Live games 2017/18

[Rev]

Being married to a Spurs fan, I'm all for this VAR. 

If this is my last post, you'll know I've pushed her a bit too far.

[Gaspode]

20 minutes ago, Andicis said:

VAR been a disgrace. First goal should have been allowed, and feinting isn't against the rules, so why has Son got a card? Terrible, terrible system. Spurs been robbed of 2 fair goals.

The penalty was disallowed because he actually stopped and then went again - I think you're allowed to hesitate, but not actual stop

[AndyinLiverpool]

17 minutes ago, Andicis said:

VAR been a disgrace. First goal should have been allowed, and feinting isn't against the rules, so why has Son got a card? Terrible, terrible system. Spurs been robbed of 2 fair goals.

Feinting once the kicker has completed his run up is. See Law 14 The Penalty kick:

'...except for the following when play will be stopped and restarted with an indirect free kick, regardless of whether or not a goal is scored:

• a penalty kick is kicked backwards
• a team-mate of the identified kicker takes the kick; the referee cautions the player who took the kick
• feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up. The referee cautions the kicker'

Laws of the Game 2017/18 p.112

Correct decision.

[TimRam]

Can hardly see the ball...Needs to be another colour.

[Andicis]

4 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up. The referee cautions the kicker'

Disagree, don't think he had finished his run up. He took a few steps after.  Don't think it was the right decision at all.

[Andicis]

6 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

The penalty was disallowed because he actually stopped and then went again - I think you're allowed to hesitate, but not actual stop

What about the encroachment? 

[AndyinLiverpool]

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Disagree, don't think he had finished his run up. He took a few steps after.  Don't think it was the right decision at all.

He really didn't. Go and watch it again. He stopped and his next movement was to kick the ball. It's clear.

[Andicis]

3 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

He really didn't. Go and watch it again. He stopped and his next movement was to kick the ball. It's clear.

Fine, but the first goal should have stood without doubt.

[1of4]

Can the game be abandoned if VAR is unable to see the ball clearly?

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Feinting once the kicker has completed his run up is. See Law 14 The Penalty kick:

'...except for the following when play will be stopped and restarted with an indirect free kick, regardless of whether or not a goal is scored:

• a penalty kick is kicked backwards
• a team-mate of the identified kicker takes the kick; the referee cautions the player who took the kick
• feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up. The referee cautions the kicker'

Laws of the Game 2017/18 p.112

Correct decision.

I’m sure this has been said before, but the commentators and pundits really need a better idea of the rules of the game. Just watched the replay and the commentator is saying ‘what’s going on, why has that goal been disallowed?’

so anyone listening is thinking that that guy must know what he’s doing, therefore the referee is an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s doing. 

However, no one is more qualified than the red to know what the rules are. So if a decision is made, the benefit of the doubt really ought to go with the ref. Don’t make yourself look an idiot by declaring a rule doesn’t exist, when it actually does. 

... just realised, I think the idiot commentator is Robbie Savage. Bless him. 

[Mr Tibbs]

Feinting a metre away from the ball should be classed as the run up IMO? He takes another step with his kicking foot and he’s not even planted his standing foot either. 

Not to mention the keeper off his line before the feint.. 

Poor decision in my view. 

 

[Sith Happens]

10 hours ago, Andicis said:

What about the encroachment? 

Yep definitely that too, not sure which is considered the worst offence. The encroachment happens as he stops so could argue that that offence occured first and should retake.

Can see why the first goal was disallowed, but really just a case of the spurs player being stronger.

The decision to give a penalty, looks like the offence started outside the box to me, his arm is round his neck, yes he ends up on the floor in the box but cannot see how that was a clear and obvious error.

[RadioactiveWaste]

 

The Pen, I just loved for amusement value if nothing else, but I thought it was probably a bit much - I confess i didn't know the rule though.

VAR, huh, what is it good for!

Absolutely nothing!

The situation reminds me of "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others which have been attempted."

