'd happily bin off VAR for all but a few exceptions; contested penalty shouts and red cards.

Yeah I saw that decision. Horrendous. Unlike this one it wasn't even correct.

We've probably only got ourselves to blame though because football supporters can't accept that human error is inevitable when you have people making subject or tight decisions. I'd like to think if VAR was scrapped and we got relegated due to a tight offside decision wrongly going against us that I'd manage to be reasonable about it but I doubt it.

Mind you it would be better than being relegated because someone forgot to turn the goal line technology on at Villa Park I suppose.
 
Howe and Tindall? No appetite to get rid of them from above and the fans remain largely onside. Howe isn't without his weaknesses (too loyal to certain players, and perhaps too stubborn with tactical changes) but he has so much cache with the owners and the fans it would take something seismic to see him go.

Mad Dog is the kind of assistant manager who winds the opponents up no end, so I'm all for him. Reportedly has a big influence on our set pieces too, so there's that.
Yep. As you say, Howe like everyone has his weaknesses and often it's just the flip side of a strength. Loyalty (and Eddie is super loyal) means he sticks with players a bit too much. He certainly did that here too. Mind you. This season with the injuries, he hasn't had much choice. I think he demands absolute loyalty too, which might sometimes be a bit unrealistic. Ultimately, players need to think about their own careers. Apparently, he fell out with a few players here because they were unhappy they weren't being played or challenged him. I personally think it's okay to express discontent in a job or challenge the manager as long as it's done respectfully. Maybe the players weren't respectful, though. Not sure. I think the Fraser situation is interesting. I was furious with RF when he did what he did in the 2019-20 season, but that was 4 years ago and he has struggled I think, so I wish him no harm and think he has a right to move on and learn from mistakes. I actually think he would have been useful to you this season. I also think he was within his rights to request a move if he wasn't even making the bench. Not sure what he did wrong there, and maybe that wasn't well handled by Eddie and more to do with what had happened at Bournemouth than Newcastle? Maybe you've heard more about what went on.

As for JT, he's an excellent coach, and apparently gets on very well with players, just in a more on their level way rather than slightly distant authoritative way that Eddie does. They're a great team. I think JT deserved more respect from Bournemouth in the end than he got. He wasn't the best manager for us, but that shouldn't have cancelled out all the good stuff he'd done too as a coach.
 
Yeah I saw that decision. Horrendous. Unlike this one it wasn't even correct.

We've probably only got ourselves to blame though because football supporters can't accept that human error is inevitable when you have people making subject or tight decisions. I'd like to think if VAR was scrapped and we got relegated due to a tight offside decision wrongly going against us that I'd manage to be reasonable about it but I doubt it.

Mind you it would be better than being relegated because someone forgot to turn the goal line technology on at Villa Park I suppose.
There's the rub because technically, technically, it was correct. As the handball laws in the European fixtures differ from those in the PL. In Europe if the ball hits a defenders hand in an unnatural position, it's a penalty, here if it comes off a bodypart then strikes the hand/arm it's not.

We've had Elliot Anderson's first League goal chalked off for offside because of a failure from the onfield and VAR officials to understand the offside law.

Ultimately the laws of the game are mostly there to ensure no team gains an unfair advantage, and it seems every season we lurch further and further away from the core aim and further and further into the long grass. We don't give the referees the autonomy and responsibility to make good subjective decisions on the pitch.
 
Yeah I saw that decision. Horrendous. Unlike this one it wasn't even correct.

We've probably only got ourselves to blame though because football supporters can't accept that human error is inevitable when you have people making subject or tight decisions. I'd like to think if VAR was scrapped and we got relegated due to a tight offside decision wrongly going against us that I'd manage to be reasonable about it but I doubt it.

Mind you it would be better than being relegated because someone forgot to turn the goal line technology on at Villa Park I suppose.
Derek, do you actually think the decision against us was correct in a proper sense or just 'correct' in a technical out of context sense?
 
