Vardy appeal rejected.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

6?

 

16 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

I gather they are including last season as well 

That's it two sendings off - 6 games banned isn't it? 

[Guest Danny Clender]

1 hour ago, Terraloon said:

Offsides are often subjective for instance was a player in an offside position interfering with play, likewise so are handballs (for it's the only foul  in football that nowadays has to be intentional ) be they in the area or outside. Football isn't like cricket or tennis where after a ball has been bowled or a point played  which is followed by a natural break

. Just imagine a linesman flags for offside and the review shows it wasn't what then? Or is it only going to be when ones not flagged . So how about an offside isn't flagged but the team that was offside immediately loses the ball and the opposition player shoots from inside his own half and scores what then dis allow the goal? Or how about ones given incorrectly  when it wasn't the team plays on and score but the opposition seeing the flag raised stop playing 

Of course referees get decisions wrong , they always  have but nowadays  the TV companies show the incident from ten or so angles in slow mo then super slow mo to prove a point. Some say it will only take a minute or so but say that happens 10 or so times in a game

Football is a fast incident packed game and to introduce breaks in play to prove or disprove a descion will be the death knell of football as a spectator sport.

All clubs and in particular supporters  feel they are badly threaten in this instance I really can't say with certainty that the nudge on Vardy forced him to launch two footed so from that point on he was out of control so can see why the red card wasn't overturned for it to have been the panel would have had to say that the referee made an obvious mistake.

 

I think, in regards to the time aspect of a decision being announced, its not as long as everybody imagines.

Let's use the instigator of this topic, Jamie Vardy's "Foul".

By the time everybody had made their decisions, remonstrations and opinions made, a video ref would have decided once and for all what should have happened long before Vardy walked down the tunnel. 30 - 45 seconds max. 

In this instance, I genuinely believe with the rules and technology in place had VAR have been used, Vardy would have been sent off.

That said, in the future with better visuals and moderation, he would have stayed, which is generally the opinion of most I've read.

The VAR technology in place now is kind of what we see on MOTD, yes with more angles, but admittedly its still not yet fully conclusive enough in terms of opinion.

The VAR of the future will have to rule out opinion and be solely fact based for it to work effectively. 

 

Offside is no different to a goal over the line, it either is or isn't. We're all used to those post-match decisions by now and they would become a thing of the past, its a 10 second decision at most. 

I'd say the points you raise, whilst very relevant, are 1% of discrepancies that are subjective. Most of which seem like questions for the 'You are the Ref' in The Guardian series. 

Of course having these types of disruptions would kill the game, they'd have to be limited. 

The Ref in a game of football is now flawed in the modern game, honesty and tradition died many years ago. 

 

Cricket and Tennis are always held up as examples of how different football is, but what about Ice Hockey and Basketball? Both furious games yet still seem to incorporate VAR very well. 

 

I've said it in another post, but In my opinion, the only alternative is for players, managers, fans, pundits and journo's to shut the F' up and accept the referees decisions and that's that, next.

In this day and age that will never ever happen.

So if a final court can make the decisions finite, then bring it on.

No more BS and mardy managers feeling 'unlucky' with decisions. 

I'm all ears to other suggestions, but I only see two options on the table at present.

[Guest seanfox778]

1 hour ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

 

That's it two sendings off - 6 games banned isn't it? 

It was only a 1 game ban for his West Ham red as it was 2 yellows.

[TAFKA Castroneves]

5 hours ago, Kendal Fox said:

Your comments strike a chord with me and, though it sounds outrageous and paranoid, I really do believe we have been singled out, going way back to the match v Arsenal in February, for the reasons you are alluding to. The rule change you talk about with the clamp down on holding and jostling is interesting in that, Robert Huth was manhandled several times in different matches, in full view of the ref but nothing was given?? (Crystal Palace late last season and Swansea this season come to mind). Yet we know how he and Morgan have been penalised for, not neccessarily the cleanest, but certainly more innocuous defending?!

Just looking at the likes of Ibrahimovic, Rojo and Barkley and comparing their actions to Simpson's (Arsenal in Feb), Vardy's (v West Ham), Drinkwater's (at UTD), Huth's (at UTD) and Vardy's challenge at the KP just last Saturday, there's no way anybody is telling me there isn't a disgraceful bias towards those players and against our players!! It's just plain dishonesty or naivety to say otherwise.

