Schalke post match thread

[Barcon]

Ok from the statement. Two things. First, I agree regarding the laws of the game and the offside/foul by Dinho and said as much last night. This part:

“The second decision was also correctly made on the basis of the Laws of the Game (Law 11 – Offside) which stipulates: “if a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence”.

Secondly, this next one is fucking ridiculous:

“When such a malfunction of the system occurs, the IFAB protocol allows for the VAR to describe to the referee what can be seen on the TV replay(s) but not tell him the decision that should be taken. The referee then makes a final decision based on his own perception and the information received orally from the VAR.”

The VAR ‘described’ what fucking happened to the ref and the ref overruled himself!?? Fuck off. That’s beyond idiotic.

I thought it was Nastasic that was the one offside and interfering with Ederson.

 

[SWP's back]

I thought it was Nastasic that was the one offside and interfering with Ederson.

On their picture “when the foul occurred”, the ball is still six yards outside the box and no one is on the keeper. Correct decision as per law 11.

Crap defending by Fernadinho although Smalling can’t see a problem with it.

 

[aguero93:20]

In true Uefa style - when there’s an issue - just make up another rule to cover it. They have an answer for everything - or at least they think they do.

http://theifab.com/laws/var-protocol/chapters/protocol-principles-practicalities-and-procedures

No mention of this procedure if the technology or equipment malfunctions.

 

[remember arthur mann]

I thought it was Nastasic that was the one offside
and interfering with Ederson.

 

[malg]

I thought it was Nastasic that was the one offside and interfering with Ederson.

 

[Newman Noggs]

UEFA have released their response.

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/about-uefa/news/newsid=2593061.html

This is actually insane:

When such a malfunction of the system occurs, the IFAB protocol allows for the VAR to describe to the referee what can be seen on the TV replay(s) but not tell him the decision that should be taken. The referee then makes a final decision based on his own perception and the information received orally from the VAR.

"The IFAB protocol" wot we just wrote !

 

[bornblueegg]

Bollocks

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

I'm confused about the circumstances under which VAR can be used. Is it only when there is a clear and obvious error or is it with any penalty incident? If it is for any penalty incident, then fair enough, the first penalty was reviewed on that basis, even though there was no clear and obvious error by the ref?

But why then was VAR not used at Stamford bridge on Monday in the fa cup when David Luis shirt was ripped by small thing? Or later when smalling held a Chelsea player in the pen area? Or is it different rules in Europe?

 

[kaz7]

I'm confused about the circumstances under which VAR can be used. Is it only when there is a clear and obvious error or is it with any penalty incident? If it is for any penalty incident, then fair enough, the first penalty was reviewed on that basis, even though there was no clear and obvious error by the ref?

But why then was VAR not used at Stamford bridge on Monday in the fa cup when David Luis shirt was ripped by small thing? Or later when smalling held a Chelsea player in the pen area? Or is it different rules in Europe?

It was used,they deemed no pen,depends which team it is

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

So, if the referees can mak

It was used,they deemed no pen,depends which team it is

Ok, so it was used at Stamford bridge? It was very quick then. Why no song and dance about it? Why no pen?