VAR

[Orikoru]

Either you’re cheating or you’re not. You can’t excuse one player cheating because someone else was.
To apply it to our game, you go to tap in a putt that’s 2 inches and miss it, that’s ok to not count that shot?
Either you accept ALL cheating or none at all, and it has nothing to do with age or generations.... it’s integrity and honesty and nothing to do with how old you are.

lol, I'm not seeing that analogy at all. You've just described blatant cheating, which is more comparable with Pedro's blatant dive which he was rightly booked for. You can't compare golf to football anyway, they're not even remotely similar.

Anyway, we're going round in circles here, but to bring it back to your original point, why on earth has the ref not consulted the VAR now that it's available? If he had he would have had a chance of getting 3/3 correct (as below), rather than 1 and a half out of 3 which is the best you can say he did in reality.

Correct decisions in my view would have been:
Pedro - blatant dive, rightly booked.
Willian - penalty.
Morata - no penalty, but no booking either. Restart with goal kick.

And I think he would have seen them that way with the benefit of VAR.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Agree 100% on the first one - I actually said that to someone in the office earlier! Obstruction is always gotten away with when the ball's going out, it's mad.

It’s not Obstruction, you are allowed to shield the ball so long as it is within playing distance.
It’s in the laws of the game.

 

[Orikoru]

It’s not Obstruction, you are allowed to shield the ball so long as it is within playing distance.
It’s in the laws of the game.

When the ball is going out though, it's a different story. They back off the ball by a yard or more and basically hold the attacker away from it. We've all seen it. They are given as fouls elsewhere.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

When the ball is going out though, it's a different story. They back off the ball by a yard or more and basically hold the attacker away from it. We've all seen it. They are given as fouls elsewhere.

Nope, still wrong, any player anywhere on the pitch can shield the ball so long as it’s under his control within playing distance.

 

[Khamelion]

Often players are looking for it in the box, you're not wrong. But the flipside (or devil's advocate if you like) is that having your shirt tugged on the halfway line doesn't prevent a clear goalscoring chance, whereas in the box it often does.

But the daft thing is if the player tried to stay upright, then on a lot of occasions, as I wrote above, they could cross the ball, or have a shot.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

But the daft thing is if the player tried to stay upright, then on a lot of occasions, as I wrote above, they could cross the ball, or have a shot.

Willian completely beat the Norwich defender for skill and pace, the next thing he was going to do was have a clear shot on goal 10yds out, why would he dive? The defending was late and a lunge.

 

[Khamelion]

It’s not Obstruction, you are allowed to shield the ball so long as it is within playing distance.
It’s in the laws of the game.

When the ball is going out though, it's a different story. They back off the ball by a yard or more and basically hold the attacker away from it. We've all seen it. They are given as fouls elsewhere.

I guess it depends on your interpretation of Law 12, I had written and agreed with Paul (as per Paul's replay in post #49 below), but upon posting and reading again, I would tend to disagree and stick to, that it is obstruction when the ball is going out over the byline. The part that made change my mind is that last part of the paragraph below, "if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body", how many times do you see the defender blocking an attacker using his body?

Either all the refs have it right, or it's the most ignored rule in football.

"All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent"

 

[Beezerk]

Nope, still wrong, any player anywhere on the pitch can shield the ball so long as it’s under his control within playing distance.

This is correct, the ball has to be within "playing" distance, you'll get pulled for a foul if the ball is a few yards away.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I sit corrected, as Paul writes, Law 12 allows a player to shield the ball within playing distance:-

"All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent"

I always knew that Class 3 Referee qual from 30yrs ago would come in handy one day

 

[Orikoru]

I sit corrected, as Paul writes, Law 12 allows a player to shield the ball within playing distance:-

"All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent"

It's "within playing distance" that I have issue with. If the ball is over a yard away from him as he holds the player off it, it's not in playing distance. They do it all the time.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Nope, still wrong, any player anywhere on the pitch can shield the ball so long as it’s under his control within playing distance.

