Var debate 2019/20

[flook]

You can do whatever the fuck you like, And yes it is very easy to prove as there's umpteen video's of that foul still carrying on into the penalty area, @SWP's back and a few others tried to explain this to you several times yet your still not fuckin having it.

You do know its o.k to say the Rags got shafted aswel as us you know.

just watched the Martial incident for the first time, the foul started outside the box, and continued into, there was definitely still contact inside the box, but my understanding is that as the contact started outside the box, the correct decision would be free kick not penalty

 

[SWP's back]

just watched the Martial incident for the first time, the foul started outside the box, and continued into, there was definitely still contact inside the box, but my understanding is that as the contact started outside the box, the correct decision would be free kick not penalty

Your understanding is incorrect mate. It’s called a continuation foul and a penalty should be awarded as per the laws (which I’ve posted earlier in the thread).

“An offense which involves continuous contact (such as charging or pushing) that starts in one place and continues into another place where the consequences of stopping play would be a different restart, should be decided on the basis of which place involved the greater penalty (inside/outside the penalty area is decided in favor of inside the penalty area, inside/outside the field is decided in favor of inside the field).”

And confirmed by fifa on one 15 of this:

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

 

[flook]

Your understanding is incorrect mate. It’s called a continuation foul and a penalty should be awarded as per the laws (which I’ve posted earlier in the thread).

“An offense which involves continuous contact (such as charging or pushing) that starts in one place and continues into another place where the consequences of stopping play would be a different restart, should be decided on the basis of which place involved the greater penalty (inside/outside the penalty area is decided in favor of inside the penalty area, inside/outside the field is decided in favor of inside the field).”

cheers SWP, in that case United were screwed over, clear penalty

 

[SWP's back]

Oh and Martial couldn’t be a penalty because the foul was OUTSIDE the box, hence the lack of press coverage. If you think I’m wrong, it’s very easy prove it.

Already posted this last time you said that:

Hopefully that was me “proving” it, easily.

 

[TueartsOHK]

I was watching The Debate on Sky Sports on Monday with Merson and Jamie O Hara. Although it was like watching Dumb and Dumber O Hara in particular echoed a lot of the sentiments we have made on here. Specifically the muted celebrations, the introduction of an illogical hand ball rule plus he couldn’t understand how the penalties this last weekend were reviewed and no pen given. The Silva one was (as we know) stone wall. I think the Martial one was too.

 

[The blue phantom]

Already posted this last time you said that:

Hopefully that was me “proving” it, easily.

And I've no idea why he said it's been ignored in the media because it was a no pen, it was all over the media.

 

[BringBackSwales]

I was wondering if someone could advise me....





.....is it safe to celebrate our 3 goals last Sunday yet?

 

[Paladin]

To clarify, I can see why the goal was disallowed with the new rules (doesn’t mean I agree with it), you can disagree if you want, that is your choice, but please don’t question my motives for pointing out something that you don’t agree with.

You can see why the goal was disallowed with the new rules?

Someone has gone to the trouble of putting up a copy of the latest version of the relevant section of the law, the one that Oliver, Scott and Swarbrick are all being paid to implement. We can all see from the rule that it is being wrongly used, and the Jesus goal should not have been disallowed.

It has been explained to you that the version of the rule you are referring to is out of date.

So, the obvious conclusion to be made here is that you:

- are not clever enough to understand the current laws of the game.
- are being deliberately obtuse.
- are a WUM or a troll.

Whichever it is, there is no point engaging with you any further.

 

[kaz7]

Premier League refereeing chiefs will resist calls for officials to start using pitch-side monitors for VAR checks as they feel it will slow the game down too much. [@MailSport]

The PGMOL would rather be criticised for using the technology too little than too much, but they are open to making changes to the system. It is understood that many clubs are keen for VAR to be more heavily involved. [@MailSport]

 

[ctid1894]

Already posted this last time you said that:

Hopefully that was me “proving” it, easily.

From that picture it’s impossible to see if the Palace player is still pulling him, pushing him or neither. I personally believe the contact was outside the box and Martial’s momentum took him inside the box (please see section 3 below) so wouldn’t result in a penalty.

If as you say it was a “continuation foul” the fact Martial got a shot off which hit the outside of the netting means he was able to “maintain a credible attack on goal” (please see section 1 below) and wouldn’t result in a penalty.

The IFAB’s Q&A 2006 and the current Law book (p. 110) discuss the “continuation concept” solely in terms of a holding offense. Under guidance from FIFA, we can say that the term must NOT be applied to any other offences.

1. Use of advantage: If the offense happened outside the penalty area, advantage should be used in order to enable the team of the fouled attacker to maintain a credible attack on goal. If that attack does not continue as a result of subsequent events (ball leaving the field in favor of the opposing team, another foul which requires reopening the analysis, etc.), the referee must return to the original offense, unless the subsequent foul involves a greater penalty. This includes the circumstance where the subsequent offense involves a penalty kick restart.

3. Use of “fouls in motion”: If contact with an opponent occurs outside the penalty area but the consequences of the contact which would enable the referee to conclusively determine that the contact was an offense cannot be seen until the opponent is inside the penalty area, the location of the offense must bet set at where the original contact occurred.

Section 2 for transparency is fouls which aren’t classed as “holding”.