The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Because the ball was going out, Watkins wasn’t going to reach it so whether Loris took him out or not is irrelevant to the pattern of the game. 

That's not the rule

[Zatman]

3 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Because the ball was going out, Watkins wasn’t going to reach it so whether Loris took him out or not is irrelevant to the pattern of the game. 

I would have accepted a goal kick if Kane didn't do similar at Villa Park. At least Watkins was a genuine attenpt to play the ball unlike Kane olympic movements

 

[jacketspuds]

The problem is that they don’t want “big” teams to lose to the “smaller” teams because of a VAR decision, so they just don’t give it and fall back on the clear and obvious error bullshit.

If we were 5-0 down they would have probably awarded the penalty cos it makes **** all difference to Spurs then. They would rather get grief for not giving a penalty if the alternative is Spurs missing out on Europe because of it.

It is a tool used for managing results.

[bannedfromHandV]

11 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

That's not the rule

What are the ‘rules’ any more though? 
 

It changes from game to game, I remember when being 20 yards offside wasn’t allowed but then City go and score that opening goal against us in January.

 

I disagree with the majority of decisions in football nowadays to be honest, perhaps I just need to get a new sporting interest.

[bannedfromHandV]

9 hours ago, Zatman said:

I would have accepted a goal kick if Kane didn't do similar at Villa Park. At least Watkins was a genuine attenpt to play the ball unlike Kane olympic movements

 

Agreed, but two wrongs don’t make a right and I stand firm in that I don’t think the Watkins one was a penalty.

The Kane one against us was an absolute joke.

[Phil Silvers]

When season done it would be interesting to see if any wiz out there will do a correct final league points table if every decision was fair and correct.

[Stevo985]

50 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

What are the ‘rules’ any more though? 
 

It changes from game to game, I remember when being 20 yards offside wasn’t allowed but then City go and score that opening goal against us in January.

 

I disagree with the majority of decisions in football nowadays to be honest, perhaps I just need to get a new sporting interest.

I'm not sure about anything else, but as far as I know the only reference in the rules about fouls/penalties regarding the ball being out of play is that it's not a foul if the ball is not in play. There's nothing about it not being a foul if the ball is in play but the player wouldn't have got there before it went out of play.

If it was on the halfway line and the ball was trickling out of play and Watkins got clattered by an opponent, it would be a foul every day of the week

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Agreed, but two wrongs don’t make a right and I stand firm in that I don’t think the Watkins one was a penalty.

The Kane one against us was an absolute joke.

Yeah, I'm along those lines too. It may be an age thing?

By that I mean in the old days, before High Def TV, detailed pundit analysis and all that stuff, tackles/collisions like that were almost never given as penalties. Sure there was contact and the keeper didn't get the ball, but Watkins/whoever wasn't going to get it either, so refs used to not give pens for that stuff.

Then all the TV scrutinising every decision came in, and people including refs started saying "yep, that's a penalty"

Then players started exaggerating/simulating/diving at the slightest contact, and old folk like me started tutting at it, and hating it, but younger people saw that as the new norm. And those younger people included the players and refs, and pens are often given when "he hasn't brought him down, but there was contact, Gary".

It's completely changed the game. And like with that ludicrous Kane penalty award, the level of sophistication of players in "winning" penalties has gone up another notch.

But to the like of me a penalty is when a player actually causes the opponent's progress to stop, or deliberately hand balls. Accidental hand ball, slight contact followed by a plummet, or contact when neither of them is getting the ball - old school not a pen.

And then there's the refs. Some  give pens for slight contact, some see the players tumbling at the slightest touch and ignore appeals for pens and then VAR comes in and instead of allowing consistent application of a specific way of awarding/not awarding, it mostly just backs up whatever the on-filed ref gave, even when it's blatantly wrong - making the whole thing an even worse mix.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Yeah, I'm along those lines too. It may be an age thing?

By that I mean in the old days, before High Def TV, detailed pundit analysis and all that stuff, tackles/collisions like that were almost never given as penalties. Sure there was contact and the keeper didn't get the ball, but Watkins/whoever wasn't going to get it either, so refs used to not give pens for that stuff.

Then all the TV scrutinising every decision came in, and people including refs started saying "yep, that's a penalty"

Then players started exaggerating/simulating/diving at the slightest contact, and old folk like me started tutting at it, and hating it, but younger people saw that as the new norm. And those younger people included the players and refs, and pens are often given when "he hasn't brought him down, but there was contact, Gary".

It's completely changed the game. And like with that ludicrous Kane penalty award, the level of sophistication of players in "winning" penalties has gone up another notch.

But to the like of me a penalty is when a player actually causes the opponent's progress to stop, or deliberately hand balls. Accidental hand ball, slight contact followed by a plummet, or contact when neither of them is getting the ball - old school not a pen.

