John Aloisi fumes at VAR after Roar goal denied

That’s right. Football doesn’t have the for example rugby league concept of “it wasn’t played at.” If the ball even deflects off you to one of your players in an offside position or in this instance coming from an offside position. You are deemed offside.

"After speaking with referees boss Ben Wilson on Tuesday, Aloisi acknowledged the correct decision was reached, albeit not quickly enough for his liking, with replays showing the veteran Italian striker was clearly offside in build-up play. But he said Wilson told him the VAR was wrong to have allowed Roy O'Donovan's second goal in Newcastle's 5-1 win over the Central Coast Mariners earlier this month.", http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2017/10/25/be-consistent-aloisi-slams-var With the above, there is enough evidence to say that actually two main referees are refereeing a match. One is the on field main referee. The other is the 5th (VAR) referee. In that match, round one (Mariners vs Jets), the 5th goal had the building up having off-side too. Watch this: https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/a-league/match-centre/HAL2017-180102. At 20:31 of the clip, O'Donovan was offside again. However, the VAR did not disallow. What the above have illustrate is that the VAR referee is also making mistakes sometimes, like the main referee is making mistakes sometimes (before the birth of VAR). Before the birth of VAR, the main referee makes mistakes sometimes. So, to improve, a video refereeing system is introduced. However, when both the main referee and the video referee are doing the job in parallel (concurrently), there is no improvement. It is because that both can mistake. That is why, even before the birth of the VAR, some people have been saying that only the main referee can initiate (or call for) a video review. The improvement happens when the main referee asks for a video review to help when he is not confident to make a judgement. If the main referee does not call for a video review, it is the same as before (without the VAR), not better, not worse. So, only the main referee should have the right to initiate or call for a video review. And the 5th, VAR, referee should not be working in parallel with the main referee.

Cool - Much as I admired Murdocca ,his attitde ,temerity and non stop effort he could never have been described as a good passer of the ball. Henrique on the other hand ,never in my time watching played in a midfield role so how you can compare those two veterans wth a 10 game novice is beyond my comprehension Cheers jb

This infant VAR system has 2 big problems so far. One is "who to call/initiate the VAR into action". In the more mature NRL video refereeing system, it is always main referee to make the call. Also, in the more mature NRL refereeing system, the main referee call for a review with a specific instruction to the 5th referee (the video review referee). Example, "try, check if there was forward pass". In VAR now, there are two main referees. It is because that the 5th VAR referee can initiate or call for a view. In the Sunday incident, the Jets' player never appealed. When the ball was about to restart at the mid of the field. The VAR referee intervened. Someone say that all the referees should have the power to make a call. Is this good? Secondly, how far to go back in a VAR reviewing session? Someone make a good suggestion. The suggestion is that the review should roll back to the previous turn over of possession. This not formal rule, so far, fits the Sunday incident (BR vs Jets). This can be a good and simple rule. However, are there better suggestions?

When Patratos was about to shoot, both Devere and North failed to do who to mark and who to cover. However, the problems may root from the poor mid field players. This 4-2-3-1 formation has Caletti and Mackay in the middle. So, if Caletti is weak in defence, the back 4 and Mackay are on big pressure. Are all MF players having minor injuries? Has Jacob Pepper got minor injuries? Can the formation be changed?

Thanks for the response. Having watched the sport for many years, it is an occurance, albeit uncommon, where a player places the ball in to the path of a teammate using a stationary but perfectly angled foot. Does that constitute a pass? For me personally it definitely does. Getting into intent I feel it would cause too much controversy as players would deceitfully say there was none and it was only a reaction they subconsciously had.

I raised the Caletti problem last week already. That is why I say nothing after Sunday's match, until someone raised the same issue again. I have not said a thing because i am waiting someone to be fired. Not too far, just in a few matches later, we will see. Murdocca and Henrique were two classes higher than Caletti if they were all playing in Roar now. Murdocca could attack and defend while Henrique, not only could attack, had good headers too. Someone is waiting to be fired while the owner is waiting the restructuring of FFA. We just wait and enjoy.

ps The other way of saying our idea is the review should go back to the previous turn over of possession.

