Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
VAR - are you a fan?
Comments
-
The big controversy IS the change for attacking players though. We've had 2 goals ruled out for accidental handballs which led to a goal, which none of the players on the pitch or officials saw, as it's only through VAR that the offence was spotted. It's not as if the attacking player even had his arm outPeterGage said:The Handball law has not changed that much but doesnt appear to be fully understood, judging by some comments on here. The "intent" logic still applies but has been extended so that any arm that is not in a natural position (what players run aroun d with their arms aloft?) Is deemed to be intentional if the ball strikes it. The major change is that if say an attacker has handled the ball (intentional or non intentional) and a goal results following that handball, then the goal is ruled out.
Other than above, all "handball" offences that before were deemed to be unintentional and were not penalised, remain unpenalised.
One can offer an opinion on whether the new interpretation is progessive or regressive, but I have stated the new interpretation
Have a good day one and all.
It's an odd situation that the same offence by a defender would have gone unpunished.
0 -
I dont disagree with your comments. I simply posted in an attempt to add clarity to the law changekillerandflash said:
The big controversy IS the change for attacking players though. We've had 2 goals ruled out for accidental handballs which led to a goal, which none of the players on the pitch or officials saw, as it's only through VAR that the offence was spotted. It's not as if the attacking player even had his arm outPeterGage said:The Handball law has not changed that much but doesnt appear to be fully understood, judging by some comments on here. The "intent" logic still applies but has been extended so that any arm that is not in a natural position (what players run aroun d with their arms aloft?) Is deemed to be intentional if the ball strikes it. The major change is that if say an attacker has handled the ball (intentional or non intentional) and a goal results following that handball, then the goal is ruled out.
Other than above, all "handball" offences that before were deemed to be unintentional and were not penalised, remain unpenalised.
One can offer an opinion on whether the new interpretation is progessive or regressive, but I have stated the new interpretation
Have a good day one and all.
It's an odd situation that the same offence by a defender would have gone unpunished.1 -
We all know that some refs would say it was and some say it wasn't. I'd side with the latter. I think the term unnatural position is a strange one to use. When you are throwing yourself around a football pitch, your arms develop all sorts of strange positions. Are they unnatural? I would say, quite often not unless we are talking about Riverdance rather than football. Makes much more sense to abolish the term unnatural and let the ref decide if there was intent or not.ForeverAddickted said:
For my own clarification, there was a moment during our game on Saturday against Barnsley when Pearce charged out of defence, blocked a shot and looked to have his arms up to protect his face - Now I cant tell myself if its hit him on the arm or in the face yet Barnsley fans were adament they should have had a penaltyPeterGage said:The Handball law has not changed that much but doesnt appear to be fully understood, judging by some comments on here. The "intent" logic still applies but has been extended so that any arm that is not in a natural position (what players run aroun d with their arms aloft?) Is deemed to be intentional if the ball strikes it. The major change is that if say an attacker has handled the ball (intentional or non intentional) and a goal results following that handball, then the goal is ruled out.
Other than above, all "handball" offences that before were deemed to be unintentional and were not penalised, remain unpenalised.
One can offer an opinion on whether the new interpretation is progessive or regressive, but I have stated the new interpretation
Have a good day one and all.
Would that be regarded as a natural position to have the arms or did we get away with one?
IF of course it even struck his arm in the first place2 -
After watching Norwich v Chelsea, it’s reaffirmed for me that I don’t like it.
Fine for goal line and offside decisions but not all over the pitch.
Deliberate stamp by Godfrey on Mount yesterday (red card) and they don’t even consider it.
And now Bournemouth v Man City, Lermer treads on Silva’s foot in the penalty area, goes to VAR, no penalty. Granted ref didn’t give it but VAR should’ve done.
Appreciate it can’t be perfect but for me, it’s flawed.2 -
No0
-
Hmm... Penalty or not on Harry Kane?
Nothing given but unsure0 -
I dont know what VAR is there for anymore, 2 clear penalties Spurs should have had and VAR said no to both.
I just dont understand anymore1 -
The way Kane positioned his body then it did look as though he stopped running towards the ballpaulie8290 said:I dont know what VAR is there for anymore, 2 clear penalties Spurs should have had and VAR said no to both.
