[Football] Right then. After that demonstration... VAR? Yes or No?

[Whitechapel]

So you are not watching any PL games then. One wonders why you're commenting about BHA on NSC, given that you haven't seen yesterday's incident

For someone who is supposed to be quite smart you seem to be struggling to comprehend a pretty basic sentence. At the same time, for someone who is normally a decent poster this is a pretty shit reply.

FWIW, this is at least the second time you’ve told me I shouldn’t post on NSC if I no longer go to games. I was wondering if you hold the same energy towards people who don’t live close enough to go to the Amex, people who have to work weekends or people who can’t afford to go? Let’s go all out and say that only the 30,000 people who were at the Amex are allowed to post on here anymore.

 

[Acker79]

VAR can only check for encroachment where the player impacts the play. See post 783.

I didn't say it would be a long check or that the check would find something, just that there might one (and I didn't mean to suggest it was just for encroachment).

As there is for every goal, there should be a VAR check for every potential penalty, and while it wouldn't take long, there might be a need to check - was there encroachment that could have distracted the penalty taker (even if the encroaching player doesn't touch the ball)? Was there an offence by the goalkeeper or penalty taker that would result in a retake? etc.

So, even if the penalty appears clear cut, there may still be a review if a retake is considered a potential penalty incident, just as standard review process.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Maddison encroached too and scored. He was first to the ball and first to effect the game. It should depend on which team gains an advantage from the encroachment. In this case it was Leicester. We should have had a freekick and the pen should not be retaken.

There are two issues here.

One is what actually happened yesterday. The concensus is players from both sides encroached - as they always do - but one of theirs benefitted from encroaching by scoring. I assume this is fact. That's what I saw at the game.

The other is what are the rules. I would have thought that when a player benefits from a rule violation it is a kick to the other side, as you point out. However, this did not happen, and there was certainly no outcry on radio 5 yesterday evening. So I am assuming this is another badly written ambiguous load of bollocks rule like so many others, as has been the case for decades.

Why would Leicester be denied a goal if our player had encroached? They would be denied the goal only if their player, the one who scored, had encroached. So I can only assume that the rule says that if a team gains advantage by encroaching at a penalty, the penalty should be retaken. ****ing stupid rule but, if it is the rule, it is the rule. But is it the rule? I don't know.

As someone who writes rules as part of my job, I can report how easy it is for ambiguity to be overlooked. You can reach a point where you find your conversations about this (at committee meetings) reduce to talking to the cat. Then the chairman forecloses discussion with 'anyway, let's do it like this for now and we can revist later'. And so on.

Someone, not a lawyer but, I would suggest, a scientist, possibly a mathematician should go through the bloody rules and make sure that all decisions map to events and all events can be defined and the penalties fit the violations. What happened yesterday appeared to my untutored eye to be utter bollocks.

Football is NOT all about opinions. ****wittery and thundercuntery are all about opinions.

 

[drew]

I am pretty sure the penalty re-take was the incorrect decision because of the following:

This is from the premier league explanation of VAR interventions:

The VAR can intervene in one of the following instances:

- A clear and obvious error by the on-field match officials relating to goalkeeper movement
- A double touch by the penalty-taker
- Feigning at the point of the kick by the taker
- Encroachment by players that has a direct impact on the outcome of the kick

In the circumstances of yesterdays game it can only intervene because of Maddison's involvement. It cant look at any of the defending players because they had no impact on the outcome of the kick. Maddison encroached. The penalty was saved initially. Should have been an indirect free kick to us.

Reluctantly, I disagree. The laws of the game state that when the penatly is taken,

'a player of both teams infringes the Laws of the Game, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. illegal feinting); if both the goalkeeper and kicker commit an offence at the same time:'

Players from both sides encroached and therefore it has to be retaken.

 

[Deadly Danson]

Reluctantly, I disagree. The laws of the game state that when the penatly is taken,

'a player of both teams infringes the Laws of the Game, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. illegal feinting); if both the goalkeeper and kicker commit an offence at the same time:'

Players from both sides encroached and therefore it has to be retaken.

But isn't the point that Var has no authority to advise of encroachment of our players in this instance? Unless Mike Dean spotted it (which he didn't) then var can only advise whether Maddison encroached as he had a direct impact and having done that it should have been a free kick to us.

So technically you are correct but under var rules the free kick should have been ours.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I’ve just seen the actual pen.

How is it a pen in the first place? He kicks the ground

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

For someone who is supposed to be quite smart you seem to be struggling to comprehend a pretty basic sentence. At the same time, for someone who is normally a decent poster this is a pretty shit reply.

