They are told not to use the monitors because of the time it takes,we are at the mercy of men in a box with no accountability,even a last min winner doesn't warrant a look at the monitor or a clear pen,the monitors are useless for prem use,they have us done up like a kipper,5 reviews but we have been 3 of them,2 goals disallowed and 2pts downSwarbricks answer does not stand up to scrutiny. Oliver was not even looking at the incident. We don't even know if VAR officials brought it to his attention.Surely if they had, he should have reviewed it on the pitch side monitor. Nothing like that happened. I wish to hell there was a way of pursuing this to get the correct sequence of events. Something stinks to high heaven.
No because defenders have to have their arms away from the body so it's not handball whatever happens next,it's not a pen to the other side either,that's why the hanball rule is a nonsense,less goals and less pens,thought up by some fat **** behind a desk who has never played footy,i want to believe that because to think football men came up with this is just unbelievable to meSaw on another thread the scenario where the ball hits a defender's arm by his side, so not handball. But he boots it upfield, a team-mate runs on to it and scores. So he created a goalscoring opportunity, so it was handball. Goal? Penalty to the other team?
Minimum?I think what they were saying that if it is not a clear and obvious error then it would not be looked at. Also Swarbrick mentioned trying to keep to a minimum the amount of decisions referred to VAR.
This is my first input to this forum.
i wish to contribute to the VAR thread as a neutral.
Over the weekend I felt aggrieved for City fans having seen the Lamela/Rodrigo penalty claim incident.
I was surprised that the VAR official did not intervene, but thought there may have been a good reason why.
I thought nothing more of it until I heard this morning's FIve Live interview with Neil Swarbrick, the Premier League VAR lead.
A lot of what Neil said re VAR general implementation principles kinda made sense, BUT his comments re why VAR did not intervene in respect of the aforementioned penalty claim were inexcusable. As said in part by other forum members Swarbrick claimed that the evidence showed that if Rodrigo had been held around the neck or upper body by Lamela he should have fallen backwards, and not forward as was the case. Neil Swarbrick went on to claim that the VAR officials did review the incident, but took no further action because when the incident was reviewed at normal speed then it was clear that Rodrigo (if he had been interfered with) should have fallen backward. He also said that the slow motion replay looked a bit suspect, but it is the full speed replay that had to be considered by the VAR official.
The above explanation did not sit well with my recollection of the incident and so I decided to watch the incident again at full speed on MOTD via Catch Up TV. Having done so it shows that Swarbrick's explanation is frankly utter tosh. If anything Rodrigo was pushed to the ground by Lamela and it would have been physically impossible for Rodri to have fallen backwards. Moreover, given that (as Swarbrick claims) the incident was reviewed I find it nigh on impossible to believe that any VAR official could have reached such a bizarre decision within the time that was available to them to review the incident 'live' on Saturday and revert back to the match referee, i.e. within a timeframe of less than 20 seconds.
I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories etc, but I as a neutral genuinely feel that Swarbrick's above explanation should be formally challenged because it would appear that the vast majority of football lovers and pundits (e.g MOTD's Lineker, Shearer and Murphy) all feel that it was a penalty. Neil Swarbrick and the PL hierarchy should be held to account.
This is my first input to this forum.
i wish to contribute to the VAR thread as a neutral.
Over the weekend I felt aggrieved for City fans having seen the Lamela/Rodrigo penalty claim incident.
I was surprised that the VAR official did not intervene, but thought there may have been a good reason why.
I thought nothing more of it until I heard this morning's FIve Live interview with Neil Swarbrick, the Premier League VAR lead.
A lot of what Neil said re VAR general implementation principles kinda made sense, BUT his comments re why VAR did not intervene in respect of the aforementioned penalty claim were inexcusable. As said in part by other forum members Swarbrick claimed that the evidence showed that if Rodrigo had been held around the neck or upper body by Lamela he should have fallen backwards, and not forward as was the case. Neil Swarbrick went on to claim that the VAR officials did review the incident, but took no further action because when the incident was reviewed at normal speed then it was clear that Rodrigo (if he had been interfered with) should have fallen backward. He also said that the slow motion replay looked a bit suspect, but it is the full speed replay that had to be considered by the VAR official.
