Just as an example early in the season Alexis Mcallister got a red card in the first half against Bournemouth which was then reversed as the ref got the decision wrong. VAR chose not to intervene - lets go with the decision of the on field ref

agree with yhtl they sounded like 2 excited kids on play station or 2 fans in those fanzones

why not throw the shovel away and stop digging?.let the refs make decisions and we all have to stand by it.they are big boys and very well paid.nobody dies when the get it wrong,just over paid prima donnas who will be off to next team that pays more.

yes we all know VAR is here to stay but we should have control on when its used i.e not to reverse decisions which could have gone either way

'VAR really shouldnt
be getting involved since his foul follows an
impact off top of ball.'

Nowhere in the rules is this stated to be relevant. If you endanger the safety of an opponent it is irrelevant whether you get the ball or not. If Jones goes for the bottom of the ball and follows through, that is a yellow as it is considered not high enough to constitute a danger in nearly all cases. You go for the top of the ball you are risking being sent off.

The rule states 'A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.' The word used is 'must', ie there is no discretion for the ref on the basis of him getting the ball  or intent once the tackle is sufficiently high and sufficient force is applied. It was a clear red under the rules. It doesn't help when former players like Neville think that intent or getting the ball are relevant. They aren't.

I know it's not in the laws.

Must refers to after they have decided the
foul play or dangerous play.

I've already said I felt it was a red, but
as devil's advocate the ref did not initially.

The VAR protocols were clearly breached by var
in getting ref to upgrade to red, as replay is
supposed to be at real speed not a photo of the impact.

The VAR reviews the broadcast footage, using as many angles as possible. Real-time replays will be used initially to check for intensity. Slow-motion replays will be used to identify the point of contact.

The cowboy attitude to var has to stop.

I think we have to be wary on how quick the game is, as I reckon that was the issue here. They might have been a bit giddy from the sending off (don't buy that really) but the audio here sounds really rushed like they were really against the clock. The procedure just needs stretching out a bit in cases like this to ensure clarity. Not saying you need 2 minutes but you can spend more than 10 seconds on it.

"it would be the right thing to do" he says

I disagree (as a LFC fan), but I can't for the life of me come up with a situation where the erroneously not given goal shouldn't be added after the event.  It's a pretty exceptional case.

would they start with 11
then take a man off
same starting sides etc etc
jog on klopp not happening

Can't have a replay but I suppose you've got to start your bargaining from a high point to try and get anything near reasonable.

yeah, which is why you have to have a strong opening gambit

The Tenerife airport disaster occurred on March 27, 1977, when two Boeing 747 passenger jets collided on the runway at Los Rodeos Airport[1] (now Tenerife North Airport) on the Spanish island of Tenerife.[2][3] The collision occurred when KLM Flight 4805 initiated its takeoff run during dense fog while Pan Am Flight 1736 was still on the runway. The impact and resulting fire killed everyone on board KLM 4805 and most of the occupants of Pan Am 1736, with only 61 survivors in the front section of the aircraft.[2][3] With 583 fatalities, the disaster is the deadliest accident in aviation history.

Immediately after lining up, the KLM captain advanced the throttles and the aircraft started to move forward.[31] Meurs advised him that ATC clearance had not yet been given and van Zanten responded: "No, I know that. Go ahead, ask." Meurs then radioed the tower that they were "ready for takeoff" and "waiting for our ATC clearance". The KLM crew then received instructions that specified the route that the aircraft was to follow after takeoff. The instructions used the word "takeoff," but did not include an explicit statement that they were cleared for takeoff.

Meurs read the flight clearance back to the controller, completing the readback with the statement: "We are now at takeoff."[4] Van Zanten interrupted the co-pilot's readback with the comment, "We're going."[4]

The controller, who could not see the runway due to the fog, initially responded with "OK" (terminology that is nonstandard), which reinforced the KLM captain's misinterpretation that they had takeoff clearance. The controller's response of "OK" to the co-pilot's nonstandard statement that they were "now at takeoff" was likely due to his misinterpretation that they were in takeoff position and ready to begin the roll when takeoff clearance was received, but not in the process of taking off. The controller then immediately added "stand by for takeoff, I will call you",[4] indicating that he had not intended the instruction to be interpreted as a takeoff clearance.[32]

A simultaneous radio call from the Pan Am crew caused mutual interference on the radio frequency, which was audible in the KLM cockpit as a three-second-long shrill sound (or heterodyne). This caused the KLM crew to miss the crucial latter portion of the tower's response. The Pan Am crew's transmission was "We're still taxiing down the runway, the Clipper 1736!" This message was also blocked by the interference and inaudible to the KLM crew. Either message, if heard in the KLM cockpit, would have alerted the crew to the situation and given them time to abort the takeoff attempt.[33]

Due to the fog, neither crew was able to see the other plane on the runway ahead of them. In addition, neither of the aircraft could be seen from the control tower, and the airport was not equipped with ground radar.[4]

LEGACY:

As a consequence of the accident, sweeping changes were made to international airline regulations and to aircraft. Aviation authorities around the world introduced requirements for standard phrases and a greater emphasis on English as a common working language.[16]

Air traffic instruction must not be acknowledged solely with a colloquial phrase such as "OK" or even "Roger" (which simply means the last transmission was received),[64] but with a readback of the key parts of the instruction, to show mutual understanding. The word "takeoff" is now spoken only when the actual takeoff clearance is given, or when canceling that same clearance (i.e., "cleared for takeoff" or "cancel takeoff clearance"). Until that point, aircrew and controllers should use the word "departure" in its place (e.g., "ready for departure").


NOONE DIED ON SATURDAY!

Couple of other things, I thought for all the world that they didn't even do a check because we never saw the lines drawn but they did do a check, why then didn't we see the lines, if the game was stopped whilst we see the lines being put up then that pause would have been enough for them to realize that it had been flagged for offside.

Also we've always known that offside isn't an exact science because they can't know the exact moment the ball leaves the passers foot and we saw for the first time that being carried out here, they just freeze the moment they think he passes it and take that as gospel.

Why weren't these "protocols" sorted out before VAR was implemented? They obviously don't have the capability, in terms of properly trained officials or a system that is understood by all using it. This "Olly" guy was clearly very reluctant to get involved and expand on his poorly communicated and misunderstood instruction to delay, other than nervously saying "yes" when the other official said his name, in an apparent attempt to get him to clarify his understanding of the situation, and tell them what to do. He was probably scared of saying the wrong thing, which indicates to me that he had little confidence in himself or the system, and didn't know what to do. If the staff are not capable of working VAR properly, it should be binned until such time that they know exactly what they are doing and are competent in using the technology.
It seems to me that all VAR is doing is giving more people more chances of getting it wrong. It's a big money-spinner for a few of the "top" officials, but if it is compromising the integrity of the game, then the greedy people behind VAR should be told to back off.

i think the car crash impression of the audio puts VAR in more danger than the mistake,its openned everybodys eyes to the chaos that must go on every sat,
one ?
team of at least 3 involved there , if their were 8 games all at same time
is that 8 x teams of 3,in 8 seperate rooms ?

Doesn't  help there were 2 Ollies in this,Michael Oliver and another.