Also to add to that point the issue of encroachment was handwaved away in the article as not in the remit of VAR - but surely if an infraction occurs in the course of taking a penalty then that is a match-changing occurance and therefore is ABSOLUTELY in the remit of VAR.
VAR may one day eliminate games being decided by the officials mistakes instead of player skill but based on the reaction to last night it will never eliminate fan bias.
This is getting boring, its not necessarily fan bias here its an opinion which alot of us have. Agree to disagree really no need to keep saying its because its England as that wasn't a factor, when you watch it live sometimes it might be when you appeal for stuff but once you have watched back you watch the incident and then confirm.
The overreaction is fan bias and I have been as guilty of it over the years when it comes to Charlton & England as much as anyone else.
The reality is if that had been Bonucci on Rashford up the other end of the pitch & it had not been given most of the same people would be complaining about us being robbed by a terrible official.
VAR is not perfect yet but the system like any changes in the sport will never improve until it is used as much as possible at the highest level, so hopefully fans can deal with living through the beta phase and stop throwing hissy fits.
Again, you are assuming people are being Bias. I can promise you that i personally have not been and feel it was too borderline to call it, might technically be a foul but had it been given to us and not the italians it wouldn't change my view on it.
Alot of the debate has shown that probably 50/50 have said no foul on here, possibly higher elsewhere but if its not 99%-100% correct, there should be no doubt but there still is. Not saying people who have said no foul is correct, just due to the grey area in this instance (NOT BIAS) it should not have been awarded. Again thats In My Opinion and not based on anything because its England.
Yes, it is completely irrelevant if a player is not in control of the ball, or if the ball has run in front of him. Neither does it matter if a player appears to already be on the way down. You can still be fouled.
Yeah you can still be failed if someones sliding in like a wild man or boots you in the head. That clearly didn't happen. The only reason there was contact, is because the attacking player going down meant that his leg/feet moved into the path of the defending player. There was no intent, or unnatural movement from the defender. If thats deemed a foul because a super slow motion replay is looking for contact, then expect more soft penalties and the possibility of more players going down easily.
But what do i know, I'm obtuse and dull, not a bald arse licking wannabe journo.
The real shock was seeing an England player I didn't recognise, who it turns out is called Tarkowski. I must be very out of touch as I've never heard of him.
Possible you may have seen him play before. I'm sure he played for Brentford against us.
'Important point: the VAR did not over-rule the referee on the pitch. VAR told the referee to look at the decision himself using an OFR. That the referee then decided to award the penalty is purely his own decision.'
Well, technically it does overrule the referee doesn't it? He saw it and didn't see anything wrong with it, so the referee has actually made that conscious decision that it was a fair challenge and, subsequently a corner.
I like VAR, I believe we should be using it, we need to realise its use is not going to be perfect straight away, but the decision last night was down to human interpretation.
I like people ignoring Ashley Young barging into Chiesa was the only reason he was on his way down. He was fouled by Young and any chance of staying up was ended when Tarkowski trod on his foot.
How can VAR be used by Referees from Gambia and French Polynesia, or do their Leagues already use it themselves? - Wont be surprised if it takes them a few minutes to work out what the TV Screen does in the first place!!
Dont worry the 7pm games will go on till 11pm...nether the less everyones "opinion" will be right once reviewed....wonder if the 11 pm games will get held back.
Apologies if this has already been said, because I haven't read the entire thread but isn't this just like the umpire referral system in cricket, in that it was brought in with the intention of eradicating the absolutely disastrous mistakes that umpires and referees occasionally make - the real injustices - but in its practical application it's started to be used in relation to all sorts of much more questionable decisions. I can live with that so long as it does eliminate the real shockers.
It should only be used for matters of fact not opinion...why do they use it for penalties and not for free kicks outside the box for example. Get rid of it.
Nobody is arguing that goal line technology was a bad idea though. It was trialled and introduced successfully and I have not heard of any controversy surrounding it.
