VAR impact and consequence log - game 27

[flook]

The bit in bold is Sky Sports' summary(same with the BBC), I was asking for where it is stated in IFABs rules as I genuinely couldn't find it.

I know what normally happens in the area when a foul is made, what I said is true the last man does not always receive a red card outside of the box. Again you're ignoring that Jota looked for the contact while Ederson tried to avoid it. All easily seen in the replay. Wrong decision.

you asked for quotes about it only applying to an incident in the penalty area, I gave you 2, one from the bbc, the other from IFAB via Sky, both clearly say giving away a penalty (as in that was the change in rule you initially asked about).

From the IFAB laws of the game https://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/32/section/94/

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

• denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY


Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

So in summary, a foul denying a goalscoring opportunity outside the box is a red, but inside the box, as long as there was a genuine effort to play the ball, it's yellow

Now I'm the first to admit my memory isn't the best in the world, but i'm struggling to think of any occasion where a foul was given in a last man situation, denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, which didn't result in a red card (other than penalties of course, as per the rule change above).

I'm not ignoring Jota looking for the foul, I'm ignoring your opinion, which is all it is, not a fact as you keep suggesting. I agree Ederson pulled out (or tried to), I agree that Jota made no effort to avoid ederson, but why should he? Eddie had over-committed and Jota made the most of it. It was soft, yes, but it was still a foul as Jota got to the ball and eddie didn't, therefore red card.

 

[Metalartin]

you asked for quotes about it only applying to an incident in the penalty area, I gave you 2, one from the bbc, the other from IFAB via Sky, both clearly say giving away a penalty (as in that was the change in rule you initially asked about).

This was my final reply, I did concede that the law change was only for incidents inside their own penalty area, the only place where the triple-punishment was relevant to begin with:

I know what normally happens in the area when a deliberate foul is made, I concede that was a law change for inside the box.

So while it wasn't a relevant law change, what I said is still true, the last man does not always receive a red card for accidental fouls outside of the box. Are you telling me you've never seen that? A freekick and a yellow card for the last man on an accidental foul/coming together? That's one reason it didn't have to be red card, in the interests of the spirit of the game. Who really wants to see red cards for none dangerous, accidental fouls anyway? Where is the justification for that in the spirit of the game? Reason two, you're also ignoring that Jota looked for the contact(dipped shoulder, leaned in) while Ederson tried to avoid it(made himself smaller, pulled away). All easily seen in the replay, which covers clear and obvious. Wrong decision.

referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

Just to be clear, you do realise that whole paragraph is only for fouls inside the area right? In all other circumstances, in the penalty area, those offences must result in a sending off. The triple-punishment never applied outside the penalty area to begin with.

You can't remember any instances of accidental fouls and coming togethers by the last man not resulting in a sending off? I find that hard to believe. David Luiz on Sergio Aguero, there's one for you off the top of my head, that was deliberate and we didn't even get a freekick for that(I can only assume he thought it was accidental). I'm suggesting the opposite, I'm struggling to think of a sending off, where the last man hasn't deliberately fouled the player to deny the opportunity, because that is nearly always the case.

I agree Ederson pulled out (or tried to), I agree that Jota made no effort to avoid ederson, but why should he?

He made more than "no effort", he looked for the contact, why shouldn't he do that? Because it's against the spirit of the game, for anyone with any common sense.

As for why should he have made an attempt to avoid contact? Because if the whole point is about denying a goalscoring opportunity, why not make an attempt to score that goal, rather than get a player sent off? The chance was still alive, had he chosen to stay on his feet, he made a choice there and again, one against the spirit of the game.

Eddie had over-committed and Jota made the most of it. It was soft, yes, but it was still a foul as Jota got to the ball and eddie didn't, therefore red card.

How about, Eddie went for a ball he was entitled to go for, made an honest mistake. Or simply put, another player beat him to the ball and that player looked to get him sent off. Why should that be allowed? Therefore no red card.

I'll ignore your opinion too if you're going to be like that about it because that's all you have in the end.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

So in summary, a foul denying a goalscoring opportunity outside the box is a red, but inside the box, as long as there was a genuine effort to play the ball, it's yellow

Now I'm the first to admit my memory isn't the best in the world, but i'm struggling to think of any occasion where a foul was given in a last man situation, denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, which didn't result in a red card (other than penalties of course, as per the rule change above).

I'm not ignoring Jota looking for the foul, I'm ignoring your opinion, which is all it is, not a fact as you keep suggesting. I agree Ederson pulled out (or tried to), I agree that Jota made no effort to avoid ederson, but why should he? Eddie had over-committed and Jota made the most of it. It was soft, yes, but it was still a foul as Jota got to the ball and eddie didn't, therefore red card.

Your summary covers everything about the law change.
For fouls outside, I can't either, and the laws support a sending off.

