The Footie Thread

[Don Barzini]

I think that, once again, it’s a case of VAR trying to look for tiny reasons to disallow goals.

That’s where we seem to be now: “Right, the goal’s gone in. Can we find a reason, no matter how tiny and insignificant, to disallow it?”

I get that rules are rules. But no one can convince me that situations like this one, or occasions where the sleeve of an attacking player’s shirt is offside are good enough reasons to disallow a goal.

 

[garyinderry]

Not sure if they spotted it or know from experience when the foot gives way like that you are likely to double hit the ball. They were on the half way line. We are watching close up slow motion replays.

I wasn't convinced last night and squinting at replays today I still can't tell for sure.

All I know is I felt cheated as a viewer last night. Felt like a real waste of my time in the end. Shame as I really enjoyed the encounter up till that time.

I appreciate rules are rules. Had it clearly been a double hit then so be it. This for me wasn't clear.

Brutal way to end the tie.

 

[Beezerk]

But they came to the right decision

Was it the correct decision though? IMO it wasn’t clear and obvious so VAR shouldn’t have got involved ergo the goal stands. Then again they shouldn’t have missed a second penalty

 

[Swango1980]

From the angle that Pinseeker showed in that video, it looks clear and obvious that the ball moved just before his kicking foot hit it. From other videos it looks clear that both feet hit the ball, just not which one hit it first. And from another angle, it doesn't look like the standing foot hit it at all.

Videos that don't show something that happened won't be something to rely on, as they simply don't always pick everything up. From what VAR used, they've obviously come to the conclusion that it was a double hit, and said it is a factual decision, rather than subjective.

I suppose an Athletico fan and player will be gutted. On the flip side, if that penalty was scored against your team, and VAR didn't act, then they'd be accused of going out for a coffee break, and what is the point in having VAR.

 

[Beezerk]

From the angle that Pinseeker showed in that video, it looks clear and obvious that the ball moved just before his kicking foot hit it. From other videos it looks clear that both feet hit the ball, just not which one hit it first. And from another angle, it doesn't look like the standing foot hit it at all.

Videos that don't show something that happened won't be something to rely on, as they simply don't always pick everything up. From what VAR used, they've obviously come to the conclusion that it was a double hit, and said it is a factual decision, rather than subjective.

I suppose an Athletico fan and player will be gutted. On the flip side, if that penalty was scored against your team, and VAR didn't act, then they'd be accused of going out for a coffee break, and what is the point in having VAR.

So basically VAR must be watching every penalty in super slo mo from various angles to check it is valid. I wonder if they’re watching the keepers as well to make sure they don’t move off the line.

 

[Swango1980]

So basically VAR must be watching every penalty in super slo mo from various angles to check it is valid. I wonder if they’re watching the keepers as well to make sure they don’t move off the line.

Probably not. But, Courtois came out and said the ball was hit twice and he immediately told the ref. The ref has then probably fed that back to VAR, who have had a closer look. If that is what has happened, it would be much worse for the officials if a player pointed it out, and they refused to investigate when they have the tools.

 

[Pin-seeker]

So basically VAR must be watching every penalty in super slo mo from various angles to check it is valid. I wonder if they’re watching the keepers as well to make sure they don’t move off the line.

Maybe they only watched that penalty as there was a possibility he touched the ball twice.
Personally I don’t think VAR should be used for that,But they spotted it & made the right decision imo.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Probably not. But, Courtois came out and said the ball was hit twice and he immediately told the ref. The ref has then probably fed that back to VAR, who have had a closer look. If that is what has happened, it would be much worse for the officials if a player pointed it out, and they refused to investigate when they have the tools.

Spot on

 

[Billysboots]

I thought the suggestion wasn’t that Alvarez hit the ball with his standing foot before the penalty was struck, rather that he struck the ball onto his standing foot, hence the ball being touched twice.

Harsh, whichever way you look at it, but there have been precedents set elsewhere. So, much as it pains me to say it, Real would have been wronged had the penalty been allowed to stand.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

So basically VAR must be watching every penalty in super slo mo from various angles to check it is valid. I wonder if they’re watching the keepers as well to make sure they don’t move off the line.

Var shouldn’t have got involved - it’s not clear and obvious - you could prob slow down the GKs and find they have left their line a little bit early

It’s as been said by Gary - they are looking at ways to disallow a goal

 

[Swango1980]

When penalties like this happen, always intrigues me how the professionals (or many of them) kick the ball.

It would be physically impossible for that to happen to me (unless I was taking a penalty on an ice rink), as I guess I'd be too upright with my standing leg. Whereas some of these top strikers have a huge angle between their standing leg and the ground, I guess to help generate power and disguise direction. But they are at a big risk if the penalty area is on unstable turf.

 

[Swango1980]

Var shouldn’t have got involved - it’s not clear and obvious - you could prob slow down the GKs and find they have left their line a little bit early

It’s as been said by Gary - they are looking at ways to disallow a goal

I'd say that is just a conspiracy. I would be pretty certain there would be absolutely no chance VAR would want to get involved in disallowing a penalty. But, they have a job to do.

And, as far as I am aware, they do check the goalkeepers positioning, and a save will not cound if identified. I've even seen a keeper save the last penalty, and the onfield ref has asked him to delay his celebrations because VAR were checking it was legit.

 

[Pin-seeker]

So now we’re not happy when the officials make a correct decision

Who’d be a ref

 

[Don Barzini]

Clearest footage I've seen of it yet and I'm still not convinced.

Ball doesn't move so we're into the territory of whether his non kicking foot is touching the ball or not. And if you can see that it clearly is, you've got better eyes than me.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1900005958681600188

 

[Pin-seeker]

Clearest footage I've seen of it yet and I'm still not convinced.

Ball doesn't move so we're into the territory of whether his non kicking foot is touching the ball or not. And if you can see that it clearly is, you've got better eyes than me.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1900005958681600188

The clip I posted clearly shows the ball move.
It’s almost like his left foot tees the ball up.

 

[Beezerk]

The clip I posted clearly shows the ball move.
It’s almost like his left foot tees the ball up.

Does the grass being lifted by his left foot cause the ball to move? It’s impossible to tell either way.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Clearest footage I've seen of it yet and I'm still not convinced.

Ball doesn't move so we're into the territory of whether his non kicking foot is touching the ball or not. And if you can see that it clearly is, you've got better eyes than me.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1900005958681600188

It’s very hard to see any second touch

 

[Orikoru]

I think the rules are an ass on this one. Sure, it does look like he's touched it with both feet, but he's not done it deliberately obviously - his standing foot slips because of the turf. To my mind he should be allowed to retake it rather than it just be chalked off. That feels unfair.

I felt the same years ago about that famous Beckham one where the turf cut up under his standing foot, popped the ball up in the air so he basically hit a half-volley over the bar. What the hell is he supposed to do about that? Should be a case of repairing the pitch and letting him retake it.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Does the grass being lifted by his left foot cause the ball to move? It’s impossible to tell either way.

Good point

 

[Beezerk]

I think the fact that half a dozen forum “experts” can’t decide surely means it’s not clear and obvious