Yep. As you say, Howe like everyone has his weaknesses and often it's just the flip side of a strength. Loyalty (and Eddie is super loyal) means he sticks with players a bit too much. He certainly did that here too. Mind you. This season with the injuries, he hasn't had much choice.

This has beent he case for some positions, but leftback is one of the weirder ones. Burn is fine when you've got Pope and Joelinton in the team, but he's so exposed without them that teams are consistently targeting our left side. We have Livramento and Hall who are both fit and available, but they can't oust the big lad. Seems weird to me. The rest of the pitch picks itself due to injury and suspension. I could name our starting lineup for Arsenal right now.
I think he demands absolute loyalty too, which might sometimes be a bit unrealistic. Ultimately, players need to think about their own careers. Apparently, he fell out with a few players here because they were unhappy they weren't being played or challenged him. I personally think it's okay to express discontent in a job or challenge the manager as long as it's done respectfully. Maybe the players weren't respectful, though. Not sure. I think the Fraser situation is interesting. I was furious with RF when he did what he did in the 2019-20 season, but that was 4 years ago and he has struggled I think, so I wish him no harm and think he has a right to move on and learn from mistakes. I actually think he would have been useful to you this season. I also think he was within his rights to request a move if he wasn't even making the bench. Not sure what he did wrong there, and maybe that wasn't well handled by Eddie and more to do with what had happened at Bournemouth than Newcastle? Maybe you've heard more about what went on.
To be fair RF was behind Saint-Maximin who is, by orders of magnitude, a bigger attacking threat than RF. And then Gordon came in and Fraser has no hope of taking that position.
From all I've heard Fraser wasn't 'at it' in training to the standard demanded by HOwe and there were some rumours that he'd had a falling out with Howe about perceived importance to the team.
As for JT, he's an excellent coach, and apparently gets on very well with players, just in a more on their level way rather than slightly distant authoritative way that Eddie does. They're a great team. I think JT deserved more respect from Bournemouth in the end than he got. He wasn't the best manager for us, but that shouldn't have cancelled out all the good stuff he'd done too as a coach.

I love Tindall, he just seems to be enjoying life, way more than Howe does.
 
They could make a very simple change to the offside laws which would eliminate holding/shirt pulling immediately. If a player was only deemed to be in an offside position when there is clear daylight between himself and the defender (i.e. absolutely no part of the 2 bodies "overlapping", not even a finger or toe), a defender undertaking such a move to hold or restrain the attacker would immediately be keeping him onside.
 
This has beent he case for some positions, but leftback is one of the weirder ones. Burn is fine when you've got Pope and Joelinton in the team, but he's so exposed without them that teams are consistently targeting our left side. We have Livramento and Hall who are both fit and available, but they can't oust the big lad. Seems weird to me. The rest of the pitch picks itself due to injury and suspension. I could name our starting lineup for Arsenal right now.

To be fair RF was behind Saint-Maximin who is, by orders of magnitude, a bigger attacking threat than RF. And then Gordon came in and Fraser has no hope of taking that position.
From all I've heard Fraser wasn't 'at it' in training to the standard demanded by HOwe and there were some rumours that he'd had a falling out with Howe about perceived importance to the team.


I love Tindall, he just seems to be enjoying life, way more than Howe does.
Yeah, Eddie probably cares a bit too much, I guess. Easy trap to fall into as a manager.

Know what you mean about Burn. I guess he has leadership skills but he can still apply them from the bench at times. Brighton generslly played him as a centre back I think.
 
Well, I’ve waited to watch “mic’d up” and I think I fell into a Howard Webb induced coma part way through.

If it takes that long to explain it, with a weird binary excitement over the laws and technicalities of it, almost overly excited by being able to educate us all then… it’s not bloody clear and obvious. So it’s offside.

It’s so not clear and obvious that I don’t think the ref or the VAR were convinced they just went along with the AVAR.

Zero common sense, over complicating the beautiful game which was only ever beautiful because of its simplicity.
 
