ThunderPower_14 Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 In the tackle where VAR gave the penalty to France against Australia, the defender clearly gets a touch on the ball. It deviates on every camera angle. If getting the ball means the tackle is legal (and I know it's more complicated than that), then it should have been waved away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 19, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted June 19, 2018 51 minutes ago, Genie said: The ref did the gesture after the second one to suggest Kane had dived... so not sure why he wasn't booked. Not a sufficiently obvious foul for a penalty, not a sufficiently obvious dive for a booking, hence perhaps best to leave it. The first one, though was just an outright rugby tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 13 minutes ago, mjmooney said: Not a sufficiently obvious foul for a penalty, not a sufficiently obvious dive for a booking, hence perhaps best to leave it. The first one, though was just an outright rugby tackle. I agree there was a small grey area and the referee chose to let the game go. In related news have the linesmen gone back to flagging for marginal offsides? It seemed like they were letting them go only for a couple of days now gone back to normal business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Stevo985 said: Sorry Terry, but you're showing here that you don't understand the system Again this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. The referee does NOT ask for a review. That is the opposite of how it works. The referee is told if he needs to review an incident, and if he is reviewing it he CLEARLY indicates that that is what he's doing. I don't understand what you mean. VAR observes everything. It's just a group of refs watching the game and replays on screens. "VAR observations" would be potentially infinite. They watch the whole game. Again I think you're misunderstanding how it works. I know the Ref doesn’t ask for a Review...( but re- reading my Post I see why you read it that way) as I said I understand the system, it’s pretty simple. My point is I don’t like aspects of it and that’s one of them. I want the Ref to say what HE wants looking at. ( if that’s in addition to what the VAR inform him of, fine). VAR observations wouldn’t be infinite, they still have to meet the criteria. They watch the whole game but there will be certain events that meet the criteria which they don’t refer to the Ref ( and for all we know don’t even look at). I’d like to see what they’ve done. It’d be far more relevant than possession stats etc. In my view it’s not transparent what they’ve reviewed and what not....the fact that the protocol says xyz isn’t the point I’m making. As you watch the games there are multiple times when you think something should be reviewed...you can assume it has been but you don’t know......you can try and work out the judgment that’s been made, but you don’t know. In the Peru game early on a guy was fouled in the box.....looked like a clear oversight by the Ref, nobody mentioned it. Yet in another game an identical incident resulted in a Review and a Penalty. What did happen in the England game ? Ask 100 people at least half will say - particularly given what the Ref DID give that it looked like an error ....was it.. did they look at it ...if so, how did they differentiate it ? I know we didn’t see the Refs mind when he was all there was, but he now isn’t all there is. Clearly you have the view that whilst not perfect, it’s working very well. I’m of the view that whilst it’s not perfect, it’s working, but I can’t tell how well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 19, 2018 Author VT Supporter Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 minute ago, terrytini said: I know the Ref doesn’t ask for a Review...( but re- reading my Post I see why you read it that way) as I said I understand the system, it’s pretty simple. My point is I don’t like aspects of it and that’s one of them. I want the Ref to say what HE wants looking at. ( if that’s in addition to what the VAR inform him of, fine). VAR observations wouldn’t be infinite, they still have to meet the criteria. They watch the whole game but there will be certain events that meet the criteria which they don’t refer to the Ref ( and for all we know don’t even look at). I’d like to see what they’ve done. It’d be far more relevant than possession stats etc. In my view it’s not transparent what they’ve reviewed and what not....the fact that the protocol says xyz isn’t the point I’m making. As you watch the games there are multiple times when you think something should be reviewed...you can assume it has been but you don’t know......you can try and work out the judgment that’s been made, but you don’t know. In the Peru game early on a guy was fouled in the box.....looked like a clear oversight by the Ref, nobody mentioned it. Yet in another game an identical incident resulted in a Review and a Penalty. What did happen in the England game ? Ask 100 people at least half will say - particularly given what the Ref DID give that it looked like an error ....was it.. did they look at it ...if so, how did they differentiate it ? I know we didn’t see the Refs mind when he was all there was, but he now isn’t all there is. Clearly you have the view that whilst not perfect, it’s working very well. I’m of the view that whilst it’s not perfect, it’s working, but I can’t tell how well. I’m lost now so I’ll leave you to it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Stevo985 said: Eh? The Peru pen that was given was one of the most nailed on pens you're likely to see. The only controversy there is how the ref missed it in the first place. Again perfect evidence of a clear and obvious mistake that was rectified. Yes but what about the earlier one ? (Edit) Edited June 19, 2018 by terrytini Posted before I realised he’d had enough lol ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 19, 2018 Author VT Supporter Share Posted June 19, 2018 58 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said: