The VAR thread

[jonny_wright]

1 minute ago, ttfn said:

People are focussing on the wrong incident - as @Manwell Pablohas pointed out there’s a justification for not giving the penalty against de Bruyne as he’s protecting his face. I disagree as I think that in doing so he’s making his body bigger (the ball is going through a gap and hits the point of KDB’s elbow, not his hands which are covering his face) - but there’s a “get out” for the officials which means that they could argue it wasn’t clear and obvious.

 

Ederson has basically assaulted Iheanacho, it’s a clear penalty and I’m struggling to understand any justification for it not being a straight red card too. If you punch somebody so hard it knocks them unconscious you can’t expect to stay on the pitch.

Ederson did the same to Mane, but with his foot last season, straight red, 3 game ban! The favouritism is appalling 

[Guest ttfn]

12 hours ago, ttfn said:

Jumped the shark in the West Ham home game for me when it didn’t overturn their penalty.

 

Personally I think that was a penalty today against us. Praet has made his body bigger and the laws as they (stupidly) are, that’s a penalty.

 

But we’ve been absolutely screwed over time and again by VAR’s inconsistency with getting involved in anything remotely subjective:

 

Mane penalty at Anfield

Vardy “dive” against Watford

Ndidi “foul” against West Ham

Mee handball against Burnley

Nakamba handball against Aston Villa.

 

These are all very clear and obvious errors that haven’t been overturned. There are of course others that we’ve benefited from (and suffered from) that we’ve not had but they’ve tended to be in some way within the realms of subjectivity. There’s no excuse for the ones I’ve listed above and to give a penalty against Praet today after the explanation we got for the non-award of the penalty in the League Cup

semi (as much as I think it was one) really sticks in the craw.

Just realised i missed the worst of the lot which was Targett’s foul on Ricardo at Villa Park. We’ve had some absolutely wretched decisions this year.

[Corky]

3 minutes ago, ttfn said:

People are focussing on the wrong incident - as @Manwell Pablohas pointed out there’s a justification for not giving the penalty against de Bruyne as he’s protecting his face. I disagree as I think that in doing so he’s making his body bigger (the ball is going through a gap and hits the point of KDB’s elbow, not his hands which are covering his face) - but there’s a “get out” for the officials which means that they could argue it wasn’t clear and obvious.

 

Ederson has basically assaulted Iheanacho, it’s a clear penalty and I’m struggling to understand any justification for it not being a straight red card too. If you punch somebody so hard it knocks them unconscious you can’t expect to stay on the pitch.

Didn't Ben Foster do a similar thing on Vardy last season but outside the box? Why are goalkeepers seemingly given licence to clatter players?

 

Yes, he touched the ball. But plenty of tackles touch the ball and a foul is given (Choudhury last week, for example). I just can't see how that isn't excessive force.

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, Corky said:

Didn't Ben Foster do a similar thing on Vardy last season but outside the box? Why are goalkeepers seemingly given licence to clatter players?

This frustrates me a lot. 

 

They can use their body and clean out players regardless. But if you breathe on them at a corner or free kick it's an automatic infringement. 

[Guest ttfn]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Assuming that it is a mitigating excuse to be protecting your face then I could accept KDB last night but his hands aren’t in front of his face when the ball strikes his hand/arm ...... it’s simply inept officiating by the VAR ..... I’ve seen comments that the ball deflected onto his arm from Laporte’s back .....that would actually be a reason not to give it under the laws. But Shockley park didn’t say that with their explanation .....

It strikes his arm and Laporte’s back at the same time - de Bruyne’s arm is covering the gap between Laporte’s back and de Bruyne’s face.

 

I think he’s instinctively protecting his face and that in this case it’s irrelevant as he also backs away from the ball, leaving his arm to fill the gap.

[Guest Markyblue]

2 absolutely clear pens not given,  protecting his face so what it's handball and a pen. As for the assault on nacho when are you going to get one if not for that.

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, ttfn said:

People are focussing on the wrong incident - as @Manwell Pablohas pointed out there’s a justification for not giving the penalty against de Bruyne as he’s protecting his face. I disagree as I think that in doing so he’s making his body bigger (the ball is going through a gap and hits the point of KDB’s elbow, not his hands which are covering his face) - but there’s a “get out” for the officials which means that they could argue it wasn’t clear and obvious.

 

Ederson has basically assaulted Iheanacho, it’s a clear penalty and I’m struggling to understand any justification for it not being a straight red card too. If you punch somebody so hard it knocks them unconscious you can’t expect to stay on the pitch.

It’s an inevitable collision of two players going for a ball that both feel they will get to first ........ BUT, unless the authorities deal with this, one of two things will happen 

a) a player will be taken out in the air and land on their head, breaking their neck in the process or 

b) we get another shoemacker/Batiston incident 

 

as I commented last night, rugby has a law change so that if your challenge results in contact to the head and it wasn’t intentional, it’s your problem and becomes a penalty at best and s/off at worst. Players are responsible for the well being of their opponent above the shoulder - the outcome dictates the sanction ...... 

 

goalkeepers have too much leeway in this .....IFAB need to act on this before someone’s career is ended .....

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, jonny_wright said:

Ederson did the same to Mane, but with his foot last season, straight red, 3 game ban! The favouritism is appalling 

The decision last night was based on the fact that ederson just got a touch before he cleared kel out ...... but he wasn’t taking care of the safety of kel which is an offence - pen at best and s/off at worst though double jeopardy would probably lead to an odd situation .....

