M
M
mat
Guest
I wouldn't be surprised if it's not used. The trail at the match before deemed a failure.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
VAR (PL introduction 2019)
- Thread starter greasedupdeafguy
- Start date
You're pretty much contradicting your own argument here. You have twice admitted there was a foul. The criteria for a free kick (or penalty) is if a foul has occurred. The proximity of the ball, or the severity of the foul are irrelevant. Foul in the box by defending team against attacking team = penalty.The ball was already away from him by the time the foul happened and the foul was soft. Not a penalty at all for me.
If Ederson fouls a player in his (Ederson's) own penalty area, whilst City are busy building an attack at the other end, then it is a penalty to our opponents. Everything else is superfluous.
The ball was already away from him by the time the foul happened and the foul was soft. Not a penalty at all for me.
Wrong the ball hit his foot then then he kicked his leg! Look at the kane penalty same
cleavers
Moderator
Correct.he didn't give it because we were already 4 up and no other reason
These referee's will make their own rules with VAR until its transparent to the paying fan.
Same applies to only giving 2 minutes of added time despite 6 subs and 5 goals in the second half, at least Dean gave some, unlike the ZERO seconds given against Rotherham, despite 4 goals and 6 subs, not sure when added time became discretionary.
I think the issue here is that a clear and obvious mistake needs to have been made by the referee (as far as I am aware). This allows for the situation at Fulham over the weekend where the decision looks wrong but because there is the tiniest amount of contact the decision is not changed and last night where the decision looks wrong, there was significantly more contact than there was at Fulham but because it still wasn't a huge amount of contact the decision is not changed. So presumably decisions that aren't great but some guy is looking at the video and deciding that it isn't as clear or as obvious as it needs to be. It is essentially going to be the same as in cricket where you have the on field decision (think they also refer to it as the soft decision) being absolutely crucial to how the review goes. It isn't satisfactory in my opinion but it won't change and essentially even with someone having access to slow motion video footage you're still much of the time going to be at the mercy of the ref on the pitch. It is likely to raise as many questions as answers in terms of getting decisions right IMO.
mate it was a stonewall pen no question
cleavers
Moderator
I was "sat at home" last night, and I still had no clue what was going on with VAR, they're already miked up to each other, so lets hear the discussion, its quite simple.I'm also against it under the current format as why should i a paying customer at the ground not have a fucking clue what's going on whilst anyone sat at home is able to see a replay of the incident i'm waiting on an answer to, needs transparency.
cleavers
Moderator
Must be another rule change they forgot to tell us about.....Both games also finished with the ball out of play.
Lancet Fluke
Well-Known Member
I agree and I also think the Fulham pen on Sunday definitely wasn't a pen. But in both cases you're in the business of a ref needing to overturn the decision of a fellow ref and the reality is that they can and definitely will hide behind the clear and obvious mistake excuse not to do that. So if the Fulham pen hadn't been given I don't think the video ref would have given a pen and if a pen had been given for us last night I don't think the video ref would have ruled it out and given a goal kick. I'm not saying it is right, just that it is the reality of what is happening and will continue to happen. And as I said, I don't think it is satisfactory and it will cause a load of issues but it will 100% continue to be the case.mate it was a stonewall pen no question
Lancet Fluke
Well-Known Member
How is it relevant whether he had lost control of the ball?The ball was already away from him by the time the foul happened and the foul was soft. Not a penalty at all for me.
I agree and I also think the Fulham pen on Sunday definitely wasn't a pen. But in both cases you're in the business of a ref needing to overturn the decision of a fellow ref and the reality is that they can and definitely will hide behind the clear and obvious mistake excuse not to do that. So if the Fulham pen hadn't been given I don't think the video ref would have given a pen and if a pen had been given for us last night I don't think the video ref would have ruled it out and given a goal kick. I'm not saying it is right, just that it is the reality of what is happening and will continue to happen. And as I said, I don't think it is satisfactory and it will cause a load of issues but it will 100% continue to be the case.
don't know about fulham,but i know last night was a clear and obvious penalty and not given because we were already 4 up
Lancet Fluke
Well-Known Member
And I think you're wrong. I think it wasn't given purely because it would have required the video ref to overturn the ref's decision and they are always going to be more reluctant to do that than to go along with the on field decision. I said on here a few years ago that this would be the case because so often on BT Sport when they had Howard Webb on, he would just agree with the ref even when it was fairly clear the ref had made an error. He would talk all sorts of bollocks to justify why the ref had made the decision he had made and it was clear that when VAR came along this is what would happen. I know you don't agree with me but just watch over the coming months and years and I am certain you will find that apart from offsides which will be more or less black and white decisions, VAR will be an exercise in the video ref desperately trying to not overturn on field decisions and they will only do so when they have no option and that "clear and obvious" bit will give them the option not to overturn way more than it should. Anyway, we aren't going to agree and only the video ref knows why he did what he did but we do both agree that he should have given a pen.don't know about fulham,but i know last night was a clear and obvious penalty and not given because we were already 4 up
The ball was already away from him by the time the foul happened and the foul was soft. Not a penalty at all for me.
Pardon !!!! He clearly kicked him and as you say after the ball had moved away from Jesus. It wasn't a deliberate kick he simply totally mistimed his swing to get the ball, the thing is he mistimed it by 2 minutes. It was a clear foul and therefore a clear penalty.
Further you say the foul was soft, so you accept it was a foul. it therefore follows that you think it was a penalty as that's what a foul in the box is, no matter how soft.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Actually some are indirect free kicks.it therefore follows that you think it was a penalty as that's what a foul in the box is, no matter how soft.
1. Takes more than four steps while controlling the ball with his hands, before releasing it from his possession.Actually some are indirect free kicks.
2. Touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released from his possession without touching another player.
3. Touches the ball with his hand after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate.
4. Touches the ball with his hand after he has received it directly from a throw-in by a teammate.
Not really fouls are they :)
This is the closest scenario
If the defender commits an offence of "dangerous play" – raising his boot above his chest without making direct contact with another player. Had the defender made contact, it would have resulted in a penalty kick.
Saying that how are overhead kicks allowed if that is the case lol
andyhinch
Well-Known Member
So are we saying it could have been 10 ? someone should make a song about that :-)Pardon !!!! He clearly kicked him and as you say after the ball had moved away from Jesus. It wasn't a deliberate kick he simply totally mistimed his swing to get the ball, the thing is he mistimed it by 2 minutes. It was a clear foul and therefore a clear penalty.
Further you say the foul was soft, so you accept it was a foul. it therefore follows that you think it was a penalty as that's what a foul in the box is, no matter how soft.
Actually some are indirect free kicks.
Oh you.
dennishasdoneit
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 May 2008
- Messages
- 13,126
- Team supported
- Manchester City.
Well spotted...refs making it up as they go along.Both games also finished with the ball out of play.
Mike Dean an experienced big match ref..but school boy error.
Not one expert pundit or journalist noticed; its almost as though the rules of the game are now flexible and make shift...worrying.
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
It’s one of those things you learnt as a kid.Well spotted...refs making it up as they go along.
Mike Dean an experienced big match ref..but school boy error.
Not one expert pundit or journalist noticed; its almost as though the rules of the game are now flexible and make shift...worrying.
dennishasdoneit
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 May 2008
- Messages
- 13,126
- Team supported
- Manchester City.
So Mike Dean,top class ref....didnt.It’s one of those things you learnt as a kid.
Or he forgot.
Or he just altered the rule..cos he could.
Would like him to be questioned about this; but of course no one can question a ref these days.
Incidentally,going back to the Jesus pen shout,ignoring if it was a correct call or not,the expression on Deans face as he argued with City players,his face apparently contorted with rage/ hatred ,..is an image which will stay with me for a long time...he looked for all the world like a very angry headmaster telling kids to fuck off,im in charge.. how dare you question me .....Cant stand the man.
Last edited:
Barcon
Well-Known Member
1. Takes more than four steps while controlling the ball with his hands, before releasing it from his possession.
2. Touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released from his possession without touching another player.
3. Touches the ball with his hand after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate.
4. Touches the ball with his hand after he has received it directly from a throw-in by a teammate.
Not really fouls are they :)
This is the closest scenario
If the defender commits an offence of "dangerous play" – raising his boot above his chest without making direct contact with another player. Had the defender made contact, it would have resulted in a penalty kick.
Saying that how are overhead kicks allowed if that is the case lol
I have often wondered that myself Alf.