I just dont understand anymore
Saw the Newcastle player going down so altered his shape so he fell over him
In that sense he went looking for it a little bit but then the Newcastle player shouldnt have fallen into him like that
And pundits were worried about not being needed anymore with decisions now "cleared" up0 -
It is how they implement it - it should be down to teams to have a review that they can't waste. Imagine you are a ref and you don't think it is a pen - then you get a voice in your ear saying - you might want to look at that again. That voice is almost telling you have made a mistake. I think they are trying to look at it now and say - ref's judgement, a bit like umpire's call. But it is all a nonsense - VAR will work when the objective of it is to make the game fairer. Not totally fair, as that is not possible.paulie8290 said:I dont know what VAR is there for anymore, 2 clear penalties Spurs should have had and VAR said no to both.
I just dont understand anymore0 - Sponsored links:
-
That was a stonewall penaltyForeverAddickted said:
The way Kane positioned his body then it did look as though he stopped running towards the ballpaulie8290 said:I dont know what VAR is there for anymore, 2 clear penalties Spurs should have had and VAR said no to both.
I just dont understand anymore
Saw the Newcastle player going down so altered his shape so he fell over him
In that sense he went looking for it a little bit but then the Newcastle player shouldnt have fallen into him like that
And pundits were worried about not being needed anymore with decisions now "cleared" up1 -
A bit better today, I thought. Three decisions that I saw, VAR decided were not clear and obvious errors so stuck with the refs decision. That's how it should be.1
-
definite penalty even before seeing any replay .. Lascelles dived in front of Kane in order to trip him up .. that was a penalty even if they were playing rugby, ice hockey or MMAForeverAddickted said:Hmm... Penalty or not on Harry Kane?
Nothing given but unsure
1 -
The way Kane played yesterday, he would have blazes it into the upper tier...Lincsaddick said:
definite penalty even before seeing any replay .. Lascelles dived in front of Kane in order to trip him up .. that was a penalty even if they were playing rugby, ice hockey or MMAForeverAddickted said:Hmm... Penalty or not on Harry Kane?
Nothing given but unsure1 -
Agree, because in the woman's World cup when we played the Cameroon's they had a forward facing her own goal and by a cigarette paper their goal was chalked off.killerandflash said:To me the changes to the offside rule and the use of VAR are making judgements based on say 95% certainty at the moment
Much better than before but I don't believe the technology is 100% accurate yet, and to me the benefit should go to the attacker when there's this element of doubt. A football version of "umpire's call"
I was pleased at the time but the law that attacking players in line with the 2nd last defender is onside is being lost because VAR can only represent the rules as they stand.
Clear up the laws and rules then VAR can only be a good thing. At the moment there are too many anomalies.0 -
In your opinion.Macronate said:After watching Norwich v Chelsea, it’s reaffirmed for me that I don’t like it.
Fine for goal line and offside decisions but not all over the pitch.
Deliberate stamp by Godfrey on Mount yesterday (red card) and they don’t even consider it.
And now Bournemouth v Man City, Lermer treads on Silva’s foot in the penalty area, goes to VAR, no penalty. Granted ref didn’t give it but VAR should’ve done.
Appreciate it can’t be perfect but for me, it’s flawed.
Very subjective if he meant to stamp on him. He was deffo trying to mark his territory but just like the Tyrone Ming's on old Swedish big head when Bournemouth v United a couple of years ago only the player who commits the deed knows the intent.
Every picture doesn't tell the whole story.
Another Ref could easily have agreed with you and a Red would have seen the impressive Godfrey stamping his feet before the FA.
0 -
Some absolute shockers today.0
-
West Ham one was funny. If that wasn’t a clear and obvious pen I don’t know what is.0
-
VAR is a waste of time if you are not going to use it properly. As Jeff Stelling said a few weeks ago, it's there to deny goals. 1st weekend of the season & Man City have a goal disallowed because a players shoulder is 2 inches in front of the defender......but a clear goal scoring opportunity (or a goal even) is not reviewed.1
-
The big thing for me is who is using VAR.
ATM its like the people in the VAR office are worried about overturning a decision as it will undermine the referee, and then next time they ref a game if its the ref they just undermined the week before then he might want to get his own back sort of thing.
