By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Looks like it has worked to our benefit...but what a total b@lls up it is. No idea what is being reviewed, players learn to play with how the ref id "playing the game", but then some random has a different view.
Yep, saw the pulling continuing into the box, just poor understanding of the laws, which I now get.
Scenario 1: Defender fouls outside the box and player falls into the box - free-kick Scenario 2: Defender fouls inside the box and player falls out of the box - penalty Scenario 3: Defender commences foul outside the box and continues into the box - penalty as seen by Done incident Scenario 4: Defender commences foul inside the box and continues to outside the box. I suspect this would be a penalty too.
That's where the greyness was in my mind, I thought when Done started fouling him outside the box, that determined it as a free-kick rather than penalty under Scenario 1.
In this situation however, the ref is playing advantage until the player is in the box, after which a penalty is given.
There are probably hundreds of examples of free kicks being given for a foul that starts outside the box. It just goes to highlight the inconsistency applied during games. As soon as the referee started touching his ear it was clear he was either giving a penalty or booking their lad for diving. As for their first disallowed goal, I think incidents in the previous match and their latter penalty decision determined that any kind of contact in the area is a foul, so the VAR was correct. Just as it was correct to disallow their converted penalty.
There are probably hundreds of examples of free kicks being given for a foul that starts outside the box. It just goes to highlight the inconsistency applied during games. As soon as the referee started touching his ear it was clear he was either giving a penalty or booking their lad for diving. As for their first disallowed goal, I think incidents in the previous match and their latter penalty decision determined that any kind of contact in the area is a foul, so the VAR was correct. Just as it was correct to disallow their converted penalty.
And yet the contact with Moura was not deemed a foul/penalty which we were fortunate to get away with in my view. I agree though it’s the inconsistency that’s frustrating
And yet the contact with Moura was not deemed a foul/penalty which we were fortunate to get away with in my view. I agree though it’s the inconsistency that’s frustrating
Didn't see that on any of the highlights I've seen. It looked like a dive in the stadium. Bizarre thing with that one was we'd counter attacked before the ref had chance to consult the VAR - what happens if we score and then he goes back and gives a penalty! Farcical.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
Didn't see that on any of the highlights I've seen. It looked like a dive in the stadium. Bizarre thing with that one was we'd counter attacked before the ref had chance to consult the VAR - what happens if we score and then he goes back and gives a penalty! Farcical.
Just found it on here the Moura dive.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
The worst thing for me on Wednesday was that the player's reactions were completely bypassed. None of our players appealed for or expected the first goal to be disallowed. Kieron Trippier didn't appeal for a penalty and neither did any of the Spurs team. It looks like the referee now has to consider any game changing decision regardless of what the players on both teams think. I know you can argue that the point of VAR is to get decisions right, but surely it should just be on seriously contentious issues where one team believe they have had a massive injustice. That wasn't the case on Wednesday and if that comes into the Premier League every week, boy will I be glad to be watching EFL football.
The worst thing for me on Wednesday was that the player's reactions were completely bypassed. None of our players appealed for or expected the first goal to be disallowed. Kieron Trippier didn't appeal for a penalty and neither did any of the Spurs team. It looks like the referee now has to consider any game changing decision regardless of what the players on both teams think. I know you can argue that the point of VAR is to get decisions right, but surely it should just be on seriously contentious issues where one team believe they have had a massive injustice. That wasn't the case on Wednesday and if that comes into the Premier League every week, boy will I be glad to be watching EFL football.
Lillis appealed for the foul on McGahey.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
If VAR is to be continued I wonder if it could be used like they do in tennis? Each manager gets three shouts at contesting a decision per match. The ref would remain the sole arbiter but the really contentious decisions, as perceived by the managers, would be able to be reviewed. Should make the game flow a lot better and feel fairer to all involved. Can't think how that could be abused but I'm sure someone will think of something.
The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance.
The worst thing for me on Wednesday was that the player's reactions were completely bypassed. None of our players appealed for or expected the first goal to be disallowed. Kieron Trippier didn't appeal for a penalty and neither did any of the Spurs team. It looks like the referee now has to consider any game changing decision regardless of what the players on both teams think. I know you can argue that the point of VAR is to get decisions right, but surely it should just be on seriously contentious issues where one team believe they have had a massive injustice. That wasn't the case on Wednesday and if that comes into the Premier League every week, boy will I be glad to be watching EFL football.
