VAR impact and consequence log - game 27

[The perfect fumble]

Made me smile.....

 

[shemnel]

Literally changing the rules halfway through the season. It's been an unbelievable farce this year and it's one that could see LFC go the whol season winning every single game nearly. Absolute farce of a season

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51145986

predicted by the slightly zany but fun Football is Fixed website;
https://footballisfixed.blogspot.com/2020/01/football-is-fucked-in-extinction.html

under part B with Wenger (weirdly enough)

 

[Metalartin]

In your reply, you asked "Just to be clear, you do realise that whole paragraph is only for fouls inside the area right? ". I thought that was the question? You asked where in the rules it said the straight red had only been relaxed for fouls in the penalty area. I answered you. Twice now, but it seems you're amending your questions to suit your agenda as the debate goes on.

No you've not read my post properly, "Just to be clear", should be a big giveaway that I was making sure you don't think you've covered where in the law it says outside of the box it's always a red card whether it was accidental or not. I said I'd like to see that and I would genuinely concede, you made no attempt to show me the reverse, a coming together that resulted in a sending off(obviously the last man, I thought that was a given) . It seems like this has turned into an exercise of point scoring from the both of you, even replying to posts aimed at the other person.

I told you that the ref did not give a freekick(but he did see it, which was my point) for the Luiz incident and that Stones may have been deemed the last man. Yet you both felt the need to mention both like you're revealing something to me(evidence of your point scoring mentality). They were not like for like for a multitude of reasons, Luiz' was deliberate, Kompany took the player out on the follow through in a committed challenge. At least I made an attempt at an example, neither of you did that.

As for showing you a coming together(remember Ederson did not leave a foot in, trail a leg or arm, he didn't even go to ground) where the keeper hasn't been sent off, if I find one I will, you are the ones telling me it's a definite red card. I'll atleast admit I wouldn't always expect to see no red card, I'd have thought yours was an easier task and I could have added "where the player has looked for the contact"(dangled a leg ect) something which I feel would make it an impossible task, and something which neither of you seem to grasp.

 

[Metalartin]

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 may have misinterpreted that you think it should stand but I still disagree with you. City did not get the ball back or clear the danger at any point, so that part stands, I've seen it as a defence from Liverpool fans and I thought it was nonsense. I feel it satisfies the current law to disallow it.

edit:
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297401

The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession.

Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack

I might not have been correct to say that it always should be that the attacking phase has to be from the moment possession was gained(although that would be simpler) but because of the last sentence my opinion remains the same. I do not believe that we ever reset/recovered, or the momentum of the attack was lost at any point for Liverpool. They took full advantage of the opportunity that the handball provided for them. Had Gundogan cleared it successfully, to give our defence and midfield chance to reset maybe but because Gundo and Angelino were scrambling, Fabinho basically ended up with a free shot(uncontested).

I'd actually argue that it couldn't have been penalty because if it's scored, does Bernardo's accidental handball then become relevant? Because then there's a City handball in the build-up to the incident that led to a PK or a goal. It would be nice to have their reasoning though, because if that was the case(an offence before the offence ruled it out), what happened with the pull back on Laporte's wrist being ignored against Spurs before the handball?

It's fine by me if you want to agree to disagree, I actually like being made aware of anything I've missed in the laws or any emails from officials(I'd only read summaries not quotes). If I can atleast make sense of some of the decisions City have received it's a start, it still doesn't mean they haven't got things wrong. Before you get defensive again, I'm not saying you've said this, I'm explaining my stance(not that I should have to). We don't seem to share the same opinion on many things, which is fine and I do understand the difference between opinion and fact thankyou.

Although I have altered mine for the Ederson incident, ultimately I still think the red card should have been avoided for that situation(no freekick, drop ball because of Jota's snideness).

 

[flook]

No you've not read my post properly, "Just to be clear", should be a big giveaway that I was making sure you don't think you've covered where in the law it says outside of the box it's always a red card whether it was accidental or not. I said I'd like to see that and I would genuinely concede, you made no attempt to show me the reverse, a coming together that resulted in a sending off(obviously the last man, I thought that was a given) . It seems like this has turned into an exercise of point scoring from the both of you, even replying to posts aimed at the other person.

Ok obviously you haven't bothered reading the IFAB website for the rules, so I'll make it easy for you (here you go, I'll link it again 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
  

Just to break it down into manageable chunks for you:

Was Jota moving towards the City goal? - yes, tick
Did Ederson prevent an obvious goal scoring opportunity? - yes, tick
Was this prevention by means of an offence punishable by a free kick? - yes, according to the match official whose opinion is the one that matters, tick

Conclusion, Red Card

I've highlighted the important bit in your post just so you don't forget

QUOTE="Metalartin] I told you that the ref did not give a freekick(but he did see it, which was my point) for the Luiz incident and that Stones may have been deemed the last man. Yet you both felt the need to mention both like you're revealing something to me(evidence of your point scoring mentality). They were not like for like for a multitude of reasons, Luiz' was deliberate, Kompany took the player out on the follow through in a committed challenge. At least I made an attempt at an example, neither of you did that.[/QUOTE]

