Seemed to take a minute or two to check Cullen’s goal, so I assumed it must have been close to being ruled out.

Nope…

I assumed it was around the build up and not the actual shot on goal itself?

It was the crossfield pass. He was clearly onside so it didn't actually take long.

I saw it flash up briefly on screen and it had Hannibal frozen, so I assumed it was him they were checking.

Probably trying to find something Foster did. Those VAR guys really don’t like him.

it was an offside check for whoever was furthest forward on our right, looked on no problem

Any chance to prevent a goal from VAR

I thought it was automated this year?

Why did it take so long?

They've done a horrible thing to our game with this VAR nonsense. Genuinely thought to myself it was nice we'd scored a goal they couldn't try and tamper with and we still had to spend a minute waiting for them to try.

Was it not for a possible foul in the build up?

It was for a possible offside in the build up, I think it was JBL. The semi-automated CGI flashed up on the screen to show our player was about a yard onside. Complete nonsense.

bobinho wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 10:36 pm

Was it not for a possible foul in the build up?

The big screen said it was for a possible offside. They briefly/accidentally showed a split second of the VAR check after the goal had been given and Hannibal was the one at the centre of the freeze frame, so my assumption was that it was him who was being checked.

bobinho wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 10:36 pm

Was it not for a possible foul in the build up?

That was Foster's this was for offside

It was just VAR desperately looking for a way cancel another excellent Burnley goal

Var is garbage & they’ve further devalued it by showing a made up cartoon version to try to prove something. Just why do they do that, they’ve got the still from the video yet then make up a fifa style image. Proves nothing.

We're only two weeks into the season and VAR has already made some dreadful calls.

Foster's goal today was fine. There's no chance that gets chalked off if it's Haaland vs Esteve. Foster was just stronger, there was no intent to foul, and he finished well.

Brentford should have had a second today. I still think the Leeds penalty versus Everton was a joke.

What frustrated me today was the immediate return to not celebrating goals. What's the point??! You know 100% that VAR are looking for a reason to disallow it. It seemed to take ages to restart even after the Anthony goal - I half expected them to say Walker had fouled someone right at the start of the move. It's a joke of a system, it really is.

agreenwood wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 10:22 pm

Seemed to take a minute or two to check Cullen’s goal, so I assumed it must have been close to being ruled out.

Nope…

Could have done with this picture on the other thread when Claretspice was saying Hannibals run took the defender away to the near post and opened up the space.
It clearly doesn't.

I’ve not seen the game. Only 4 minute highlights. But here we are with fans in the stands still not knowing what’s going on! I couldn’t see anything wrong with Fosters goal. But a defender only needs to go down and spread his arms to guarantee a VAR check.
Then it’s the usual “oh the crowd have been entertained by a goal” then comes VAR, “hold or Chardonnay, we’ll rectify that, give us a couple of minutes to ruin the atmosphere first”……… NO GOAL!!!

The Foster ‘goal’ was disallowed by the referee at the time wasn’t it? VAR were never going to go against their mate’s decision unfortunately.

Just caught up on MOTD. The Foster goal was a soft decision IMO - but as someone mentions above, all it needs is for the defender to hit the deck and it's a free-kick.

John Brooks on VAR - he gave the handball for Leeds on Monday night. Would suggest he's not had the best start to the season on VAR!

I don't think VAR itself is the problem. It's the incompetent people that operate it.

The Foster decision was given on the pitch, just late to enable VAR to check it just in case. It was a fair enough decision and you'd want a foul at the other end. Certainly it was quite right that VAR didn't get involved to overturn a reasonable on field call.

VAR operated fine yesterday. The check on Cullen's took too long but that's now the semi automated technology so I'm not sure why folk are blaming Brooks on VAR. He got nothing wrong yesterday (and I think he was right not to intervene on Leeds' penalty yesterday as well).

I was under the impression that any VAR reviews/changes were meant to be communicated by the ref to the fans through the stadium speakers. Is this not the case?

VAR is just a sponge that soaks up the thrill of the game. They said initially, it was to correct any ‘clear and obvious errors’, yet we see goals being disallowed for the tiniest of offside margins. Those decisions are most certainly not ‘clear and obvious’ to the human eye in real time.

They just need to devise the technology for complete AI control now, and do away with referees and assistant referees.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 9:15 am

The Foster decision was given on the pitch, just late to enable VAR to check it just in case. It was a fair enough decision and you'd want a foul at the other end. Certainly it was quite right that VAR didn't get involved to overturn a reasonable on field call.