I honestly don't know how you have come to this conclusion. There is a clear section in Law 11 that covers this exact scenario and the officials on the day followed that section of the law to a tee. It has not been dismantled in any way by anyone. A load of people don't like it, some others seemingly don't understand it but it's there in black and white:

a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
Did the foul occur before the offside offence? If they occured simultaneously then the rule doesn't cover it.
 
Well, I’ve waited to watch “mic’d up” and I think I fell into a Howard Webb induced coma part way through.

If it takes that long to explain it, with a weird binary excitement over the laws and technicalities of it, almost overly excited by being able to educate us all then… it’s not bloody clear and obvious. So it’s offside.

It’s so not clear and obvious that I don’t think the ref or the VAR were convinced they just went along with the AVAR.

Zero common sense, over complicating the beautiful game which was only ever beautiful because of its simplicity.
Exactly. As soon as you introduce all these definitions of what constitutes offside (such as challenging for the ball) all you do is raise a whole new set of questions. Such as when does running towards the cross with a defender becomes a challenge for the ball rather than just running? It all becomes subjective and then every ref will have their own view.
 
Yeah, Eddie probably cares a bit too much, I guess. Easy trap to fall into as a manager.

Know what you mean about Burn. I guess he has leadership skills but he can still apply them from the bench at times. Brighton generslly played him as a centre back I think.
So, when everyone is fit, Burn ostensibly plays as a leftback, but really he shifts more centrally to provide a trio of CBs while Trippier bombs forward. That left flank is protected by Gordon at the top end, an ever-industrious Joelinton on the left of a midfield 3, and Nick Pope sweeping up behind.

Without NP and Joe, Gordon is having to do way more covering, which is limiting his attacking output. The midfield haven't solved the issue of the left side (Longstaff and Miley are both more suited to the right or centre of the midfield 3. Bruno is good, but having him harry the right winger seriously impacts the rest of how our team works. And Dubravka just cannot play that sweeper role (as shown against you, Forest and Luton specifically).

If I was in charge I'd have dropped Burn by now, played Livramento and accepted the risk of two attacking fullbacks with the hope being both Tino and Trippier have the pace and awareness to get back.
 
So, when everyone is fit, Burn ostensibly plays as a leftback, but really he shifts more centrally to provide a trio of CBs while Trippier bombs forward. That left flank is protected by Gordon at the top end, an ever-industrious Joelinton on the left of a midfield 3, and Nick Pope sweeping up behind.

Without NP and Joe, Gordon is having to do way more covering, which is limiting his attacking output. The midfield haven't solved the issue of the left side (Longstaff and Miley are both more suited to the right or centre of the midfield 3. Bruno is good, but having him harry the right winger seriously impacts the rest of how our team works. And Dubravka just cannot play that sweeper role (as shown against you, Forest and Luton specifically).

If I was in charge I'd have dropped Burn by now, played Livramento and accepted the risk of two attacking fullbacks with the hope being both Tino and Trippier have the pace and awareness to get back.
I guess it was often a topic of debate here - Eddie's single-mindedness or stubbornness (depending on perspective) is both a strength and a hindrance.
 
Well, I’ve waited to watch “mic’d up” and I think I fell into a Howard Webb induced coma part way through.

If it takes that long to explain it, with a weird binary excitement over the laws and technicalities of it, almost overly excited by being able to educate us all then… it’s not bloody clear and obvious. So it’s offside.

It’s so not clear and obvious that I don’t think the ref or the VAR were convinced they just went along with the AVAR.

Zero common sense, over complicating the beautiful game which was only ever beautiful because of its simplicity.

The clear and obvious rule does not apply for offsides... Besides, it wasn't an error because he gave the offside.

Clear and obvious applies to subjective decisions like the foul by Adam Smith, which was a clear and obvious foul that initially wasn't given.

No amount of common sense changes the outcome. You have to ignore the rules to give any other decision than the one they gave with the only possible exception being if he decided the foul wasn't in the box.
 

;