 

[Metalartin]

Your summary covers everything about the law change.
For fouls outside, I can't either, and the laws support a sending off.

Accidental fouls, lets get the language right shall we. Again I find that hard to believe that you can't think of any. Triple-punishment never had anything to do with fouls outside of the box to begin with. Triple-Punishment entailed, a red card, the concession of a penalty, and a subsequent suspension.

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

Outside the area, a deliberate foul by the last man is always a red card yes. Accidental, when the player has looked for it. No. The laws do not support that decision. We can argue about this all day, I do concede I didn't have a few details quite right but I still disagree with both of you. The red card was a bit harsh to say the least, all things considered.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

So IFAB could do what exactly, if the PL decide not to follow their laws and use their own? I wasn't arguing that don't they write laws for leagues to use but I've yet to see any action from them which shows this authority, that you claim they have. The way you tell it, they have clout at the level of FIFA and UEFA, yet I haven't seen an example of any authority at all. Suggesting Riley should do this or that isn't saying much, that could be basic criticism which anyone is able to do, you'd expect them to criticise given their role with or without authority.

That was just a side point anyway, I've given you IFABs actual laws of the game 2019-2020 (sources, quotes), there's no mention of teammates where accidental handballs are concerned. Where is Elleray's interpretation if you are going to rest your whole argument on it?
Edit - never mind I've found it myself:


So even IFABs head is using the line of reasoning that no handball accidental or not should be allowed? Why don't they just say that instead then? We'd already agreed that Laporte did not gain possession, score a goal or create a goal scoring opportunity with the use of the arm. The only mistake I made was interpreting IFABs rules how they are written.

The rest of what I said was in response to others on here complaining that PGMOL have gone back on that(every handball will be penalised) with a recent statement. I can't even remember what was said or over what incident(Henderson's possible handball perhaps?) but I can only assume that means they are going to allow some handballs now. If you notice in my post I said "if that's true then that takes the biscuit", perhaps if you weren't looking to prove me wrong, you'd have noticed that and addressed what other members were discussing on here instead of aiming it at me.

Anyway, I'm not sure I like Ellaray's explanation, falling back on a vague term like "spirit of the game", I thought the hole point under VAR was to have everything defined. If it's not defined anywhere who defines what is or isn't against the "spirit of the game"(unless it's every handball, is what I take from it). Otherwise this is all rather convenient for those not wanting others to question authority.

I don't get how you can hide behind the interpretation of the way the laws are currently written either: "Ah, yes, erm.. It might look that way, because of the way it's actually written but what we mean is something that's not actually stated. We've covered that but just didn't feel the need to write it down anywhere and be held accountable for it. You'll have to trust us on that".

And yes Jesus merely gained possession, not a goal scoring opportunity(that was never in doubt we covered that on matchday), the shot wasn't on before he made an opportunity to do so for himself. Well, as poorly thought out as it appears, as long as they stick to it and apply it evenly across all teams... oh wait.

I noticed how you skipped the 3 pull backs in the penalty area that went ignored that I mentioned. Well at least you didn't defend those mistakes. Is it VAR you're defending so vigorously or the "integrity" of the PL?


Outside the area for an accidental trip or a follow through? Not always a red, doubly so when the player looks for contact, in or out of the penalty area. I think that was clear and obvious enough, since most people who watched the replay can see the same thing.

There's also no mention of this "it needs to be a penalty to count". I asked for quotes and sources.

If I understand right, your position is that Elleray's interpretation is not very good; that's fine, you're obviously entitled to it, but Elleray's is what the refs are told. IFAB write the laws for the world game. Elleray explains the directive on how they should be interpreted. That's as high as it gets; local FAs should not be running their own version of the laws. The handball law could certainly be written better - I've said I don't know why it isn't. I'm unaware of any PGMOL statement on how they intend to change their application.

@flook has covered the inside/outside the penalty area fouls. You've brought in a couple of things that I didn't touch on; I don't think I've deliberately ignored anything significant, but might have missed some. If refs don't penalise holding (such as Rodri, vs Spurs), then the ref is quite probably wrong in how he is applying the law; Riley even admitted it on Rodri, with an idiotic reason as to why Oliver made his decision. VAR should catch any obvious errors, but for some reason the English VAR officials seem to occasionally be blind to the incidents.

I don't recall a comment about 3 pullbacks.

Ref mistakes: sometimes I can see a reason why the onfield ref might have an excuse or opinion, but VAR should correct them. That doesn't mean I'm defending the error itself, and I don't think I've defended VAR as a whole. I've explained how I think the handball law should be applied (according to IFAB).

Why, with VAR in effect, what appear to be obvious errors go uncorrected, and why there is obvious inconsistency, is a bit rhetorical. It's the key question which PGMOL won't or can't answer.