For me thay can be the only explanation as to why they dont want to undermine a refs decision, so to change this get retired refs in the VAR office2 - Sponsored links:
-
No it can't - for the reason I have given before - it takes the joy out of what is, ultimately, an entertainment.soapboxsam said:
Agree, because in the woman's World cup when we played the Cameroon's they had a forward facing her own goal and by a cigarette paper their goal was chalked off.killerandflash said:To me the changes to the offside rule and the use of VAR are making judgements based on say 95% certainty at the moment
Much better than before but I don't believe the technology is 100% accurate yet, and to me the benefit should go to the attacker when there's this element of doubt. A football version of "umpire's call"
I was pleased at the time but the law that attacking players in line with the 2nd last defender is onside is being lost because VAR can only represent the rules as they stand.
Clear up the laws and rules then VAR can only be a good thing. At the moment there are too many anomalies.
Even if they get every single decision spot on as far as 100% of people are concerned, I do not want to have to wait until a man in a TV studio tells me it is okay to celebrate.
If you do, then you are a fan of a different game to the one I am a fan of.
7 -
I was on the fence but now we are into the season I am not a fan at all. What was the fucking point? I saw the palace game against villa this morning on MOTD. Sky reporters yesterday said it was terrible. My 1st thought before seeing it is that Grealish does go down a lot, especially with his shin pads so low. He went down 5/6 times against us in the friendly. So my thought was "I am not surprised as it gives refs that impression". However, (taking away the fact it was against Palace, that was a real shocker by Freiend. a) He slight got caught by Zaha, was it, on the way though, he lost his balance slightly but then carried on, gets into the penalty box and as he shapes up to play the ball wide to his team mate he is caught by Cahill. At no point did Grealish dive or was looking for the penalty and did not look to the ref at any stage pleading for a penalty like he normally does,
Yes, they could argue that VAR is not used when whistle is stopped and can't give give the goal. Fine.
Ref got decision wrong and it should have carried on.
Yet in Fulham game, there was play acting by a Fulham player 2 weeks ago? No yellow card and he scored.
I haven't seen the Leicester game.
Sports commentators are all saying red card, but referred to VAR and not.
Part of this is the cock up by the refs like Friend.
1 -
Back in the day at Old Trafford under Ferguson, no team got a penalty at United.Algarveaddick said:
No it can't - for the reason I have given before - it takes the joy out of what is, ultimately, an entertainment.soapboxsam said:
Agree, because in the woman's World cup when we played the Cameroon's they had a forward facing her own goal and by a cigarette paper their goal was chalked off.killerandflash said:To me the changes to the offside rule and the use of VAR are making judgements based on say 95% certainty at the moment
Much better than before but I don't believe the technology is 100% accurate yet, and to me the benefit should go to the attacker when there's this element of doubt. A football version of "umpire's call"
I was pleased at the time but the law that attacking players in line with the 2nd last defender is onside is being lost because VAR can only represent the rules as they stand.
Clear up the laws and rules then VAR can only be a good thing. At the moment there are too many anomalies.
Even if they get every single decision spot on as far as 100% of people are concerned, I do not want to have to wait until a man in a TV studio tells me it is okay to celebrate.
If you do, then you are a fan of a different game to the one I am a fan of.
When one was given by a younger ref he nearly got chocked by Roy Keane and his gang.
I was at Arsenal when Kevin Richardson brought down a Charlton Player in the box.
A 100% stonewall penalty. It happened down the away end right in front of me.
Any of you guys remember ? Walsh ?
VAR would have given that, it was that blatant. Even Richardson was smiling as he knew it was the wrong decision.
VAR is superb but the human element still needs improving. If a ref makes a mistake them ref behind the screen should be brave and over rule him.
You are definitely a fan of a different game to me if you can't see it's the only chance in some cases for a smaller club to get decisions at the bigger clubs.
Do you not like reviews at cricket ? Maybe your not into cricket.
At least a goal won't be disallowed in the Premier when the ball rebounds out.
Clive Allen from memory.1 -
I think it was Andy Peake. As blatant a penalty as you will ever see.soapboxsam said:
Back in the day at Old Trafford under Ferguson, no team got a penalty at United.Algarveaddick said:
No it can't - for the reason I have given before - it takes the joy out of what is, ultimately, an entertainment.soapboxsam said:
Agree, because in the woman's World cup when we played the Cameroon's they had a forward facing her own goal and by a cigarette paper their goal was chalked off.killerandflash said:To me the changes to the offside rule and the use of VAR are making judgements based on say 95% certainty at the moment
Much better than before but I don't believe the technology is 100% accurate yet, and to me the benefit should go to the attacker when there's this element of doubt. A football version of "umpire's call"
I was pleased at the time but the law that attacking players in line with the 2nd last defender is onside is being lost because VAR can only represent the rules as they stand.
