VAR Discussion Thread - 2023/24 | PL clubs to vote on whether to scrap VAR (pg413)

[Paladin]

I don't understand why City's penalty is being described as soft, or controversial. Law 12 includes:

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

holds an opponent"

This becomes a penalty if committed by a player in his own penalty area.

There is no further explanation or clarification, so this consideration of whether Rodri could have reached the ball is just unnecessary noise and obfuscation.

The controversy occurs for all the times holding occurs in the penalty area and a penalty is not awarded. When this happens, the referees are ignoring the Laws of the Game. If this was penalised more often, holding would stop, and the contest would be a fair one between opposing players.

 

[SWP's back]

I do but that’s not my beef. For or against you, it’s an abomination for the game and has ruined the spontaneity for me.

5/6 minutes to forensically try and wipe a goal out isn’t sport.

I dunno mate, I’m still fuming at the non offside goal given against Sane in the CL against Liverpool that would have made it 2-0.

That and Kane’s two yard offside goal against us.

For me, blatant errors like that ruined football far more. There are far more correct decisions given now than there were previously. It’s imperfect and far too little communication (unlike in rugby) but it’s a step in the right direction. I couldn’t wait to see the ref blow up and go look at the monitor in yesterday’s game as I watching the Rodri incident when the ball went into the box and screaming pen at the tv. That was added excitement rather than a lack of spontaneity for me personally.

 

[kaz7]

Certainly you only see a couple of you when var works , nowhere to be seen the rest of the time

Just saying

 

[Bluearmy]

I don't understand why City's penalty is being described as soft, or controversial. Law 12 includes:

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

holds an opponent"

This becomes a penalty if committed by a player in his own penalty area.

There is no further explanation or clarification, so this consideration of whether Rodri could have reached the ball is just unnecessary noise and obfuscation.

The controversy occurs for all the times holding occurs in the penalty area and a penalty is not awarded. When this happens, the referees are ignoring the Laws of the Game. If this was penalised more often, holding would stop, and the contest would be a fair one between opposing players.

Exactly. I think it just shows how they are so used to being refereed. As soon as a decision especially at old toilet is awarded against them (despite it being correct according to the current laws), theres wide spread outrage!!

They are so used to the Rashford offside Ratface goal from last year or Rashfords dives being given as a pen.

 

[Bluearmy]

The problem is, a lot of the time nothing is given for that offence, not that what Hojlund did wasn't a foul. Which is what a lot of the whinging has been about. And I can see their point, to be honest. You watch any corner, moreso the defenders (yes, including ours); it's like a WWE tribute act, with all the grappling and holding going on. If the PL clamped down HARD on it, you'd have 3 or 4 penalties (minimum) a match. Are the authorities prepared to accept that? As for Rodri's role in it; did he "embellish" the contact? Of course he did. I remember an incident with Phil a few seasons back (against Southampton, maybe?) where he rounded the keeper who caught him on the ankle and brought him down. Phil got back up and attempted to score, but the angle had become too tight, and he missed. Did we get the penalty? No. The moral being, if you don't go down, you don't get the penalty.

I get that. The refs constantly miss all kinds of decisions. Not this time tho. But the laws are clear and its a pen every day of the week.

Bit rich to have a go at the ref that applied the laws correctly as they currently are!!

 

[Bluearmy]

Agreed but I’d be in a tiny minority saying the above had it gone against Haaland for doing the same to Maguire. The vast vast majority would be screaming fix on here. You know it, I know it, my cat even knows it.

Oh im amazed it was given especially where it was. I was there for the last one, cant believe its been 30 odd years since we’ve been awarded another.

We should have had another pen for Maguires foul on Haaland, that was even worse!!

 

[brazilians hurt]

No one was complaining when England were getting them at the World Cup in 2018 & I recall everyone saying that was the water shed moment to stop player’s wrestling in the box at set pieces. Turns out that was not the case & we don’t always see them given but they should be when they are that blatant. Ultimately Tierney decided Rodri could have got to the cross had he not been unfairly stopped from doing so.
It’s not soft it is just rare they are given, that said PIGMOL owed us big time for last years shit show at the swamp & don’t they always say decisions level themselves out

 

[tregyblue61]

No one has picked up that there could have been 2 decisions with the Rodri penalty. You can clearly see Magliar going straight for Stones and climbing on top of him.

 

[Ribble73]

Funny they kept saying it was soft pen but never shown the Haaland gbh he got grabbed twice and pulled back! Now Oliver had the referee look at the Rodri one in the first half why not the Haaland one? Is it because we already had a pen!? Tells me Oliver is not using var and rules right it's him thinking I can't give another one which is bad officiating in var

Absolutely -a blatant Penalty and also Slabhead grabbing Stonesey round the Neck as well as the foul on Rodri we did get
The narrative is basically all Penalties against the Red Shits (on the extremely rare occasions they are given) are “soft” according to Ratboy etc etc

 

[Ribble73]

No one was complaining when England were getting them at the World Cup in 2018 & I recall everyone saying that was the water shed moment to stop player’s wrestling in the box at set pieces. Turns out that was not the case & we don’t always see them given but they should be when they are that blatant. Ultimately Tierney decided Rodri could have got to the cross had he not been unfairly stopped from doing so.
It’s not soft it is just rare they are given, that said PIGMOL owed us big time for last years shit show at the swamp & don’t they always say decisions level themselves out

I do wonder if that was in the mix for Oliver to ponder on after last year’s debacle