Maybe I was seeing what I wanted to see, but I'm sure I saw Trippier approach the ref to suggest to him that the foul was outside the box and it was a free kick rather than a penalty.
Var in the Prem League is inevitable. Said it before, but give it two years, it will provide an extra ad break for the TV companies followed by "VAR sponsored by Specsavers".I doubt we will ever see it at our level due to lack of cameras thankfully.
Regarding the lack of info in the stadium, I seem to remember from years back, when TV screens were first introduced into the ground (at Spurs I think), they were not allowed to replay contentious decisions which perhaps is why they couldn't just show the replay with a big V in the corner.
Until VAR in association football takes the NFL route (miked up officials, clear referral signalling, coach/manager challenge and then post game explanation to TV) then it's going to be flawed.
It's needed to get the right decision because officials are human and they don't know their own limitations when using VAR to rely on.
The worst of the three VAR on Wednesday was the penalty decision.
It showed an official that did not understand Law 13. An assistant referee (linesman) who did not understand Law 13 and then, when referred to a VAR ref who didn't understand Law 13.
If you take NFL as the most conclusive way that these decisions get unpicked (and they will) you have to be able to stand behind them.
Football has a lot of catching up to do.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
Maybe I was seeing what I wanted to see, but I'm sure I saw Trippier approach the ref to suggest to him that the foul was outside the box and it was a free kick rather than a penalty.
Var in the Prem League is inevitable. Said it before, but give it two years, it will provide an extra ad break for the TV companies followed by "VAR sponsored by Specsavers".I doubt we will ever see it at our level due to lack of cameras thankfully.
Regarding the lack of info in the stadium, I seem to remember from years back, when TV screens were first introduced into the ground (at Spurs I think), they were not allowed to replay contentious decisions which perhaps is why they couldn't just show the replay with a big V in the corner.
'If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.'
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
Maybe I was seeing what I wanted to see, but I'm sure I saw Trippier approach the ref to suggest to him that the foul was outside the box and it was a free kick rather than a penalty.
Var in the Prem League is inevitable. Said it before, but give it two years, it will provide an extra ad break for the TV companies followed by "VAR sponsored by Specsavers".I doubt we will ever see it at our level due to lack of cameras thankfully.
Regarding the lack of info in the stadium, I seem to remember from years back, when TV screens were first introduced into the ground (at Spurs I think), they were not allowed to replay contentious decisions which perhaps is why they couldn't just show the replay with a big V in the corner.
I can see why you might think that Col but I don't think VAR is inevitable in that it's reason to be is to provide breaks in the game to insert more TV ads. (There might be other ways to do that - game in four quarters instead of two halves at Qatar 22 anyone? Might be more likely). It might stick around if it can be refined greatly though and decisions made quickly and only when properly needed. But then no more ad revenue.
Fans, the source of all revenue, whether attending, regular armchair supporters or casual TV viewers aren't crazy enough to put up interventions in the game based on that level of cynicism are they? It's not crack is it?
'If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.'
Correct.
Except that by the time that Done gets into the penalty area he had lifted his hands off Trippier and therefore had stopped holding Trippier having fouled him outside.
The ref is the wrong side of Done so can't 100% see it.
What did the ref give vs the VAR? A free kick on the advice of his linesman. The incorrect decision in the opinion of the video ref.
What did the assistant referee give vs VAR? A free kick waves his flag and walks back toward the halfway line. The incorrect decision in the opinion of the video ref but the right decision.
VAR undermines the on-field team here because there is no explanation for the ref of what is being penalised.
All it looks in the stadium is that the ref and assistant referee gives a free kick and the VAR gives a penalty.
If you look closely at the footage Done's hand is off Trippier when he is in the box. Trippier dives / make a meal of the earlier foul.
For the VAR to upgrade this to a penalty is the wrong call with the video evidence.
You can see this for yourself if you pause at 0.46 of this clip:
By the time Trippier crosses the line into the penalty box - Trippier's right leg below the knee bends unnaturally and Done's hands are off him and go into the air.
Done is not holding him at the point they cross the penalty box line into the penalty area.