So how on earth can you use that as an example of an Ederson situation not being a sending off? It wasn't even a foul in the eyes of the match officials so why the fuck would he send him off? Also, as it wasn't a foul, John Stones position is irrelevant. You say it wasn't like for like, we can agree on that, but it does beg the question why you brought it up in the first place

QUOTE="Metalartin] As for showing you a coming together(remember Ederson did not leave a foot in, trail a leg or arm, he didn't even go to ground) where the keeper hasn't been sent off, if I find one I will, you are the ones telling me it's a definite red card. [/QUOTE]

Yes, it's definitely a red card if it prevent a goal scoring opportunity, because that's what the rules say. see above. Your added bits about trailing leg etc are just noise to muddy the waters

QUOTE="Metalartin] I'll atleast admit I wouldn't always expect to see no red card, I'd have thought yours was an easier task and I could have added "where the player has looked for the contact"(dangled a leg ect) something which I feel would make it an impossible task, and something which neither of you seem to grasp.[/QUOTE]

Sp breaking this down again, you accept that it "could" be a red card (even under your flawed understanding of the rules, What exactly is my easier task? Quoting the rules? if it's so easy why haven't you done it? I've answered your question each time you've rephrased it, hopefully this time you will accept you're wrong. And the final bit, I may be wrong but I don't think anyone really cares about embellishments you could have added.

You started this debate by saying I was wrong. I'm not a confrontational sort of bloke, anything for an easy life, live and let live etc etc, so I said we'll just have to agree to differ, but no, you carried on.

 

[Metalartin]

You started this debate by saying I was wrong. I'm not a confrontational sort of bloke, anything for an easy life, live and let live etc etc, so I said we'll just have to agree to differ, but no, you carried on.

Not confrontational? How do explain that little melt down then? It's unreadable, broken quotes and bullshit claims throughout about what I'm doing in your eyes(get over yourself).

I said you made a mistake by saying it was the correct decision, I still think it was at least harsh. It was not a personal insult or a slight on yourself. Unlike you I am willing to concede where a good point is made. I do see it now btw, so the referees hands are tied if he gives a freekick. If that is the case, I feel the only correct decision is to punish the only player who intended to commit an offence in the incident and wave play on. It's not ideal, perhaps it's something they should look at changing. A red card is far worse than a goal conceded, unless it comes towards the end of a game. A penalty seems a fairer decision if they were to change it, red card and a freekick if deliberate.

Did Ederson prevent an obvious goal scoring opportunity? - yes, tick

How did he though? Your own own words were that Jota "popped the ball over Ederson and ran into him". This is factually what happened(I'd add he dipped his shoulder and leaned in, the replay shows it) and why it does cast doubt over the decision. Did Ederson have every right to be where he was when he was ran into? Yes he did.

Was this prevention by means of an offence punishable by a free kick? - yes, according to the match official whose opinion is the one that matters, tick

No it wasn't, "you're just muddying the waters with what you said after that". ;)

As for the Luiz incident, it was a deliberate body check but the referee having seen it clearly saw it as a coming together and gave no foul. You do not see any similarities there? The only difference is the referee didn't acknowledge it at all. As I said above, the lesser of two evils for me, is not giving a freekick in this case, especially given Jota's actions.

 

[flook]

Not confrontational? How do explain that little melt down then? It's unreadable, broken quotes and bullshit claims throughout about what I'm doing in your eyes(get over yourself).

I said you made a mistake saying it was the correct decision I still think it was at least harsh. It was not personal insult or a slight on yourself. Unlike you I am willing to concede where a good point is made.


How did he though? Your own own words were that Jota "popped the ball over Ederson and ran into him". This is factually what happened and why it does cast doubt over the decision. Was it a foul or a coming together. Did Ederson have every right to be there and challenge for that ball? Yes he did.


No it wasn't, "you're just muddying the waters with what you said after that".

As for the Luiz incident, it was a deliberate body check but the referee having seen it clearly saw it as a coming together and gave no foul. You do not see any similarities there? The only difference is the referee didn't acknowledge it at all.

you said " I was making sure you don't think you've covered where in the law it says outside of the box it's always a red card whether it was accidental or not. I said I'd like to see that and I would genuinely concede" I've done that, but you haven't conceded

 

[Metalartin]

you said " I was making sure you don't think you've covered where in the law it says outside of the box it's always a red card whether it was accidental or not. I said I'd like to see that and I would genuinely concede" I've done that, but you haven't conceded

I knew that was coming, I've added that. The part you quoted was nothing to do with outside the box, I should have spotted that in the section above it when I checked the source but there we go. However that was only one half of the argument which I will concede, and I maintained that from the start. I do not agree with the sending off still, certainly not this stonewall red some are trying to convey.

 

[flook]

I do not agree with the sending off still.

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, and as I said right at the start, it was harsh, in fact I even said in the long post on page 1 that the sending off was the right decision (probably). But by the laws of the game, once the free kick is given, it's a red card

 

[Marvin]

MOTD coverage deliberately ignored the VAR posters. Must have been very frustrating for those who organised it.