If the defender hasn't touched the ball can he claim that he has it under his control?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

It's "within playing distance" that I have issue with. If the ball is over a yard away from him as he holds the player off it, it's not in playing distance. They do it all the time.

Just accept you were wrong in your interpretation, you said yard or more now it’s over a yard, if the referee decides he’s not in control and not within playing distance then it’s obstruction.

Be like Khamelion :thup: everyday is a school day

 

[Pathetic Shark]

I think it is fantastic VAR has been introduced and I don't even watch football. We will see all the players and managers screaming for replays when it suits them, multiple interpretations and 1000s of words written about it.

We had the same thing in the NFL when instant replay was introduced and three years ago when it came to baseball. Those are black and white situations, in bounds or not, out or not. The same with offside in football. Neither of those sports look at subjective decisions such as pass interference in the NFL, the same as a penalty decision in football.

The one thing VAR does need is an announcement over each decision. "Confirmed", "Reversed" or "Stands" - the latter for when there is no conclusive proof to over-turn the on-field decision.

In ice hockey, as soon as there is an issue over goal/no-goal at one end, play is blown dead for it to be checked. This stopped the situation that happened early on when one team broke away and scored at the other end. You just have to accept a drop-ball at perhaps midfield or somewhere in the current half is the way play continues.

But long may VAR be developed. Don't forget that certain TV pundits and tabloid sports writers have an agenda to push and are often being controversial and negative just for the hell of it.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

If the defender hasn't touched the ball can he claim that he has it under his control?

Yes mate, ie sherperding it out for a goal kick

 

[Beezerk]

If the defender hasn't touched the ball can he claim that he has it under his control?

Of course.

 

[Liverbirdie]

I don't consider it a dive if you are being fouled at the time. I believe you're entitled to go down if you're being fouled. A dive is when there's zero contact and you try and make it look as if there was.

But its a contact sport.

I have sympathy for the Willian one, but not the Morata one.

 

[Orikoru]

Just accept you were wrong in your interpretation, you said yard or more now it’s over a yard, if the referee decides he’s not in control and not within playing distance then it’s obstruction.

Be like Khamelion :thup; everyday is a school day

Errr what?? :rofl:

 

[Liverbirdie]

It's the modern game. The pace of the game is double that what it was 20 or 30 years ago. If you're running at full pelt then someone grabs hold of your shirt for example, that can slow you down enough that a goalscoring chance disappears, and potentially the ref doesn't see that. Chance is gone and you get nothing for it. So managers will obviously instruct their attackers to make it clearer that contact has been made by going down.

Unless they are on a booking, which may get them sent off. If you want any contact by arms on another player in the box to result in penalties, I'm doing both teams to score in 4-5 part accumulators.

One of the biggest problems in English football is diving IMO, and I'm all for various ways to stop it. Some may work, some may not, but it needs addressing.

VAR is going through problems, and Im sure I'll moan about it at many stages, but we have to give in at least a season, if not more.

Whats the alternative, go back to terrible decisions from refs every week?

 

[Imurg]

Just seen the Morata one....
Dear God, that's farcical...I'd be embarrassed to show my face after that..
He should get an extended ban for such blatant cheating and a better fine from the club.....neither of which will happen.
So much in football is a disgrace these days...
The amount of money thrown around, the cheating..it's not a game I tend to enjoy watching any more

 

[SaintHacker]

I'd be interested in if this VAR scenario has taken place or what the process is, if it did. One team, say Arsenal on the attack and the soon-to-be-gone Sanchez is hacked down in the area for a nailed on pen, but the ref doesn't give it. Spurs clear the ball up field and Kane latches on to it and scores a legitimate goal before the VAR has time to tell the on field ref you've made a wrong-un. Do Arsenal have to suck it up or does the ref cancel Spurs's goal and give a pen to Arsenal?

You wouldn't have got a point on saturday thats for sure!