There is going to be more injustices on City because we have more possession thus getting into more goal scoring situations. Don’t have to be a genius to work out why VAR was brought in.Martin Tyler informing his audience that VAR was introduced to prevent the sort of injustice that Manchester City suffered at Wolves last season
Funny, how he didn’t mention that injustice when Liverpool were 7 points clear
So basically they turned a blind eye to it?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.
It's not the fact it was against us - that's to undermine all the reasons given why it is a terrible idea and imposition.We are jumping to extreme reactions too early..our moment with VAR will come. It's only 2 games into a season. Over the course of the season, playing like we are, we will see a mighty haul again. Anyone that finishes above us deserves the plaudits but we ain't letting go easily.
You are joking right? we have been shafted in the first week,we are clearly getting targeted,our var moment wil come? we might get a couple in our favour but that will only balance out the first 2 games! we are 2 pts down after 2 gamesWe are jumping to extreme reactions too early..our moment with VAR will come. It's only 2 games into a season. Over the course of the season, playing like we are, we will see a mighty haul again. Anyone that finishes above us deserves the plaudits but we ain't letting go easily.
But a goal can't be scored as a result of the ball being handled by a team mate apparently. So what happens?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 me
We are jumping to extreme reactions too early..our moment with VAR will come. It's only 2 games into a season. Over the course of the season, playing like we are, we will see a mighty haul again. Anyone that finishes above us deserves the plaudits but we ain't letting go easily.
It's not handball by the new laws so what happens after doesn't matter,it only matters if it hits an attackerBut a goal can't be scored as a result of the ball being handled by a team mate apparently. So what happens?
welcome Alan and good luck this seasonThis 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.