The above explanation did not sit well with my recollection of the incident and so I decided to watch the incident again at full speed on MOTD via Catch Up TV. Having done so it shows that Swarbrick's explanation is frankly utter tosh. If anything Rodrigo was pushed to the ground by Lamela and it would have been physically impossible for Rodri to have fallen backwards. Moreover, given that (as Swarbrick claims) the incident was reviewed I find it nigh on impossible to believe that any VAR official could have reached such a bizarre decision within the time that was available to them to review the incident 'live' on Saturday and revert back to the match referee, i.e. within a timeframe of less than 20 seconds.
I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories etc, but I as a neutral genuinely feel that Swarbrick's above explanation should be formally challenged because it would appear that the vast majority of football lovers and pundits (e.g MOTD's Lineker, Shearer and Murphy) all feel that it was a penalty. Neil Swarbrick and the PL hierarchy should be held to account.
But they used slow motion for the handball disallowed goal?This is my first input to this forum.
i wish to contribute to the VAR thread as a neutral.
Over the weekend I felt aggrieved for City fans having seen the Lamela/Rodrigo penalty claim incident.
I was surprised that the VAR official did not intervene, but thought there may have been a good reason why.
I thought nothing more of it until I heard this morning's FIve Live interview with Neil Swarbrick, the Premier League VAR lead.
A lot of what Neil said re VAR general implementation principles kinda made sense, BUT his comments re why VAR did not intervene in respect of the aforementioned penalty claim were inexcusable. As said in part by other forum members Swarbrick claimed that the evidence showed that if Rodrigo had been held around the neck or upper body by Lamela he should have fallen backwards, and not forward as was the case. Neil Swarbrick went on to claim that the VAR officials did review the incident, but took no further action because when the incident was reviewed at normal speed then it was clear that Rodrigo (if he had been interfered with) should have fallen backward. He also said that the slow motion replay looked a bit suspect, but it is the full speed replay that had to be considered by the VAR official.
The above explanation did not sit well with my recollection of the incident and so I decided to watch the incident again at full speed on MOTD via Catch Up TV. Having done so it shows that Swarbrick's explanation is frankly utter tosh. If anything Rodrigo was pushed to the ground by Lamela and it would have been physically impossible for Rodri to have fallen backwards. Moreover, given that (as Swarbrick claims) the incident was reviewed I find it nigh on impossible to believe that any VAR official could have reached such a bizarre decision within the time that was available to them to review the incident 'live' on Saturday and revert back to the match referee, i.e. within a timeframe of less than 20 seconds.
I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories etc, but I as a neutral genuinely feel that Swarbrick's above explanation should be formally challenged because it would appear that the vast majority of football lovers and pundits (e.g MOTD's Lineker, Shearer and Murphy) all feel that it was a penalty. Neil Swarbrick and the PL hierarchy should be held to account.
The precedent has already been set in the first two weeks of league fixtures, exactly as predicted by posters on this very forum numerous times.When I am most paranoid about cheating this is what I think....
If refs/PGMOL were open to cheating - the way they WOULDN'T do it was by giving a favored team a large number of penalties or free kicks or anything that shows up in the statistics to show bias exists. The way to do it was by NOT giving decisions. Things not awarded are not a statistic, no one looks at how many times (For example) Jon Moss doesnt give a penalty to opposition teams at OT, or doesn't issue a red card, or doesn't send a United player off when he should have.
My belief was that VAR would do away with that, but from what I am seeing it is being used the same way, IE incidents not going to VAR, not awarding penalties, ignoring incidents, 50/50's
For my own state of mind I am looking at the things that are ignored this year, and so far City have had 3 things ignored :
1 - Penalty claim for Rodri (Spurs)
2 - Penalty claim Laporte (Spurs)
3 - Sterling 1st goal last week (50/50) (I dont believe something can be measured to the mm in those situations - It's still judgement)
We have had 2 favourable decisions from VAR:
1 - Sterling 2nd goal last week (50/50)
2 - Aguero's retaken penalty
I want to see as the season goes on if we continue to get these, because now we have VAR it should NEVER happen, no excuse like there was before with just the referee being responsible! And if it does happen then I think it is clear they are taking the piss.