The only person who can see this for certain is the VAR. The ref and assistant referee have given a justified free kick decision.
If that had been an NFL game the on field ref would have had to say:
"The ruling on the field was a free-kick to Tottenham; the ruling on the field has been changed"
NFL would have also had a camera angle on Done/Trippier that looked at that engagement in close detail. Either that angle didn't exist or if it did exist, it didn't get used.
All simple stuff and of course this is a test so in time they might think that explaining to the crowd is the way forward.
Some sympathy for Paul Tierney and if there is no VAR I think as someone else said (TVOS) it looks a penalty from where we are because it is holding. If there is no VAR, Tierney can give either outcome and still look right.
The more VAR contradicts (rather than corrects) officials, the more it will be rejected.
NFL has removed that issue for the on field team.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
Except that by the time that Done gets into the penalty area he had lifted his hands off Trippier and therefore had stopped holding Trippier having fouled him outside.
The ref is the wrong side of Done so can't 100% see it.
What did the ref give vs the VAR? A free kick on the advice of his linesman. The incorrect decision in the opinion of the video ref.
What did the assistant referee give vs VAR? A free kick waves his flag and walks back toward the halfway line. The incorrect decision in the opinion of the video ref but the right decision.
VAR undermines the on-field team here because there is no explanation for the ref of what is being penalised.
All it looks in the stadium is that the ref and assistant referee gives a free kick and the VAR gives a penalty.
If you look closely at the footage Done's hand is off Trippier when he is in the box. Trippier dives / make a meal of the earlier foul.
For the VAR to upgrade this to a penalty is the wrong call with the video evidence.
You can see this for yourself if you pause at 0.46 of this clip:
By the time Trippier crosses the line into the penalty box - Trippier's right leg below the knee bends unnaturally and Done's hands are off him and go into the air.
Done is not holding him at the point they cross the penalty box line into the penalty area.
The only person who can see this for certain is the VAR. The ref and assistant referee have given a justified free kick decision.
If that had been an NFL game the on field ref would have had to say:
"The ruling on the field was a free-kick to Tottenham; the ruling on the field has been changed"
NFL would have also had a camera angle on Done/Trippier that looked at that engagement in close detail. Either that angle didn't exist or if it did exist, it didn't get used.
All simple stuff and of course this is a test so in time they might think that explaining to the crowd is the way forward.
Some sympathy for Paul Tierney and if there is no VAR I think as someone else said (TVOS) it looks a penalty from where we are because it is holding. If there is no VAR, Tierney can give either outcome and still look right.
The more VAR contradicts (rather than corrects) officials, the more it will be rejected.
NFL has removed that issue for the on field team.
As you say, either way, free kick or penalty would have been accepted by anyone in the ground if made by the officials on the pitch. Either way, would not have been a talking point in the h/t punditry either, Done was fouling the guy.
The overruling of the original decision by VAR however (rightly it seems according to the law of the game quoted by DDB, (and frankly who knew that law exactly beforehand)) threw everyone, ref, players, those of us there and those at home off kilter.
Then, in the ensuing weird atmosphere, players on both sides AND the ref jittery for the actual pen. Which should have re-taken for encroachment by our players, even if Son picked it up and threw it in. (It seems you can not just feint but can actually stop in your run-up to a pen, just not do so as you swing your striking leg to actually hit it.)
Even putting aside the other VAR incidents in the game (1st Spurs 'goal'), we just can't stand for that chaos can we? Staring at the scoreboard for 2 mins waiting to see if a 1 turns into a 0.
As you say, either way, free kick or penalty would have been accepted by anyone in the ground if made by the officials on the pitch. Either way, would not have been a talking point in the h/t punditry either, Done was fouling the guy.
The overruling of the original decision by VAR however (rightly it seems according to the law of the game quoted by DDB, (and frankly who knew that law exactly beforehand)) threw everyone, ref, players, those of us there and those at home off kilter.
Then, in the ensuing weird atmosphere, players on both sides AND the ref jittery for the actual pen. Which should have re-taken for encroachment by our players, even if Son picked it up and threw it in. (It seems you can not just feint but can actually stop in your run-up to a pen, just not do so as you swing your striking leg to actually hit it.)