It is not controversial according to current, and current, FIFA law. Indeed! It is controversial to some who say the ball was not passed deliberately to Macarrone but a bounce off Mackay's foot. It is controversial to some who say Maccarone got a free ball, not a pass. It is controversial to some who use the old rule that the Maccarone was not moving forward. Thank you for your proposal that the review should go as back as the beginning of a possession of a series of attack. This may be a good idea. Still, in this infant VAR system, there is no rule. And use the public debating forum to nurture the infant VAR to a toddler VAR. Thank Good idea

Johnny- It disturbs me when you pick on Caletti's performance as a "midfielder".His position at present would have to be described as that of a "defensive" midfielder, a position he neither has the pace nor physique to play successfully and yet he is constantly being picked to play there.Ask yourself why? In his present make up he is far and away the best (and quickest) passer of a ball in this whole Roar team,surely a pre-requisite in setting up chances for a front three awaiting good service, and by moving him forward into position just behind the front three would enable his obvious talent to be utilised Roar's line -ups at the moment are based on reputation,not performance,and until this is cured I'm afraid the poor results are going to continue. Sunday's line up was a classic example of this malaise,with an ageing centre back given the role of right wing back, Have you asked yourself why? No matter what the results ,Matt Mackay is constantly being used as an attacking midfielder. Now Matt has never at any time been deemed a good finisher and,with ageing years on him this is not going to change. so why not use him in a position more dependent on experience and endurance rather than wasted time hanging around an opponents penalty box,not to win the ball in the air,but ostensibly to harry the opposition goalkeeper when set pieces are being played?. Like Broich before him Ben Khalfalla has seen his best days as a winger starting to fade, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be tried somewhere else and ,with his skill and experience a move back into midfield may well be warranted. His movement and final ball to Maccarone in the "goal that never was" is testament to what could be achieved . Roar have to look at what they have and it is not hard to see a better use being made of the players they have,simply by "tweaking" the starting line ups somewhat. With the signings they have made one has to assume that experience is a key factor. So why not line up a formation like Theo-,Hingert ,De Vere, Papadopolous,and North, - Caletti ,Mackay,and Khalfalla- Holman,Maccarone and Botheac. With Brown, Bowles and Kristensen soon to be available most positions are covered .The younger players being tried in this present situation are in fact being thrown into a state of affairs not conducive with a good environment into which be introduced to the HAL. Cheers jb

How was the offside call controversial? The only people who seem to think so are Roar supporters, don’t you think it’s fair to say there would be some neutral supporters saying the decision was wrong and Maccarone wasn’t offside if it had have been a controversial decision, or do you think everyone is out to get you? Ugly as it was, the correct decision was made. I would say the review will go back as far as it needs to, perhaps even from the point the scoring team gained possession.

Whether or not Maccarone was offside or not remains controversial. However, the call for VAR review yesterday was wrong. Let's examine VAR first. There are only 4 types of calls that can be reviewed. *Goals and whether there was a violation during the build up *Penalty decisions *Red card decisions (note that second yellow cards are not reviewable) *Mistaken identity in awarding a red or yellow card In the building up, Marccarone's controversial off-side was 40 meters, 3 passes and 10 seconds back from his scoring shot. So, how long do we rewind in a VAR review session?

Need to check your TV,

All your comment deserved.

http://www.ultimatealeague.com/records.php?type=att&season=2017-18

"It goes on to say the ball has to be passed to him" No it doesn't. The latest update from FIFA (see the link I provided below) clearly says (page 3): "At the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team-mates" Nothing to do with passing to him. In fact, you can be offside if the ball hits the woodwork & rebounds, if you were standing offside position when the shot was taken. You can be offside if the GK parries the shot & it comes to you if you were offside when the shot was taken. Maccarone was offside because he was standing in an offside position when the ball was touched by McKay.

Nemesis -Thanks for the connection re. offside law. I refer you to clause 10 which is split into 4 "descriptions". Those 4 different "descriptions" actually touch on the recent "affair" It says a player is not deemed offside even though he is in an offside position. It goes on to say the ball has to be passed to him and there is little doubt by the time Mackay's ricochet started towards Maccarone the striker had actually moved back to no longer be deemed in an "offside position. After absorbing what clause 10 was saying I am no further forward in understanding the referees decision. Cheers jb,

Eddie I agree with you about carney and diving . Undoubtedly karma will catch up with him later this season .

Sorry Eddie, but you have lost the argument. Maccarone was off-side at the moment the ball was played forward. Where he was when he "got the ball" is irrelevant.

Maccoronne was on side when he got the ball so that destroys you argument.