As another example of the inconsistency towards Vardy's appeal - Back in March, Sadio Mane had his red card rescinded within 30 hours of it being given??!! His argument was that he kept his eyes on the ball and he benefitted from retrospective, video evidence to show that??! Yet Vardy, had his eyes on the ball too and actually won it!!?? Again, was it because Southampton were 7th or 8th at the time and mathematically, had no way of challenging for the title?? Of course we are way off the pace, but it makes me wonder whether it's this vengeance thing towards us for upsetting the apple cart last season, so, if they can, they'd love it if they could help us get relegated...

There is still a heck of a lot that we had to deal with in winning the title last season that I won't forget. As you said, the matches being moved to Sundays during the last quarter of the season??! The match at Newcastle, originally scheduled for a Saturday afternoon was moved all the way back to the Monday evening!? That allowed Benitez to have 2 full training sessions with Newcastle who very nearly threw a spanner in the works for us that night.. Then Vardy's hat-trick v Man City and the way we were starting to come on v Stoke (before the red card) had me feeling confident that we'd have a very good run over the festive matches. That's now most probably been completely altered by the powers that be, and you can best believe they are mindful of the fact that Barkley's "apology" story is being heavily pushed in the media and that he is playing us next...

 

As a post-script, it's remarkable that we won the title by 10 points, though I worked out we probably would have won it by 16 had we not had Vardy sent off v West Ham or Drinkwater sent off v UTD. Think we'd then have beaten Chelsea... But I digress...

 

Now in hindsight my theories probably should have gone into a seperate topic as actually the Vardy red for me is a bit of a stretch to my original point, saw an opportunity to tie in together a few more longer running thoughts - and if I really wanted to make myself look a paranoid individual i could have gone on further - i'm not really that paranoid - i'm just very concious of the fact that the sheer amount of money the "big" clubs make and the Premier League makes really opens a door for severe corruption, there's so much money around and potentially so much more that a million here or there could be directed into indivduals pockets with a lot of ease - Swiss bank accounts etc - we all already know about agents and managers backhanders - but really has that problem been solved by the FA? Doesn't seem apart from hearing agents remember stories that there's much information out there about this problem being properly identified (when it was originally known) and methods put in to stop it, I would argue a recent example that that's still going on would be the Big Sam stuff with England.

 

Ironically money will be the only saviour if it is going on - as someone with information one day will get a nice offer from a newspaper to spill the beans

[NZ_Foxile]

17 minutes ago, seanfox778 said:

It was only a 1 game ban for his West Ham red as it was 2 yellows.

2 wasn't it? Jon Moss decided to report him him for pointing in his face and not leaving the pitch quickly enough, so he got an extra game 

[TAFKA Castroneves]

2 minutes ago, NZ_Foxile said:

2 wasn't it? Jon Moss decided to report him him for pointing in his face and not leaving the pitch quickly enough, so he got an extra game 

Schmeichel should have just floored Moss during that away day at Forest a few years back when he got sent off for kicking the ball back to the half-way line (joking) - i'm at least 90% sure he was the ref for that.

[Terraloon]

20 minutes ago, Danny Clender said:

I think, in regards to the time aspect of a decision being announced, its not as long as everybody imagines.

Let's use the instigator of this topic, Jamie Vardy's "Foul".

By the time everybody had made their decisions, remonstrations and opinions made, a video ref would have decided once and for all what should have happened long before Vardy walked down the tunnel. 30 - 45 seconds max. 

In this instance, I genuinely believe with the rules and technology in place had VAR have been used, Vardy would have been sent off.

That said, in the future with better visuals and moderation, he would have stayed, which is generally the opinion of most I've read.

The VAR technology in place now is kind of what we see on MOTD, yes with more angles, but admittedly its still not yet fully conclusive enough in terms of opinion.

The VAR of the future will have to rule out opinion and be solely fact based for it to work effectively. 

 

Offside is no different to a goal over the line, it either is or isn't. We're all used to those post-match decisions by now and they would become a thing of the past, its a 10 second decision at most. 

I'd say the points you raise, whilst very relevant, are 1% of discrepancies that are subjective. Most of which seem like questions for the 'You are the Ref' in The Guardian series. 

Of course having these types of disruptions would kill the game, they'd have to be limited. 

