Jump to content

The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)


Stevo985

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

will try and find it now, im gonna guess the insult of them not even considering our 2 incidents controversial and worth discussing

Ours wasn't a pen as Alison got a touch to it, Ming's is a pen to the letter but he and the ref got played perfectly by Salah, who has form.

Citehs was not a pen but can see why it was given etc 

To be honest the vagueness of it all means they can justify anything, the things I have issue with are the clear cheat attempts, like Mane dive v us, far far worse then Jack's v palace when idiot Friend stitched us up... and they are supposed to have been clamping down on this now .

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

touched the ball is becoming one of the biggest myths in football

what happened to the common sense days of gabby vs blues? we've gone backwards

its not allison touching the ball that stops ings from scoring, its allison taking ings out, the touch moves the ball all of 3cm 

if only roy keane had got his plastic lace tip on the ball before haaland got there...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that seems to overlooked is the general lack of punishment for trying to win penalties. The Mane and Robertson ones were blatant cheating yet nothing happens.

The Salah one was a ridiculous dive. If there's the threat of punishment (bookings, bans, etc...) Then surely diving (cheating) would be reduced.

The current state of affairs allows the likes of Madison and Salah to act with impunity.

The only incident I can recall in recent times is the Watkins one mentioned above... Which was clearly wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

touched the ball is becoming one of the biggest myths in football

what happened to the common sense days of gabby vs blues? we've gone backwards

its not allison touching the ball that stops ings from scoring, its allison taking ings out, the touch moves the ball all of 3cm 

if only roy keane had got his plastic lace tip on the ball before haaland got there...

I don't know - I'm all in favour of giving the defenders a chance to tackle players.

If a player is making a challenge in an attempt to move the ball away from the opponent, makes contact with the ball before the opponent and that challenge isn't dangerous (i.e: high, studs up etc) then I don't want to see fouls given.  If we had a penalty given against us because Martinez came out to get the ball, flicked it but brought down Salah afterwards, I'd be pretty unhappy with that.

The deviation of the ball is an absolute minefield too so having some sort of absolute is necessary IMO.

As @jimmygreaves eludes to, the bigger issue for me is rewarding attackers for trying to win penalties.  In the same manner that players will block the ball by running across an opponent and just stopping.  That shouldn't be a foul.  It isn't an action instigated by the 'defender', it's purely done by the opponent.  This is what happened in the Salah incident - how can it be a penalty?  Even if the contact was bigger than it actually was, he's basically barged into Mings and looked for any contact.  He isn't playing the ball and Mings isn't making an attempted tackle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the player doesn't have to just touch the ball, he has to win the ball, especially if he is then taking out the man

if the tackler fails to take the ball away from the attacker but then prevents the attacker from playing the 2nd ball then it is a foul

if ings or salah or trezeguet or gabby or whoever could play the ball without that contact then its a foul, allison does not stop ings from playing the ball because of touching it, it is a foul*

its not even hard its common sense 

* the defence for no penalty for me was more obviously that ings fouled matip

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solly March on Trez 2 years ago sums up 'touching the ball' vs 'winning the ball'.

Michael Oliver has gone to the screen, seen that the ball has deflected off March's shin meaning he's won the ball and it can't be a pen, despite that contact being completely incidental and the follow through wiping Trez out.

https://youtu.be/8q0cFchwKWk?t=130

It's a complete mess.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jimmygreaves said:

Something that seems to overlooked is the general lack of punishment for trying to win penalties. The Mane and Robertson ones were blatant cheating yet nothing happens.

The Salah one was a ridiculous dive. If there's the threat of punishment (bookings, bans, etc...) Then surely diving (cheating) would be reduced.

The current state of affairs allows the likes of Madison and Salah to act with impunity.

The only incident I can recall in recent times is the Watkins one mentioned above... Which was clearly wrong.

I kind of agree, sometimes. Maddison should have been booked under the current rules, and what's more, I think it should be a sending off offence when it is clear simulation to throw oneself to the ground when there has been nothing to cause it. Cheating to win a penalty is every bit as bad as wiping out the last man when he's about to score.

Where I think it's difficult is sometimes there is contact, and it's clearly not enough for the reaction, and that's a much harder problem to solve. It's not always a black or white, foul or dive, sometimes there's some contact, the attacker thinks it's a foul, but isn't. And as we have seen, if the attacker doesn't flop, the foul doesn't get given.

Honestly, these pricks can't even get the Maddison case right, so there's absolutely no chance with more nuanced examples of "justifiable contact to cause the reaction" or "manufacturing contact".

Edited by Davkaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Solly March on Trez 2 years ago sums up 'touching the ball' vs 'winning the ball'.

Michael Oliver has gone to the screen, seen that the ball has deflected off March's shin meaning he's won the ball and it can't be a pen, despite that contact being completely incidental and the follow through wiping Trez out.

https://youtu.be/8q0cFchwKWk?t=130

It's a complete mess.

yeah exactly that

if he doesn't kick trez then trez has a shot on his left foot 

its ridiculously simple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Solly March on Trez 2 years ago sums up 'touching the ball' vs 'winning the ball'.

Michael Oliver has gone to the screen, seen that the ball has deflected off March's shin meaning he's won the ball and it can't be a pen, despite that contact being completely incidental and the follow through wiping Trez out.

https://youtu.be/8q0cFchwKWk?t=130

It's a complete mess.

You're absolutely right, that was a shocking decision.

However, that's as much a "dive" as Salah's was on Saturday. More so if anything

(I think they're both penalties)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original booking of Jimenez was rediculous which eventually led to a second yellow. The Man City penalty was found to be not hand ball. Var ref didnt look at the right camera angle. I think the Salah one was a penalty. Salah was clever but mings was clumsy there.  The two for Chelsea were penalties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PaulC said:

The original booking of Jimenez was rediculous which eventually led to a second yellow. The Man City penalty was found to be not hand ball. Var ref didnt look at the right camera angle. I think the Salah one was a penalty. Salah was clever but mings was clumsy there.  The two for Chelsea were penalties. 

i dont think the ref can go to VAR for just a yellow card though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â