 

[Metalartin]

If I understand right, your position is that Elleray's interpretation is not very good; that's fine, you're obviously entitled to it, but Elleray's is what the refs are told. IFAB write the laws for the world game. Elleray explains the directive on how they should be interpreted. That's as high as it gets; local FAs should not be running their own version of the laws. The handball law could certainly be written better - I've said I don't know why it isn't. I'm unaware of any PGMOL statement on how they intend to change their application.

I'm just unhappy that they have a get out clause of "spirit of the game" which we can see here people still argue about. Is what he saying as I assumed that any handball in a build up to a goal should be penalised? I'm not if there has been a law change which is why I said "if that is true".

I don't recall a comment about 3 pullbacks.

I mentioned that when you inexplicably included pullbacks in your original response to me. Ie they can never be deemed as genuine attempts to challenge fairly. There were 3 in the Spurs game, Rodri(pulled down and climbed on), Aguero(double handed pull on his arm) on the same corner, Laporte(dragged back by the wrist just before the ball came in before the handball).

So you do see the inconsistencies after all, especially with the handball law.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Accidental fouls, lets get the language right shall we. Again I find that hard to believe that you can't think of any. Triple-punishment never had anything to do with fouls outside of the box to begin with.



Outside the area, a deliberate foul by the last man is always a red card yes. Accidental, when the player has looked for it. No. The laws do not support that decision.

Offhand, no I can't.

For the underlined part, could you quote the laws that you have based that statement on? I thought there was no indication of a foul being deliberate or accidental.

 

[BobbyBoy]

There is no such thing as an accidental foul, if a goal scoring opportunity is denied by a foul outside the box then a red card is shown. If a coming together is judged as accidental then it's judged as no offence being committed, there is no half way house here. It's either a foul and a red or no foul at all.

In the case of Ederson you need to take the blinkers off, it's a clear a red card as you will see all season.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I'm just unhappy that they have a get out clause of "spirit of the game" which we can see here people still argue about. Is what he saying as I assumed that any handball in a build up to a goal should be penalised? I'm not if there has been a law change which is why I said "if that is true".


I mentioned that when you inexplicably included pullbacks in your original response to me. Ie they can never be deemed as genuine attempts challenge fairly. There were 3 in the Spurs game, Rodri(pulled down and climed on), Aguero(double handed pull on his arm) on the same corner, Laporte(dragged back by the wrist just before the ball came in before the handball).

So you do see the inconsistencies after all, especially with the handball law.

Not quite sure what the first part is meant to say, but yes, any handball by an attacking player in build-up should see the goal disallowed, although I assume there is some ref discretion in the timeframe that is counted - I don't think the TAA one in the derby should have been enough to disallow the goal for being 'handball in the build-up' as an example, as CIty got the ball back afterwards before giving it to Fabinho.

I mentioned a pullback specifically as an example of what would not be covered; nothing more to the note. I wasn't implying anything - holding is covered in the laws.

The last bit is a bit daft. I'd be surprised if I've said there are no inconsistencies, as that would be an equally daft thing to say.

I'm out.

 

[Metalartin]

Offhand, no I can't.

Most of my examples will revolve around City because those are the ones I tend to remember(for and against us) but off the top of my head, David Luiz on Aguero it was seen but not even given as a freekick. Kompany last season, perhaps Stones was deemed to be the last man in that instance(it would surprise me if they noticed that) but I'm sure I've seen plenty coming togethers not result in red cards. Last man, attacker breaking, defender couldn't get out of the way, it makes sense. Sometimes a player can't get out of the way, there is the reverse argument that why should a defender get out of the attackers way. If a defender stands still and an attacker who had plenty of time to see him, runs into him, who's fault is it?

For the underlined part, could you quote the laws that you have based that statement on? I thought there was no indication of a foul being deliberate or accidental.

Well obviously when a player seeks the contact, it goes without saying the other player can and will be penalised in some instances.

As for accidental outside the area, I haven't seen it in the rules but I've seen how the law is applied and at least given examples, so it can't always mean a red card. Can you give me an example of a clearly accidental coming together(as this was) in the PL, where the last man has received a straight red?


Lets remember it wasn't even an attempted tackle by Ederson as such, he went to intercept a high ball and the player flicked it over him. If the argument is that there's no reason Jota should try and avoid a collision(even excusing him leaning into to it, looking for it) but Ederson who had nowhere to go should have some how got out of the way(he tried) or face a red card. I can't see that logic, seems too heavily stacked against the keeper.


What has actually been provided are the changes to the triple-punishment law, which was never used outside the area(you were right to say that change had no relevance) or in other words the current law on denying a goal scoring opportunity in the penalty area. There must be a separate rule for last man challenges outside the area or is it another of those things not clearly defined yet?

I'm happy to concede if someone finds it but that still leaves instances of seeking the contact and we know players get booked for that when it's in the penalty area.