In the tackle where VAR gave the penalty to France against Australia, the defender clearly gets a touch on the ball. It deviates on every camera angle. If getting the ball means the tackle is legal (and I know it's more complicated than that), then it should have been waved away. Touching the ball doesn’t mean it’s not a foul 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 Fair enough @Stevo985..... I’m not sure the debate lends itself that well to this back and forth but it’s interesting topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: Touching the ball doesn’t mean it’s not a foul Nice to be able to agree - the idea that it does drives me mad ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 3 hours ago, sne said: Peru should have had a blatant pen against Denmark that wasn't given. Then they got a softer one later in the game after review. No idea how they came to those conclusions but to me it was the old usual compensation rewards. On another note on Swedish telly they showed replays after the England game that showed how Kane backed in and grabbed and dragged the Tunisia defenders arm pulling how down over him so they both fell down and that's why the ref in the Studio felt no pen was given. I hadn’t seen this Post but have mentioned it in my debate with @Stevo985.....that Peru one is by no means the only one where it’s unclear what’s happened, in my humble opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, ThunderPower_14 said: In the tackle where VAR gave the penalty to France against Australia, the defender clearly gets a touch on the ball. It deviates on every camera angle. If getting the ball means the tackle is legal (and I know it's more complicated than that), then it should have been waved away. It was a carbon copy of that penalty we got against Small Heath when Roger Johnson took Gabby out after the faintest touch on the ball. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 Just now, Wainy316 said: It was a carbon copy of that penalty we got against Small Heath when Roger Johnson took Gabby out after the faintest touch on the ball. That was great lol. How often do you get those, brilliant. Thanks for reminding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, Wainy316 said: It was a carbon copy of that penalty we got against Small Heath when Roger Johnson took Gabby out after the faintest touch on the ball. yeah thats what it reminded me of too, slight touch on the ball but if he then doesnt take the player too then the chance is still there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 All sorts of queries and questions being raised, and rightly so imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 i think FIFA have announced they are tweaking its use so that what happened last night doesnt happen again brazil have also formally requested an explanation on 2 things during their game, the swiss goal and a penalty claim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, villa4europe said: yeah thats what it reminded me of too, slight touch on the ball but if he then doesnt take the player too then the chance is still there That's what I think, if you've not knocked the ball out of the players immediate reach and then you've wiped them out you've fouled them surely. Otherwise it would be equivalent to trapping the ball and then punching an opposing player in the face, "touched the ball ref". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 9 hours ago, villa4europe said: brazil have also formally requested an explanation on 2 things during their game, the swiss goal and a penalty claim The push for the Swiss goal was nothing compared to what happens on pretty much every corner kick, they're just sulking cos they're Brazil and they think they're entitled to win every game. They should be looking at why their defending was so poor for the corner.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornso Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 46 minutes ago, MrDuck said: The push for the Swiss goal was nothing compared to what happens on pretty much every corner kick, they're just sulking cos they're Brazil and they think they're entitled to win every game. They should be looking at why their defending was so poor for the corner.... 100% agree. By the letter of the law it was there, but like you said, we'd have a penalty given from every corner kick. And yes, they only have themselves to blame for their defending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 7 hours ago, MrDuck said: The push for the Swiss goal was nothing compared to what happens on pretty much every corner kick, they're just sulking cos they're Brazil and they think they're entitled to win every game. They should be looking at why their defending was so poor for the corner.... They also believe they should have had 2 penalties. One on Jesus cant remember 2nd one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 17 hours ago, villa4europe said: i think FIFA have announced they are tweaking its use so that what happened last night doesnt happen again brazil have also formally requested an explanation on 2 things during their game, the swiss goal and a penalty claim Well of course the explanation will be that VAR saw nothing deemed worthy of referring to the Ref ( and rightly so in my view but that’s subjective). And the argument will run that before VAR the Ref wouldn’t have explained why he didn’t give certain decisions so why now ? And that’s one of the issues with it. There IS a difference between a Ref making an instant decision, which we all agree or disagree with, and knowing that an incident has actually been specifically studied and assessed. Fans, Clubs, etc, WILL want to know why certain decisions were or weren’t taken further. I can see arguments for saying “ Sorry, all we will ever do is refer or not, no explanations” because it’s quite a can of worms to go the alternative route of providing information after ( or during ?!) the game. I suspect there will be a lot of pressure for the latter though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts