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