VAR

[Ted Maul]

Depressing that this is what football is going to become- game stopped for 5 minutes and they still come up with the wrong decision.

[Vlad the Fox]

4 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

I think if a Fulham defender does that this weekend, we all scream hand ball. Fact is a penalty is a harsh punishment for something like that where he doesn't mean to handball it. Its not a clear and obvious error though, is that not what VAR is supposed to be for? 

 

Players will still cheat with VAR, any contact and they will go down and chances are they will get a penalty. 

This is one of my biggest fears with var, originally I though it would stop the diving, going down to easily, however with how it’s being interpreted with the numerous slow mo angles I worry it could get worse. 

[ozleicester]

12 minutes ago, Ted Maul said:

Depressing that this is what football is going to become- game stopped for 5 minutes and they still come up with the wrong decision.

and still arguments

[UniFox21]

16 minutes ago, Vlad the Fox said:

This is one of my biggest fears with var, originally I though it would stop the diving, going down to easily, however with how it’s being interpreted with the numerous slow mo angles I worry it could get worse. 

You slow mo anything and it can look like a foul on its own, players will exaggerate more and appeal for more due to VAR

[String fellow]

Isn't last night's events in Paris a good example of why the away goals rule has had its day? Alternatively, if it is to be kept, why not simply exclude goals scored directly from penalties from this rule, and play extra time instead? This would help water down the effects of one poor refereeing decision.  

[stripeyfox]

10 hours ago, H.a.r.r.y said:

i could imagine one of our players taking that penalty, the classic stutter and a pee roller straight into the keeper's hands to send you home

ha ha. this is exactly what I was thinking. If it was us Maddison and Vardy would argue about who was taking it before one of them blazes it over the bar!

 

[Guest Danny Clender]

I'm a fan of VAR.

Is their a "The VAR's a wa**er" chant?

 

I feel, in last nights situation, the referee should manage the game, communicate what's happening to everybody in the stadium, move to the centre circle and wait along with everybody else for the final decision. 

I reckon the link between the VAR decision and the Ref is needless and holds up the play.

Would a ref ever overturn a VAR decision?

 

Just let the control room handle the decision 

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

and still arguments

Maybe there ought to be an appeal process like in tennis and cricket - 2 per team and if they waste it on something petty like a disputed throw in then tough on that team.

 

Clearly VAR isn't going to solve everything - there still will be disputes and players trying to use it to their advantage.

 

Also does there need to be time limit as to how long you wait for a decision to be made?

 

 

[ozleicester]

16 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Maybe there ought to be an appeal process like in tennis and cricket - 2 per team and if they waste it on something petty like a disputed throw in then tough on that team.

 

Clearly VAR isn't going to solve everything - there still will be disputes and players trying to use it to their advantage.

 

Also does there need to be time limit as to how long you wait for a decision to be made?

 

 

or maybe we need a 50/50 option...phone a friend?

[peterborofox]

Var is totally needed in football. Seen why withy the Kane offside and the Deeney one both at the weekend. 

 

It worked very well in the WC. Only dodgy one was that Iran goal vs Portugal. Similar to last night.

 

Wasnt the fault of VAR but the fault of the official using it. 

[Horibbly Wrong]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

Attackers could just aim the ball at a defenders arm if they felt they weren't getting anywhere, they'll always be players that will try to take advantage.

Let them.  Is anything stopping them doing it now in the middle of the pitch to get a free kick?

[Guest Kopfkino]

The issue last night was not VAR, VAR ensured the correct decision was given within the guidelines set by Rossetti at Uefa. In that respect its done the job its there to do. It wouldn't have been given in the PL but there's less handballs given in the PL and I doubt it would be next year either. And that's the problem, there is quite a variance across leagues and competitions and the PL enforcement of handball is much closer to what it should be imo.

Edited 7 March 2019 by Kopfkino

[goose2010]

The thought of Mike Dean and Co using it is slightly concerning!

Edited 7 March 2019 by goose2010

[Fox In The Box 90]

1 hour ago, RowlattsFox said:

I think if a Fulham defender does that this weekend, we all scream hand ball. Fact is a penalty is a harsh punishment for something like that where he doesn't mean to handball it. Its not a clear and obvious error though, is that not what VAR is supposed to be for? 

 

Players will still cheat with VAR, any contact and they will go down and chances are they will get a penalty. 

This is why stats show VAR decisions are 99% correct etc.

 

The referee is just as correct in NOT giving a penalty as he is giving a penalty because its at his judgement.

 

But the bit youve highlighted is also my confusion with VAR.

 

I believed the idea was to change a "clear and obvious" error by the referee.

 

So they should be checking if the referee made a clear and obvious error with VAR and in not giving a penalty, whether it was a penalty or not, you couldnt say it was a "clear and obvious" error either way.

 

So the onfield decision HAS to stay the decision more often

[davieG]

1 hour ago, Horibbly Wrong said:

Let them.  Is anything stopping them doing it now in the middle of the pitch to get a free kick?

