VAR impact and consequence log - game 27

MillionMilesAway said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're not quite sure why I think there needs to be clear definitions rather than "spirit of the game" comments from officials? It should be <insert clearly defined law here> "because it's in the spirit of the game". That said, if he actually meant that none should be allowed because they feel it's against the spirit of the game, then that's more acceptable. Although I do prefer the original interpretation, from when I first read the law. Skimming someone's hand on the way past, who knew nothing about it should be allowed. Suppose there is no pleasing everyone though.

Oh, you're one of the guys defending the Liverpool goal(do you really want to open that can of worms?)... okay then.

Disagree again, should have been ruled out.

So in your opinion, gaining possession is merely a touch of the ball(so is a deflection gaining possession?). Well my understanding of possession involves gaining control of the ball and City did not do that at any point. A toe and a scuffed clearance is not really possession in my book, the danger was never cleared either.

Chain of events:

Liverpool half
City in possession(a city player had control of the ball), Bernardo handball,
TAA handball, turnover of possession(a Liverpool player had control of the ball), immediate counter that Liverpool wouldn't have had.

City half
Angelino cut out cross(toe) to Salah, loose ball(no control of the ball), Gundo scuffed clearance under pressure from Salah
Loose ball(no control of the ball), Fabinho free shot on the edge of the box,

A good shot, but did Liverpool earn him that chance fairly? The goal hinged on a counter attack, the attacking phase was still active because City didn't recover possession or clear the danger.
 
Last edited:
BobbyBoy said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you mean a foul given is always just a "foul", that's correct. There are still cases where a genuine attempt to play the ball is made, or no attempt to impede the opposition player is made but a foul is given. A referee clearly takes these things into consideration when it comes to disciplinary action for any foul(intent as well as other aspects). A coming together(as Ederson's was) or a tangle of legs can be given as fouls even though they are accidental/not deliberate but they rarely result in cards being shown in most circumstances. Intent does matter and has been a part of the decision making process for a long time, why wouldn't they apply it here?

Yes it happens to be a last man situation but did he seek to deny a goal scoring opportunity? Not all in my view, he went for the ball. Should that matter? If it matters inside of the box, why shouldn't it matter outside of the box? Outside of the box a referee is normally more lenient with most things. This would be one of the only situations I can think of where punishment is more lenient inside of the box for the same incident outside of the box.

I disagree with you, it was a harsh red card, down to a player looking to get someone sent off, he could have not leaned in and tried to stay on his feet and scored. It was an open net. If you can't see why that's not in the spirit of the game, then I don't know what else to to tell you. What did Eddie really do so wrong? Got beat to the ball? He's a sweeper keeper, he's asked to do that role.

I genuinely wouldn't even want Spurs' keeper getting sent off for a coming together, where an attacker has been snide about the contact. Sliding in for a tackle, missing the ball and taking a player down, is a different kettle of fish. Let's not pretend they are the same.
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
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?
Click to expand...

You've not read my post properly. I said "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" so straight away your David Luiz example doesn't apply (first bold bit) and you've debunked your own argument on the Kompany incident (second bold bit)

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.

You can close this argument once and for all by showing me a single comparable incident of goalkeeper fouling an attacker outside the box in a last man situation, in the premier league, which didn't result in a red card
 
The law specifies what should be considered a foul, but it does not and cannot control what the ref does. All challenges are judged by the ref as to whether they are fouls or not. A collision between two players anywhere can be given as a foul or not. Sometimes the ref is wrong, sometimes bafflingly so. That's where the inconsistency stems from, not the law.
@flook points out that Luiz was not penalised at all, so there was no foul given to decide about. A sending off may also not be given when the ref decides there is no violent conduct and not DOGSO, which includes the concept of there being a covering defender.

You have misread my part about TAA in the Liverpool match and come to a wrong conclusion on my opinion about the Fabinho goal. I put this:
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.
The inverted commas were deliberate. I have not said that I support the goal, I have said that I don't support that reason to disallow it. My opinion is that it shouldn't have been allowed because TAA committed a handball offence and there should have been a penalty to City - a different reason.

I'm not going to continue this. My opinion differs from yours, and I think some of your statements about the laws are factually wrong, and some of your statements about my opinions are not accurate reflections of my opinions. You think my opinions are wrong on some things.
 
PS. I know it’s childish but some one at Untold Arsenal uses the words “Video Assisted Rigging” for the acronym, VAR.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
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
Click to expand...
Unbelievable although hardly surprising. Given that in some FA Cup games VAR is being used and in others not, like last season, the fact that teams are playing under different laws is nothing new. How about awarding four points for a win for teams in red and only two for others. Fans need to protest in numbers in a joint show of strength, problem is it won't happen and the media won't report on the farcical situation it presents. The other issue of course is lack of transparency as VAR will now say you have to change your decision but run along to the monitor to make it look as is it's your decision and not one of a corrupt organisation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.