The Ref in a game of football is now flawed in the modern game, honesty and tradition died many years ago. 

 

Cricket and Tennis are always held up as examples of how different football is, but what about Ice Hockey and Basketball? Both furious games yet still seem to incorporate VAR very well. 

 

I've said it in another post, but In my opinion, the only alternative is for players, managers, fans, pundits and journo's to shut the F' up and accept the referees decisions and that's that, next.

In this day and age that will never ever happen.

So if a final court can make the decisions finite, then bring it on.

No more BS and mardy managers feeling 'unlucky' with decisions. 

I'm all ears to other suggestions, but I only see two options on the table at present.

Sorry to disagree but offside , as the rules stand, isn't as simple as it is or it isn't for as we saw only last Sunday a debate took place as to if Silva was active or not . The law of offside starts by saying you can be stood in an offside position but not be offside. Similarly again last weekend at Stoke a huge debate took place as to was it or wasn't it a deliberate handball. So unless you have a complete rewrite of the rules to say something like  a handball is given irrespective then someone is going to have to apply their opinion

if we use Rugby as an example time after time when the video ref gets involved the time taken to view and then take a second look at an incident far exceeds the 30-45 seconds you suggest would all that would be needed to take another look at

 

I agree that goal line technology was long overdue and I doubt it would be that difficult to extend to answer did the ball go out of play and from there a simple step who last played the ball but if we sanitise football too far because we don't like the odd descion and that's all it really is then we are in a great danger of ruining football altogether

 

 

[Guest seanfox778]

9 minutes ago, NZ_Foxile said:

2 wasn't it? Jon Moss decided to report him him for pointing in his face and not leaving the pitch quickly enough, so he got an extra game 

Oh yeah, forgot about that. He missed the Swansea and Man Utd game.

[NZ_Foxile]

1 hour ago, TAFKA Castroneves said:

Schmeichel should have just floored Moss during that away day at Forest a few years back when he got sent off for kicking the ball back to the half-way line (joking) - i'm at least 90% sure he was the ref for that.

Yes, he was. I never forgot that, as I was so angry and devastated at the time, we never beat Forest away back then. Never knew he would anger me even more years later!

[WigstonWanderer]

Video tech could be used to rule out those real howlers that really change the whole course of a match, without too much disruption or delay. I'm thinking of incidents surrounding goals, sendings off and possibly bookings. In all these cases there is a natural break in which incidents could be reviewed.

 

To reduce disruptions further, it could be like cricket where each side is only allowed to get a couple of challenges wrong.

 

I also think refs ought to be encouraged to have less ego, and accept that making mistakes is inevitable. Video tech could then be employed by them at their discretion to confirm what they think they saw before making a game changing decision.

[Guest Danny Clender]

8 hours ago, Terraloon said:

Sorry to disagree but offside , as the rules stand, isn't as simple as it is or it isn't for as we saw only last Sunday a debate took place as to if Silva was active or not . The law of offside starts by saying you can be stood in an offside position but not be offside. Similarly again last weekend at Stoke a huge debate took place as to was it or wasn't it a deliberate handball. So unless you have a complete rewrite of the rules to say something like  a handball is given irrespective then someone is going to have to apply their opinion

if we use Rugby as an example time after time when the video ref gets involved the time taken to view and then take a second look at an incident far exceeds the 30-45 seconds you suggest would all that would be needed to take another look at

 

I agree that goal line technology was long overdue and I doubt it would be that difficult to extend to answer did the ball go out of play and from there a simple step who last played the ball but if we sanitise football too far because we don't like the odd descion and that's all it really is then we are in a great danger of ruining football altogether

 

 

I still think in most instances offside offside is an easy one to sort out with VAR. 

The rules would have to be tweaked in certain cases to accommodate the trickier decisions. 

The handball one is ridiculous, that's going to rumble for a while. You're right, a rewrite of that rule is necessary, I think the penalty last Saturday had to stand. The obvious way there is any handling of the ball in the box is a penalty, that will always seem very harsh. 

 

I find the Rugby TMO decisions exciting, they are part of the game now.

 

I'm glad as always there's a debate about the introduction. Its a complete yes or no vote for VAR, and as we've seen this year, they always cause the most controversy. 