No but it wouldn't be a free kick now

[davieG]

Quote

 

Manchester United's controversial injury-time penalty in their dramatic Champions League win over Paris St-Germain has got everyone talking about the handball rule and VAR.

Marcus Rashford thumped home the spot-kick in the 94th minute, awarded after referee Damir Skomina had initially signalled a corner after Diogo Dalot's shot struck Presnel Kimpembe and went over the crossbar.

Skomina received a signal to check the incident again for a possible handball in the box and after watching a pitchside monitor, changed his decision.

Injured PSG forward Neymar called the decision a "disgrace", asking "What can [Kimpembe] do with his hand while his back is turned?"

 

But what are the rules?
As it stands from the International Football Association Board (Ifab) rulebook:

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.

 

The following must be considered:

The movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
The distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
The position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence

 

However, Head of Uefa referees Robert Rossetti told the Times in January that - when VAR was introduced into this season's Champions League - officials would penalise any unnatural arm movement that makes contact with the ball.

"The big challenge is the position of the arm. When the arm is totally out of the body above the shoulder it should be penalised. If the defender is making the body bigger in order to block the ball it is not fair.

"It is different if the defender is challenging or playing the ball and it rebounds. But if he is looking to block a cross or a shot on goal and the player is trying to spread his body then it is a handball."

What next?
At the weekend, Ifab - football's law-makers - said handball will be given against a player if their arms extend "beyond a natural silhouette" - even if it is accidental.

Ifab chief David Elleray explained: "If the arms are extended beyond that silhouette then the body is being made unnaturally bigger, with the purpose of it being a bigger barrier to the opponent or the ball.

"Players should be allowed to have their arms by their side because it's their natural silhouette."

That new interpretation will come in from 1 June - the date of the Champions League final.

 

What's the "natural silhouette" for a player jumping and turning?

How far from the body are the arms allowed to extend?

 

Once again in their efforts to clarify they just end up adding another questionable variable.

[Lizhang]

15 hours ago, Sampson said:

There is a stipulation it has to be deliberate though.

 

How could that be considered deliberate when he has his back to it and realistically, doesn't even know where the ball is? It's not like he moves his arm towards the ball or anything.

In that case, players should just close their eyes, while waving their arms? Can't be deliberate if they don't even know where the ball is.

He's making himself as large as possible in an attempt to block the ball and his arm is not against his body. You could argue that this is a "natural position" for his arm to be in, but you can be absolutely sure, that these guys will move their arm just a few inches wider than necesarry, rather than the other way around. For me, this is a penalty. He is purposely trying to block the ball, it is the very reason he is jumping, and does so with an arm that is not against his body.

Edited 7 March 2019 by Lizhang

[Fox In The Box 90]

All the caveats like "natural position" and "natural Silhouette" are not helping.

 

If a shot is travelling towards goal and it hits an arm to stop it, then its a penalty. Whether youve attempted to stop it or whether its an accident..... youve still stopped a ball flying towards goal.

 

If you deliberately just chip a ball at an arm with the sole intention of chipping it at the defenders arm and you arent shooting or passing to a team mate, then thats not a penalty.

 

If your arm or hand stops a pass going to a team mate or a shot on goal whether you meant it, you didnt, it was "natural" or it wasnt, you still stopped it. Penalty.

 

Law cleared up.

[Nicolo Barella]

8 hours ago, oadby.fox said:

 

Agreed.

 

Does anyone remember when people were saying that VAR would suck controversy out of the game and all the drama of human error with it? They couldn't have been more wrong!

 

The reason being is that when it comes to handballs and penalties, some decisions are still going to be made subjectively anyway, no matter whether it is live or a replay. People are correct to point out whether it's appropriate to hone in on a handball at such slow motion without context, but for me the bigger problem is the ambiguity in the rules themselves that allow referees to make such decisions. Is it really VAR that we are moaning about or just the inconsistency in the application of the rules more generally?

 

We have all been to games where VAR has not been involved and seen soft penalties given for one team, whilst the other side doesn't get awarded a penalty or freekick for the exact same infringement. Similarly with handballs, (even though last nights would probably never have been given by any ref without VAR), we have also been on the receiving end of decisions that we felt were unfair to us because they penalised something that we felt wasn't a handball, and in other games we might experience the reverse. In my opinion, we need to clean up the rules and leave less room for subjectivity and referee discretion if we want to avoid controversial decisions. 

 

Personally, I can see handballs continuing to become less and less about just whether it was intentional and expanding to include a wider definition. Where to draw the line is difficult but I can understand how we got here. If it is a foul to touch the ball with your hand/arm then it is easy to envisage just how it might be unfair for a player to block a goalbound shot with that part of their body (irrespective of whether it was intentional or not). I think especially when you're making your body much bigger than it really is because of the extension of your arms and then block the ball with your arms, then there is a question of whether you have gained an unfair advantage, if say, this block cuts out a goal or goal scoring opportunity. The flip side is that this would hand the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team, when in many cases it might be quite hard to actually determine whether the shot would trouble the keeper, or lead to another opportunity in the second phase of play.