VAR operated fine yesterday. The check on Cullen's took too long but that's now the semi automated technology so I'm not sure why folk are blaming Brooks on VAR. He got nothing wrong yesterday (and I think he was right not to intervene on Leeds' penalty yesterday as well).

It was the penalty for Leeds last week that Brooks was on VAR for - the “handball” against Tarky

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 9:42 am

It was the penalty for Leeds last week that Brooks was on VAR for - the “handball” against Tarky

Yes (sorry, i meant on monday, not yesterday) and as the commentary since that game demonstrates, he was correct not to intervene because it wasn't a clear and obvious error. The fact the pundits and reporters were split as they were on whether it was a penalty demonstrates that it was a decision where the onfield decision should stand.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 9:15 am

The Foster decision was given on the pitch, just late to enable VAR to check it just in case. It was a fair enough decision and you'd want a foul at the other end. Certainly it was quite right that VAR didn't get involved to overturn a reasonable on field call.

VAR operated fine yesterday. The check on Cullen's took too long but that's now the semi automated technology so I'm not sure why folk are blaming Brooks on VAR. He got nothing wrong yesterday (and I think he was right not to intervene on Leeds' penalty yesterday as well).

Finally someone who calls it right. I didn’t even bother getting up out of my seat for fosters goal which is a shame in a way but I saw the ref blow and there was no way it was going to be given/overturned. It’s one of those whereby if the ref hadn’t had blown, then it would work in our favour because again, not enough to overturn the on-field decision.


I do wish we would do away with var though and the circus/uncertainty it provides.

Stproc wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 11:17 pm

Var is garbage & they’ve further devalued it by showing a made up cartoon version to try to prove something. Just why do they do that, they’ve got the still from the video yet then make up a fifa style image. Proves nothing.

Because that's how the new semi-automated offside system looks

I had forgotton how you really need to wait before celebrating a goal.........

theboydonegood wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 10:35 am

I had forgotton how you really need to wait before celebrating a goal.........

Watched it on stream - celebrated like a mad man when Foster 'scored'.

Stood like a statue when Cullen scored.

Regarding the Foster 'foul', Salisbury claims he blew before the ball hit the net- I'm not convinced.

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 1:00 pm

Regarding the Foster 'foul', Salisbury claims he blew before the ball hit the net- I'm not convinced.

According to PGMOL Salisbury's decision to give a foul was checked by VAR so that cannot be correct.

Commentators said it was given by VAR and I think they usually have a live feed to the VAR comms

VAR saying the defender had 'complete control of the ball before being fouled from behind'.

Oh really.

That was a goal.

Foster's goal was correctly disallowed unfortunately

taio wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 1:25 pm

Foster's goal was correctly disallowed unfortunately

I don't agree.

That defender was never in control of that ball. and was mightily relieved when it was chalked off. He knew.

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 1:27 pm

I don't agree.

That defender was never in control of that ball. and was mightily relieved when it was chalked off. He knew.

He would have been in control of the ball had Foster not fouled him. Why does he need to be in control of the ball anyway, as Foster didn't touch the ball before making contact with him from behind?

I thought Foster committed a foul. Good finish, mind.

taio wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 1:33 pm

He would have been in control of the ball had Foster not fouled him. Why does he need to be in control of the ball anyway, as Foster didn't touch the ball before making contact with him from behind?

Because that's the VAR parameter.

Burnleyareback2 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 10:30 pm

Any chance to prevent a goal from VAR

Thats how it seems ....

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 1:35 pm

Because that's the VAR parameter.

I struggle to believe this is the case, surely. VAR parameters are determined by The Laws of the Game.

taio wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 1:40 pm

I struggle to believe this is the case, surely. VAR parameters are determined by The Laws of the Game.

I would like to think so.

Just going by what was said.

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 1:43 pm

I would like to think so.

Just going by what was said.

I think what VAR said was the defender was in possession of the ball and fouled from behind

If the commentator was correct, the actual words from VAR were 'full control of the ball'.

That didn't happen.

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 7:37 pm

If the commentator was correct, the actual words from VAR were 'full control of the ball'.

That didn't happen.

The commentator I listened to said "John Brooks says the defender clearly has full possession of the ball AND is fouled from behind"

The 'fouled from behind' part being key.

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 1:00 pm

Regarding the Foster 'foul', Salisbury claims he blew before the ball hit the net- I'm not convinced.

Absolutely not, he blew when the ball hit the net, had it missed he wouldn’t have blown at all. He realised he’d cocked up and decided that VAR was his get out of jail card.

Ok, all semantics I suppose.

I just know from the look on the guy's face he'd got away with one.

The image they showed on the Sky highlights suggest it wasn't that close but you can never tell for sure with the angles.