[NotTheMarketLeader]

11 hours ago, seanfox778 said:

It was only a 1 game ban for his West Ham red as it was 2 yellows.

I knew two yellows.

 

Didn't he get extra for bollocking the ref? 

 

Anyway its all bullshit

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

15 hours ago, The_77 said:

I don't mean to be a dick but I really can't believe that's what anyone could gather from that IG post.

You've got to admit it's either an incredibly naive or wierd thing to write?

[Buzzell]

 

How that doesn't warrant a red card I don't know. And I don't mean the Vardy challenge. 

 

[NotTheMarketLeader]

30 minutes ago, buzzer_b said:

 

How that doesn't warrant a red card I don't know. And I don't mean the Vardy challenge. 

 

Exactly, and therein those photos lies the unfair absurdety of the ****ing FA's ludicrous procedures. 

 

Vardy clearly wins the ball with ONE foot before any contact with the defender, while Henderson is very lucky not to be seriously injured by Barkley.

 

They are making a mockery of both the game as a whole,  and fans alike.

[st albans fox]

this is the game we all love. You get decisions and you don't get decisions 

 

The rules say a yellow cannot be reviewed unless it's mistaken identity

 

if you want the rules amended then much of Monday and Tuesday are going to be spent reviewing yellow cards!!

 

if you analyse Jamie's past couple of seasons there are tackles he has got away with a yellow which could have been a red and sometimes not had a deserved yellow. He plays a little on the edge so will always be susceptibile to the odd bit of 'rough justice'.

[jammie82uk]

28 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

Exactly, and therein those photos lies the unfair absurdety of the ****ing FA's ludicrous procedures. 

 

Vardy clearly wins the ball with ONE foot before any contact with the defender, while Henderson is very lucky not to be seriously injured by Barkley.

 

They are making a mockery of both the game as a whole,  and fans alike.

What makes it more of a mockery was that Barkley committed 3 more offences after getting the yellow that normally delivers at least a yellow card 

he pulled a player back, he kicked the ball away and he squared up to Henderson in a separate incident to the tackle 

[Manwell Pablo]

FFS Lads nearly a week ago now

 

[NotTheMarketLeader]

12 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

What makes it more of a mockery was that Barkley committed 3 more offences after getting the yellow that normally delivers at least a yellow card 

he pulled a player back, he kicked the ball away and he squared up to Henderson in a separate incident to the tackle 

I know. 

 

And people have the nerve to scoff when anyone should suggest certain teams are 'favoured' by decisions, or more to the point there is an element of skullduggery in football. 

[Tuna]

23 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

FFS Lads nearly a week ago now

 

This.

I've never been one to dwell on decisions, it's been, it's gone, it's done.

[HighPeakFox]

It's harsh, but listen - last season we got away with loads.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

It's harsh, but listen - last season we got away with loads.

?

[red5]

3 hours ago, buzzer_b said:

 

How that doesn't warrant a red card I don't know. And I don't mean the Vardy challenge. 

 

Look at Vardys arm.

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

?

There were plenty of decisions that went our way last season, we just remember the bad ones....

[st albans fox]

10 hours ago, Danny Clender said:

I still think in most instances offside offside is an easy one to sort out with VAR. 

The rules would have to be tweaked in certain cases to accommodate the trickier decisions. 

The handball one is ridiculous, that's going to rumble for a while. You're right, a rewrite of that rule is necessary, I think the penalty last Saturday had to stand. The obvious way there is any handling of the ball in the box is a penalty, that will always seem very harsh. 

 

I find the Rugby TMO decisions exciting, they are part of the game now.

 

I'm glad as always there's a debate about the introduction. Its a complete yes or no vote for VAR, and as we've seen this year, they always cause the most controversy. 

I find it annoying now as many refs don't bother to award tries anymore. They just put the responsibility onto the video ref. that would be my concern with football. The ref would slowly lose authority on the pitch as he is no longer in complete control. Rugby matches used to last 80 minutes plus 10 mins for the break and a couple mins from stopped time for injuries/subs. . now the premiership games often take longer than 90 minutes and some approach 100 due to TMO decisions and the general acceptance that the game is more stop/start than it used to be outside of scrums and line outs. 

 

Instant decisions of fact re balls outside of the playing area and maybe even assistants behind the goal line to help get corner/goal kick decisions right more often. that's where i would draw the line.