Clear up the laws and rules then VAR can only be a good thing. At the moment there are too many anomalies.
Even if they get every single decision spot on as far as 100% of people are concerned, I do not want to have to wait until a man in a TV studio tells me it is okay to celebrate.
If you do, then you are a fan of a different game to the one I am a fan of.
When one was given by a younger ref he nearly got chocked by Roy Keane and his gang.
I was at Arsenal when Kevin Richardson brought down a Charlton Player in the box.
A 100% stonewall penalty. It happened down the away end right in front of me.
Any of you guys remember ? Walsh ?
VAR would have given that, it was that blatant. Even Richardson was smiling as he knew it was the wrong decision.
VAR is superb but the human element still needs improving. If a ref makes a mistake them ref behind the screen should be brave and over rule him.
You are definitely a fan of a different game to me if you can't see it's the only chance in some cases for a smaller club to get decisions at the bigger clubs.
Do you not like reviews at cricket ? Maybe your not into cricket.
At least a goal won't be disallowed in the Premier when the ball rebounds out.
Clive Allen from memory.
But VAR is not "superb". I thought the intention was for it to overturn "clear and obvious errors" but it just isnt doing that.
As well as the Villa "goal" incorrectly chalked off yesterday what about the Newcastle goal where it touched their own players hand in the build up? (Even though that's a shit rule). I thought the idea was to improve consistency, but theres two massive wrong decisions that it did nothing to correct yesterday alone.
Not convinced.
1 -
Where's the evidence of that happening though? Big clubs will probably still get the decisions as it's still humans making the call.soapboxsam said:
Back in the day at Old Trafford under Ferguson, no team got a penalty at United.Algarveaddick said:
No it can't - for the reason I have given before - it takes the joy out of what is, ultimately, an entertainment.soapboxsam said:
Agree, because in the woman's World cup when we played the Cameroon's they had a forward facing her own goal and by a cigarette paper their goal was chalked off.killerandflash said:To me the changes to the offside rule and the use of VAR are making judgements based on say 95% certainty at the moment
Much better than before but I don't believe the technology is 100% accurate yet, and to me the benefit should go to the attacker when there's this element of doubt. A football version of "umpire's call"
I was pleased at the time but the law that attacking players in line with the 2nd last defender is onside is being lost because VAR can only represent the rules as they stand.
Clear up the laws and rules then VAR can only be a good thing. At the moment there are too many anomalies.
Even if they get every single decision spot on as far as 100% of people are concerned, I do not want to have to wait until a man in a TV studio tells me it is okay to celebrate.
If you do, then you are a fan of a different game to the one I am a fan of.
When one was given by a younger ref he nearly got chocked by Roy Keane and his gang.
I was at Arsenal when Kevin Richardson brought down a Charlton Player in the box.
A 100% stonewall penalty. It happened down the away end right in front of me.
Any of you guys remember ? Walsh ?
VAR would have given that, it was that blatant. Even Richardson was smiling as he knew it was the wrong decision.
VAR is superb but the human element still needs improving. If a ref makes a mistake them ref behind the screen should be brave and over rule him.
You are definitely a fan of a different game to me if you can't see it's the only chance in some cases for a smaller club to get decisions at the bigger clubs.
Do you not like reviews at cricket ? Maybe your not into cricket.
At least a goal won't be disallowed in the Premier when the ball rebounds out.
Clive Allen from memory.
The way I see it, and I think the West Ham incident yesterday proves it, is that refs are now bottling big decisions as they have VAR to make them but VAR isn't doing that as they don't want to undermine the ref, therefore rendering it utterly pointless.0 -
The stand the Premier League has taken is causing the problems, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the VAR being more pro active, it should have seen
Tielemans go yesterday, the ref was wrong and the VAR bottled telling him tha
0 -
Palace at United last week got a decision from VAR.
0 -
As said, it’s the actual ref who is the VAR that is the problem, not VAR as a concept.
The other thing that needs to come in IMO is for the crowd to hear the comms between the ref and VAR so everyone knows what is being reviewed and why the conclusion has been reached.1 -
0
-
I remember it like it was yesterday. I remember not even shouting for the penalty but cheering as it was that obvious, only for the ref to wave play on.soapboxsam said:
Drew 0-0 I think, so that could've been the winner.0