[Guest ttfn]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

It’s an inevitable collision of two players going for a ball that both feel they will get to first

Sorry this isn’t good enough.

 

There’s dozens of incidents in a football match where two players go for a ball thinking that they will get to it first - when you don’t get there in time you pay for that misjudgement with a free kick.

 

That’s without even considering the fact that this is clearly excessive force, meaning that the point about two players going for the ball is moot anyway.

 

Ederson keeps doing this and keeps getting away with it.

[Guest ttfn]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

The decision last night was based on the fact that ederson just got a touch before he cleared kel out ...... but he wasn’t taking care of the safety of kel which is an offence - pen at best and s/off at worst though double jeopardy would probably lead to an odd situation .....

No double jeopardy rule for serious foul play or

violent conduct.

[st albans fox]

Just now, ttfn said:

Sorry this isn’t good enough.

 

There’s dozens of incidents in a football match where two players go for a ball thinking that they will get to it first - when you don’t get there in time you pay for that misjudgement with a free kick.

 

That’s without even considering the fact that this is clearly excessive force, meaning that the point about two players going for the ball is moot anyway.

 

Ederson keeps doing this and keeps getting away with it.

the game is full of collisions .....

 you’re taught to go in hard or get hurt (see hamza v Ritchie )

but a striker going for a header against a keeper racing to clear him out is not a fair contest and the rules need to be changed to take that into account 

 

most laws have been changed over the years - (seventy years ago you could barge over the the keeper when he had the ball), to make the game safer and fairer ....... this is an area which hasn’t been dealt with and it needs to be as per my previous post ......

[Bert]

18 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Oh

You said you don't want to hear about human error so took that as not using that as an excuse. My bad. 

Yeah, human error is an easy way out for them isn’t it. Because at the end of the day “we’re all human” ra ra ra. For them to see all the incidents slowed down from various angles with all the benefits these professionals have, there should be no human error where VAR is concerned. 

[Vestan Pance]

Having watched it several times it's hard to believe Ederson's cowardly action. He can clearly see the ball and Nachos run due to the direction of flight of the ball. Nacho is eyes on ball and has little idea where Ederson is.

 

Disgraceful by Ederson and the officials, he has form for this and it's lucky he's not severely injured someone..........if you don't already consider giving someone concusion serious enough.

Edited 23 February 2020 by Vestan Pance

[coolhandfox]

Sorry but if that was a tackle and his foot clipped ball, but took the players leg just below the knee at that force it would be a red and a penalty.

 

 

[Guest bennytwohats]

I wish some of you could see how hopelessly biased some of your posts come across. Don’t get me wrong, we’ve had bad luck go against us recently, but this talk of a big conspiracy against Leicester is quite bizarre

[StanSP]

Just now, bennytwohats said:

I wish some of you could see how hopelessly biased some of your posts come across. Don’t get me wrong, we’ve had bad luck go against us recently, but this talk of a big conspiracy against Leicester is quite bizarre

I'd say it's more conspiracy towards Man City as opposed to against us. 

[Super_horns]

It is really all down to pot luck it seems and even managers who supported the system are confused.

 

No consistency as shown up in your day!

 

Although I noticed Jose did a Wenger and said he didn't see the Lo Cleso ackle!

 

I agree with Howe -  neither were handball really.

 

Naturally Dyche thought they were.

[Guest ttfn]

10 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

the game is full of collisions .....

 you’re taught to go in hard or get hurt (see hamza v Ritchie )

but a striker going for a header against a keeper racing to clear him out is not a fair contest and the rules need to be changed to take that into account 

I don’t disagree but the thing is... the rules don’t need to be changed at all, there’s not a separate rule for goalkeepers.

[Haywood_6]

I used to love football but VAR is actually sucking the life out of it for me now 

[lgfualol]

So every time we are defending set pieces and crosses I hope the players "protect their faces" by raising their arms in the air to block the shots and crosses. 

[Dorkingfox]

6 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I'd say it's more conspiracy towards Man City as opposed to against us. 

What because Man City as a club cheated? It is strange how VAR tends to favour the rich clubs, ask Wolves supporters. Man U have had 12 penalties this season more than anyone, we have conceded 12, strange?

Edited 23 February 2020 by Dorkingfox

[Guest bennytwohats]

10 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I'd say it's more conspiracy towards Man City as opposed to against us. 

And could you give any legitimate reason why the PL and all of the officials would want to conspire to help Man City win?

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, ttfn said:

I don’t disagree but the thing is... the rules don’t need to be changed at all, there’s not a separate rule for goalkeepers.

I think it will take an instruction from IFAB to apply the law to keepers aswell .....it’s simply accepted that a keeper can clear out an opponent, as long as they get a touch on the ball first ...... with VAR, it should be much simpler to judge these ‘collisions’. 

 

[CUJimmy]

27 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

the game is full of collisions .....

 you’re taught to go in hard or get hurt (see hamza v Ritchie )

but a striker going for a header against a keeper racing to clear him out is not a fair contest and the rules need to be changed to take that into account 

 

most laws have been changed over the years - (seventy years ago you could barge over the the keeper when he had the ball), to make the game safer and fairer ....... this is an area which hasn’t been dealt with and it needs to be as per my previous post ......

When I first watched the game I am sure that there was something about being able to barge the keeper when their feet were on the ground but not in the air.  I also seem remember something about them getting more protection in the goal area.

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, CUJimmy said:

When I first watched the game I am sure that there was something about being able to barge the keeper when their feet were on the ground but not in the air.  I also seem remember something about them getting more protection in the goal area.

You must be older then you look !