And then there's the refs. Some  give pens for slight contact, some see the players tumbling at the slightest touch and ignore appeals for pens and then VAR comes in and instead of allowing consistent application of a specific way of awarding/not awarding, it mostly just backs up whatever the on-filed ref gave, even when it's blatantly wrong - making the whole thing an even worse mix.

Exactly, the rules in football used to be more of a guide to ensuring a degree of fairness, now they’re interpreted to the nth degree and often modified to admonish players of being pointed out as the cheating arseholes they actually are.

For me, a penalty is an extreme reaction to an extreme situation, a player being taken out when clean through on goal, a deliberate handball on the line. Not for a tap on someone’s big toe or for someone initiating contact when the balls clearly going nowhere.

Look at the number of penalties this season, it’s beyond a joke, no one wants to see this volume of penalties in football.

But, maybe the problem is with me, maybe I’m stuck in the past and should welcome this new, clinical and soulless form of football.

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Agreed, but two wrongs don’t make a right and I stand firm in that I don’t think the Watkins one was a penalty.

The Kane one against us was an absolute joke.

FWIW I agree - you're not impeded if it's impossible for you to get the ball.

 

(Edit:  Of course, that doesn't mean you should be subjected to a ridiculous and obvious attempt to deliberately be fouled.  But a keeper making a poor decision that doesn't impact the game?  Not for me)

Edited May 21, 2021 by bobzy

[Keyblade]

6 hours ago, bobzy said:

FWIW I agree - you're not impeded if it's impossible for you to get the ball.

 

(Edit:  Of course, that doesn't mean you should be subjected to a ridiculous and obvious attempt to deliberately be fouled.  But a keeper making a poor decision that doesn't impact the game?  Not for me)

I wonder if Ollie could have trapped the ball before it went out if Lloris didn't take him out though. We've seen players keep the ball in when the ball seemingly going out. I think I subscribe to the idea that if you foul while the ball is in play, whether or not it would have affected the phase of play (and this does happen with off the ball fouls), it should be given as a free kick/penalty. Removes all opinions out of the equation.

[villa4europe]

No matter how you justify it the point remains spurs got that penalty, man utd get that penalty 

The inconsistency is utter **** bollocks 

And by inconsistency I mean the big teams get it and everyone else doesnt 

[Genie]

20 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

That's not the rule

Correct.

For some reason all video evidence of this seems to have been removed from the internet, but I’m pretty certain at the time it was clear the Barcelona player wasn’t getting on the end of this cross but the penalty was still given for the “trip”. 

 

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, villa4europe said:

No matter how you justify it the point remains spurs got that penalty, man utd get that penalty 

The inconsistency is utter **** bollocks 

And by inconsistency I mean the big teams get it and everyone else doesnt 

I don’t think the Kane incident is the same - that’s a bad decision to give the penalty, but he’s in control of the ball. 

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I don’t think the Kane incident is the same - that’s a bad decision to give the penalty, but he’s in control of the ball. 

No chance, he tried a drag back cruyff turn and he missed it because he was more interested in cash than he was the ball

The balls gone, he miscontrolled it, he cannot possibly keep it in 

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, villa4europe said:

No chance, he tried a drag back cruyff turn and he missed it because he was more interested in cash than he was the ball

The balls gone, he miscontrolled it, he cannot possibly keep it in 

I disagree. He can easily cross that ball with his left foot - he chose to jump into Cash and enforce contact to win a penalty instead. 

[villa4europe]

7 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I disagree. He can easily cross that ball with his left foot - he chose to jump into Cash and enforce contact to win a penalty instead. 

Yeah I don't disagree with that, he could keep the ball in with a first time left footed cross

That's what I think cash has anticipated and slid in as a block not a tackle 

[bannedfromHandV]

I just wish the players would stay on their feet more, accept it’s a contact sport and man up a bit.

We’ve applauded blatant cheating for far too long with hiding behind rule interpretation, the game desperately needs more integrity from the players.

[StanBalaban]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I just wish the players would stay on their feet more, accept it’s a contact sport and man up a bit.

We’ve applauded blatant cheating for far too long with hiding behind rule interpretation, the game desperately needs more integrity from the players.

Problem is that refs only award freekicks and penalties if a player goes down.

Stay on your feet and, even if fouled, you'll get nothing. The refereeing can change diving and exaggeration, but the PGMOL is a **** mess.

[Zatman]

3 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I just wish the players would stay on their feet more, accept it’s a contact sport and man up a bit.

We’ve applauded blatant cheating for far too long with hiding behind rule interpretation, the game desperately needs more integrity from the players.

Sadly refs dont reward you for staying on your feet. Watkins vs West Ham was so obvious it was shambolic