The thing with the goal-line technology is that its either over the or it isn't there is nothing subjective about it
Nobody is arguing that goal line technology was a bad idea though. It was trialled and introduced successfully and I have not heard of any controversy surrounding it.
The thing with the goal-line technology is that its either over the or it isn't there is nothing subjective about it
That’s because most countries use Hawkeye, and it’s worked pretty well, players trust it, there have been a couple of problems in Italy, but it works well. The GLT system in France has had a load of problems, only major league not using Hawkeye, and there was a mini scandal of operators in trucks making the refs watch vibrate on marginal calls, because the system was ropey.
Nobody is arguing that goal line technology was a bad idea though. It was trialled and introduced successfully and I have not heard of any controversy surrounding it.
The thing with the goal-line technology is that its either over the or it isn't there is nothing subjective about it
That’s because most countries use Hawkeye, and it’s worked pretty well, players trust it, there have been a couple of problems in Italy, but it works well. The GLT system in France has had a load of problems, only major league not using Hawkeye, and there was a mini scandal of operators in trucks making the refs watch vibrate on marginal calls, because the system was ropey.
If you tread on an attackers foot in the area as they are attacking and they go down it is a foul. Don't make contact. It absolutely meant nothing to England drawing the game and if VAR had operated in previous World Cups England would be very much in credit.
It's not great though is it? Why let the players leave the pitch if there is an active review? Ref blows for half-time fine - how hard is it for him to do his silly little review gesture and tell the players to stay where they are for a minute? Imagine if that had happened after the full time whistle instead of half time - you'd have 3/4 of the crowd out of their seats on the way out because the final whistle had gone.
another thought; if the pen had been saved and stayed in play would the ref just insta-blow for half-time or wait for any other move in the attacking area to break down like they normally do with injury time?
It's not great though is it? Why let the players leave the pitch if there is an active review? Ref blows for half-time fine - how hard is it for him to do his silly little review gesture and tell the players to stay where they are for a minute? Imagine if that had happened after the full time whistle instead of half time - you'd have 3/4 of the crowd out of their seats on the way out because the final whistle had gone.
Not fantastic no but that's a problem with the way the ref handled the situation rather than with the technology itself.
Again not sure what's controversial. It was a clear penalty and then a penalty was given. It was an unusual situation and it was handled by the refs poorly but the right outcome was reached in a match between two teams fighting relegation.
Perhaps players should always remain on the pitch for a minute after the game in case the VAR spots something until a "final" final whistle is blown and then we can all go home!
Comments
Alot of the debate has shown that probably 50/50 have said no foul on here, possibly higher elsewhere but if its not 99%-100% correct, there should be no doubt but there still is. Not saying people who have said no foul is correct, just due to the grey area in this instance (NOT BIAS) it should not have been awarded. Again thats In My Opinion and not based on anything because its England.
I will leave it there.
So was it a foul?
Yes, it is completely irrelevant if a player is not in control of the ball, or if the ball has run in front of him. Neither does it matter if a player appears to already be on the way down. You can still be fouled.
Yeah you can still be failed if someones sliding in like a wild man or boots you in the head. That clearly didn't happen. The only reason there was contact, is because the attacking player going down meant that his leg/feet moved into the path of the defending player. There was no intent, or unnatural movement from the defender. If thats deemed a foul because a super slow motion replay is looking for contact, then expect more soft penalties and the possibility of more players going down easily.
But what do i know, I'm obtuse and dull, not a bald arse licking wannabe journo.
Franny Lee had a Korean nickname ?
Lee won pen.
Well, technically it does overrule the referee doesn't it? He saw it and didn't see anything wrong with it, so the referee has actually made that conscious decision that it was a fair challenge and, subsequently a corner.
I like VAR, I believe we should be using it, we need to realise its use is not going to be perfect straight away, but the decision last night was down to human interpretation.
Can anyone make a frame by frame gif of the footage so we can have our own 'proper' post match VAR review?
Are we worried about VAR at the World Cup?
"I don't think there's any need to worry about it. Because it's clearly going to be a shambles. What's the point in worrying about it."