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

 

The Pen, I just loved for amusement value if nothing else, but I thought it was probably a bit much - I confess i didn't know the rule though.

VAR, huh, what is it good for!

Absolutely nothing!

The situation reminds me of "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others which have been attempted."

Most of us didn't. Including people who are paid to commentate on football.

[Andicis]

6 hours ago, Paul71 said:

Yep definitely that too, not sure which is considered the worst offence. The encroachment happens as he stops so could argue that that offence occured first and should retake.

Can see why the first goal was disallowed, but really just a case of the spurs player being stronger.

The decision to give a penalty, looks like the offence started outside the box to me, his arm is round his neck, yes he ends up on the floor in the box but cannot see how that was a clear and obvious error.

Isn't VAR meant to be used to overrule only clear and obvious decisions? I won't accept the first goal had a clear and obvious foul in the build up, looked like a 50/50 to me, so I fail to see how it can over rule that. It's all just a bit messy. This system really needs to be ironed out.

[Sith Happens]

6 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Isn't VAR meant to be used to overrule only clear and obvious decisions? I won't accept the first goal had a clear and obvious foul in the build up, looked like a 50/50 to me, so I fail to see how it can over rule that. It's all just a bit messy. This system really needs to be ironed out.

It is yes, I agree with what you say, and I still think when you watch the replay of the penalty award (for which he gave a free kick initially) that its far from clear even on the replay.

Referees are going to end up using VAR as a means to come to a decision. If you watch football today how many decisions do we really talk about where the ref has got it wrong? Its not multiple decisions per game, its the odd one here and there, maybe not even one a week. So if VAR was working properly it should have been used maybe once or twice in all the games its been used for total, rather than multiple times per game.

 

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

19 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

It is yes, I agree with what you say, and I still think when you watch the replay of the penalty award (for which he gave a free kick initially) that its far from clear even on the replay.

Referees are going to end up using VAR as a means to come to a decision. If you watch football today how many decisions do we really talk about where the ref has got it wrong? Its not multiple decisions per game, its the odd one here and there, maybe not even one a week. So if VAR was working properly it should have been used maybe once or twice in all the games its been used for total, rather than multiple times per game.

 

 

The thing I find with the current VAR is its bringing the envisioned downside of getting in the way of the game flowing without decisively improving the decisions.

My thinking would be to take it out and have a rethink on how it's going to a)work and b) be implemented  - giving the officials the best chance to get it right is fine, but it's a game that's got to flow.

It's no surprise that teams who set out to disrupt flow are hated (effective way of beating technically better teams or not) imagine every match being like that de-facto.

 

[Andicis]

29 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

It is yes, I agree with what you say, and I still think when you watch the replay of the penalty award (for which he gave a free kick initially) that its far from clear even on the replay.

Referees are going to end up using VAR as a means to come to a decision. If you watch football today how many decisions do we really talk about where the ref has got it wrong? Its not multiple decisions per game, its the odd one here and there, maybe not even one a week. So if VAR was working properly it should have been used maybe once or twice in all the games its been used for total, rather than multiple times per game.

 

 

I'd use the tennis system. Give a team 1 challenge a game. Once it's gone, it's gone. That way, a maximum of 2, hopefully more speedy, challenges per game would be way better.

[Sith Happens]

Just now, Andicis said:

I'd use the tennis system. Give a team 1 challenge a game. Once it's gone, it's gone. That way, a maximum of 2, hopefully more speedy, challenges per game would be way better.

I think in Tennis, they get 3 a set and if a challenge proves to be right then they get that challenge back. I wouldnt have an issue with that, give them 1 then if their challenge is right allow them another.

[Andicis]

Just now, Paul71 said:

I think in Tennis, they get 3 a set and if a challenge proves to be right then they get that challenge back. I wouldnt have an issue with that, give them 1 then if their challenge is right allow them another.

It would certainly make it less ridiculous, and hopefully stop the ref having his hand to his ear permanently. 1 or 2 checks a game seems fine, but if it's like last night, I don't want the system in the game at all.