 

I think in cases like last nights, it could be preferable to award a free kick inside the area where the infringement occurred rather than a penalty (like they do for pass backs). That way a goal is less of a guarantee for the attacking team and the decision has an effect that might be fair relative to the infringement committed.  That would be a huge change though and it's a bit of a crazy idea.

Exactly. That and making becoming a referee more profitable and easier would improve the game massively. 

[Fox In The Box 90]

Just now, Nicolo Barella said:

Exactly. That and making becoming a referee more profitable and easier would improve the game massively. 

Hardly anyone wants to referee.

 

Wheres the incentive to referee a bunch of talentless thug twats yelling abuse at you on a sunday morning in the cold? 

 

The laws are becoming quite abstract though and far too open to interpretation, and that only leads to inconsistencies

[Nicolo Barella]

8 minutes ago, Fox In The Box 90 said:

Hardly anyone wants to referee.

 

Wheres the incentive to referee a bunch of talentless thug twats yelling abuse at you on a sunday morning in the cold? 

 

The laws are becoming quite abstract though and far too open to interpretation, and that only leads to inconsistencies

Well if the FA diverted some TV money into improving referee wages, particularly in the lower tiers so talented referees don't fall through the cracks, I imagine more people would be up for it. 

[Milo]

6 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Maybe there ought to be an appeal process like in tennis and cricket - 2 per team and if they waste it on something petty like a disputed throw in then tough on that team.

 

Clearly VAR isn't going to solve everything - there still will be disputes and players trying to use it to their advantage.

 

Also does there need to be time limit as to how long you wait for a decision to be made?

 

 

I hate the idea of VAR - I think it's a slippery slope towards having a seriously detrimental effect on the game.

 

I can't imagine the next generation of referees being particularly dynamic - they will just wait for VAR - and I've never seen the point of only getting the 'big' decisions correct. Whats the definition of a big decision? Surely a wrongly awarded corner or throw in could be big decisions (apart from corners for us, obviously)!

 

As for your points above - I've never really got the appeal process...surely a decision is either correct or incorrect. if you've used up your appeals and an incorrect goal/penalty is therefore not awarded to you, then whats the point of VAR - a big decision has been missed.

 

Again with the time limit - it has to be the correct decision made - regardless of how long it takes, surely? 

 

Meh, don't like!

 

 

[LinekersLugs]

19 hours ago, Sampson said:

It was never a penalty, but it was a fault of the referee not VAR. VAR didn't make the decision.

UEFA would say Your wrong , the ref was simply applying UEFA directives 

 

UEFA’s Robert Rossetti in January stated that - when VAR was introduced into this season's Champions League - officials would penalise any unnatural arm movement that makes contact with the ball.

He said  "The big challenge is the position of the arm.  If the defender is making the body bigger in order to block the ball it is not fair, It is different if the defender is challenging or playing the ball and it rebounds. But if he is looking to block a cross or a shot on goal and the player is trying to spread his body then it is a handball."

 

last night was a block , he made himself bigger,  and as such it was a penalty according to the UEFA directives 

 

Good call by the excellent ref 

 

[oxford blue]

9 hours ago, String fellow said:

Isn't last night's events in Paris a good example of why the away goals rule has had its day? Alternatively, if it is to be kept, why not simply exclude goals scored directly from penalties from this rule, and play extra time instead? This would help water down the effects of one poor refereeing decision.  

So if a home defender on the goal line dives to stop a goal with his hand so he is sent off and a penalty is scored, that doesn't count as an away goal??

 

The use of VAR still needs improving. It is still taking too long to resolve and this is usually where an error is not clear and obvious. This is not happening currently when the referee is spoken to by the VAR. VAR is supposed to correct and resolve incorrect decisions - it is staring to become controversial in its own right.

 

(having said that, I think it was a penalty - he deliberately made his body area bigger when he turned his back on the ball when he jumped. There is no need to turn your back on the ball

 

[trabuch]

1 hour ago, Milo said:

I hate the idea of VAR - I think it's a slippery slope towards having a seriously detrimental effect on the game.

 

I can't imagine the next generation of referees being particularly dynamic - they will just wait for VAR - and I've never seen the point of only getting the 'big' decisions correct. Whats the definition of a big decision? Surely a wrongly awarded corner or throw in could be big decisions (apart from corners for us, obviously)!

 

As for your points above - I've never really got the appeal process...surely a decision is either correct or incorrect. if you've used up your appeals and an incorrect goal/penalty is therefore not awarded to you, then whats the point of VAR - a big decision has been missed.

 

Again with the time limit - it has to be the correct decision made - regardless of how long it takes, surely? 

 

Meh, don't like!

 

 

If it's taking a long time to decide - it isn't a clear error is it?