Even putting aside the other VAR incidents in the game (1st Spurs 'goal'), we just can't stand for that chaos can we? Staring at the scoreboard for 2 mins waiting to see if a 1 turns into a 0.
[Post edited 2 Mar 2018 20:32]
I'm sure the issues from the other night will eventually get ironed out. Tierney was under so much pressure after that first goal where it impacted on everything. Would he have disallowed Son's penalty had the game not being played under the letter of the law? I can't remember ever seeing one actually disallowed before.
I don't think we've seen the worse of VAR yet. For me, the problem is going to come with corners. Under the scrutiny of the cameras, there might be three or four issues taking place at the same time, and it will be almost impossible to decide which offence will take priority. A goal could be disallowed for a foul, only for it to be awarded as a penalty as the goal disallowing foul was preceded by a different foul. A VAR game will have a completely different mindset, and players like Joel Garner will have a field day as he just awaits any defender to run into him so he can drop to the floor.
I'm sure the issues from the other night will eventually get ironed out. Tierney was under so much pressure after that first goal where it impacted on everything. Would he have disallowed Son's penalty had the game not being played under the letter of the law? I can't remember ever seeing one actually disallowed before.
I don't think we've seen the worse of VAR yet. For me, the problem is going to come with corners. Under the scrutiny of the cameras, there might be three or four issues taking place at the same time, and it will be almost impossible to decide which offence will take priority. A goal could be disallowed for a foul, only for it to be awarded as a penalty as the goal disallowing foul was preceded by a different foul. A VAR game will have a completely different mindset, and players like Joel Garner will have a field day as he just awaits any defender to run into him so he can drop to the floor.
Spot on. Tierney was under so much pressure and all the stadium felt the anxiety. VAR doesn't work as it stands and I doubt can ever be 'ironed out'. The simple stuff is too complicated, never mind corners.
I'm sure the issues from the other night will eventually get ironed out. Tierney was under so much pressure after that first goal where it impacted on everything. Would he have disallowed Son's penalty had the game not being played under the letter of the law? I can't remember ever seeing one actually disallowed before.
I don't think we've seen the worse of VAR yet. For me, the problem is going to come with corners. Under the scrutiny of the cameras, there might be three or four issues taking place at the same time, and it will be almost impossible to decide which offence will take priority. A goal could be disallowed for a foul, only for it to be awarded as a penalty as the goal disallowing foul was preceded by a different foul. A VAR game will have a completely different mindset, and players like Joel Garner will have a field day as he just awaits any defender to run into him so he can drop to the floor.
He never did anything like that when he was pro at Littleborough in 1977.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
There's no way the ref would have made such a mess if he hadn't been undermined, in front of the paying fans right there, and the TV audience, by VAR. His legs must have been shaking and I feel for him, can you imagine?
The first would have stood for 1-0 and then Spurs would have had a free kick outside the box, which we'd have probably defended for what that matters. Still game on.
None of the fiasco in the first 20 was down to the Dale players and we attacked them and played fantastic stuff in the first half. Scored an amazing goal and hit the post.
Alright, let's turn it on its head, can anyone make the case for VAR, in any respect, being at a game or watching on TV?
Indeed. While it may well be a joke, that goal getting disallowed was like scoring one ourselves, so, in the nicest possible way, ruining it for you doesn’t matter!
And we might not have been two down as if it had stood, Chaos Theory applies.
Chaos Theory would have been to the fore, if Cannons shot had been 100mm. to the right.
Why are we all talking about this? The whole thing is nonsense,we are being conned into believing the great game (as Bill Shankly called it) actually needs this. Football,as opposed to rugby union,league,gridiron,is a fluid game that you can`t keep pulling up every time there`s a tackle or two or more players come together. But this is what happens due to the amount of money that`s in the game now. How many times do we hear it,"The ref`s decision has cost us promotion","How did the ref miss that,he`s cost us the Cup Final",et al. It stands to reason,does it not,that for every so called bad decision,teams get a so called lucky one. I do agree with Col,the advertisers will pounce on this to start showing ads,as if we`re not advertised to death all over the world as it is. They just can`t leave anything alone these days. As I said,if they keep this VAR thing or summat similar,they`ll eventually kill the game at the top level,but maybe that might not be such a bad thing....
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
