robertmac43
Forever 43!
- Mar 31, 2015
- 23,467
- 15,596
GWT: PL Matchweek (mostly) 11
- Thread starter Savant
- Start date
This is one of the reasons why I hate VAR. I believe refs are reffing the game differently because of VAR.
From the angles we saw that was obviously not clear and obvious. Even if 51% seems to be clear and obvious so...
From the angles we saw that was obviously not clear and obvious. Even if 51% seems to be clear and obvious so...
robertmac43
Forever 43!
- Mar 31, 2015
- 23,467
- 15,596
From some of the clips I've seen, he scouts the opposing player out first then puts his body in front as they are landing. So I think in that sense it's not as difficult to judge his intent. But as you say, he should cut it out. Someone can really get hurt by landing on their head or neck.
robertmac43
Forever 43!
- Mar 31, 2015
- 23,467
- 15,596
I'm actually perplexed as to how they awarded a pen. It's embarrassing at this point.
As far as I know this is the only thing related to how to judge when a foul happens:
"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."
That specifically says holding, but I'm not sure why that shouldn't also apply for situations like tonight.
I seriously question the use of VAR here. I cannot see how the penalty can be given by VAR, but I do believe it was the correct decision.
"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."
That specifically says holding, but I'm not sure why that shouldn't also apply for situations like tonight.
I seriously question the use of VAR here. I cannot see how the penalty can be given by VAR, but I do believe it was the correct decision.
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,426
- 45,314
Law 14 - The Penalty Kick
It specifically says holding because you could grab someone outside the box but not take them down and have them continue to run into the box before it becomes a clear foul. I don't think that is applicable in this situation since it was a tackle/bodycheck outside the box, it wasn't a continuous foul from outside to inside the box.
What happens if you push a player (which one can argue happens here) - the player continues to move forward, but as he stumbles over he gets tackled (which you can also argue happens here). Do you then give the first foul which is the push or the second?
To me this idea of "initiating contact" is some sort of myth created by fans. I might be wrong, but if that was the criteria why isn't it stated like that in the rules?
Not that I know what kind of evaluate the VAR room made. Which makes it even more troublesome. And not that I'm an expert on the rules, but when I coached I had to take courses in reffing so I'm not completely blank. Even reffed some games for fun.
To me this idea of "initiating contact" is some sort of myth created by fans. I might be wrong, but if that was the criteria why isn't it stated like that in the rules?
Not that I know what kind of evaluate the VAR room made. Which makes it even more troublesome. And not that I'm an expert on the rules, but when I coached I had to take courses in reffing so I'm not completely blank. Even reffed some games for fun.
hatterson
Registered User
If it is a single action (eg, trip, hip check, leg kick, foot clip, etc.) then the foul occurs where the contact first happened. If it is a continual action (ie, holding) then it occurs where you stop the infringing behavior, hence why the rules mention a hold continuing into the box. If it is multiple independent actions (eg, you try to trip with one leg but only knock him off balance so swing back around with the other to finish the takedown), then the referee could play advantage on the first action and award a foul for the second which would put the spot at the point of second contact.
Basing it only on the pictures in here, it looks like a single action and thus awarding a pen looks wrong, but that's hard to say without video.
Basing it only on the pictures in here, it looks like a single action and thus awarding a pen looks wrong, but that's hard to say without video.
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,426
- 45,314
Well said, and this is my understanding.
In this case it was a single action outside the box and momentum carried them into the box.
I don't see how you can divide "actions" that easily.
In this case it looks to me like KWP first is pushed in the back - which I think is clearly outside - then they tangle their feet - which I do believe is inside the box.
Feel sorry for Brighton though. As stated earlier I can't see how VAR can give that unless they got video from angles we haven't seen.
Every football fan would have accepted that not being a penalty. Most probably would have swallowed the decision if the ref had given it as a penalty in real time as well (maybe if we take away VAR players and pundits will be more respectful towards refs for a couple of years?).
In this case it looks to me like KWP first is pushed in the back - which I think is clearly outside - then they tangle their feet - which I do believe is inside the box.
Feel sorry for Brighton though. As stated earlier I can't see how VAR can give that unless they got video from angles we haven't seen.
Every football fan would have accepted that not being a penalty. Most probably would have swallowed the decision if the ref had given it as a penalty in real time as well (maybe if we take away VAR players and pundits will be more respectful towards refs for a couple of years?).
It wasn't close on any replay they showed. Absolutely no idea how they decided to overturn.
hatterson
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2016
- 34,182
- 25,353