FWIW, this is at least the second time you’ve told me I shouldn’t post on NSC if I no longer go to games. I was wondering if you hold the same energy towards people who don’t live close enough to go to the Amex, people who have to work weekends or people who can’t afford to go? Let’s go all out and say that only the 30,000 people who were at the Amex are allowed to post on here anymore.

Second time? Well, I guess I just get annoyed when people claim they are boycotting the Albion because they don't like VAR. To me that's....crazy talk. And of course I don't denigrate folk who can't afford the time or money to attend. But that's not you, is it?

Back to the point, if you are going to boycott Albion games then how can you comment on things you haven't seen? Or is there some aspect of the meaning of boycott that eludes me? My guess is you have watched the incident on MOTD. So you are not boycotting our games, in actual fact, are you? You're following the Albion without attending the live games. And what good will it do?

I am old enough to remember boycotting South Africal under apartheid. This was a global movement that contributed to the end of an opressive regime. What people didn't do was repeatedly bang on about boycotting South Africa while chomping on a Cape banana (the equivalent of watching the Albion on MOTD).

Apologies if I have misunderstood, and apologies if I offended you.

If you want your anti-VAR voice heard, come to the games again and boo. BOO!!!!!

 

[drew]

But isn't the point that Var has no authority to advise of encroachment of our players in this instance? Unless The Complete And Utter Shyster spotted it (which he didn't) then var can only advise whether Maddison encroached as he had a direct impact and having done that it should have been a free kick to us.

So technically you are correct but under var rules the free kick should have been ours.

VAR checks every goal for any infringements. Had Maddison headed the ball wide then, assuming Mike Dean hadn't seen the encroachment it would have been a goal kick. VAR wouldn't have been utilised in that case as it was then outside their remit. I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion it is ok to check for encroachment by Maddison and not the defenders!

 

[Deadly Danson]

VAR checks every goal for any infringements. Had Maddison headed the ball wide then, assuming The Complete And Utter Shyster hadn't seen the encroachment it would have been a goal kick. VAR wouldn't have been utilised in that case as it was then outside their remit. I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion it is ok to check for encroachment by Maddison and not the defenders!

Only from the post that you quoted (from [MENTION=6740]Pondicherry[/MENTION]) about what var can advise on in the case of penalties. If that is correct then it isn't in var's power to advise the kick is retaken, it can only rule out the goal. But to be honest I am only going by the what has been posted - I really don't know for sure. But I think the point is if Mike Dean had, on his own, cancelled out the goal for encroachment and saw both teams doing it then your interpretation is correct.

 

[symyjym]

If the encroaching players had been Leicester players it would have been our free kick but as it was Burn and others from our side the kick had to correctly be retaken. I think that there was about 4 players encroaching but the foremost and most obvious was Burn. This law has always been in operation VAR just made it easier to be spotted.

There were no encroaching Albion players interfering with play though. If Maddison hadn't encroached, and an encroaching Brighton player forced him to head wide, then another penalty should be awarded. But the fact the he encroached and scored should really be a free kick to us logically. The current rule makes no sense to me.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

There were no encroaching Albion players interfering with play though. If Maddison hadn't encroached, and an encroaching Brighton player forced him to head wide, then another penalty should be awarded. But the fact the he encroached and scored should really be a free kick to us logically. The current rule makes no sense to me.

The laws don’t state anything about encroaching players interfering with play though.

 

[BensGrandad]

There were no encroaching Albion players interfering with play though. If Maddison hadn't encroached, and an encroaching Brighton player forced him to head wide, then another penalty should be awarded. But the fact the he encroached and scored should really be a free kick to us logically. The current rule makes no sense to me.

They do not have to be interfering with play, the mere fact that as in the case of Burn the defending players were in the box is sufficient for the kick to be retaken if saved or missed. It is quite possible that if all Albion players had been where they should have been Maddison would have been offside not certain but possible. Burn was 1-2 yds inside the box when the kick was taken.

 

[Acker79]

They do not have to be interfering with play, the mere fact that as in the case of Burn the defending players were in the box is sufficient for the kick to be retaken if saved or missed. It is quite possible that if all Albion players had been where they should have been Maddison would have been offside not certain but possible. Burn was 1-2 yds inside the box when the kick was taken.

That's several times you name check Burn for encroachment, despite a) seemingly being aware other brighton players were encroaching, b) Bissouma being a yard further forward than Burn (whose feet were still on the line of the box). What do you have against him? It's like you're trying to pin the blame for the goal on him.

 

[Bodian]

The VAR was correct on the encroachment for the disallowed penalty save goal but surely it should have been a free kick to us, not another penalty? The rules are flawed in this instance but VAR did it's job.

So it should have been our free kick then. Our players encroachment had no effect but Maddison did as he encroached and scored.

This is a point I was making. If through a result of the attacking teams encroachment they still score, or prevent a clearance, it should be a freekick to the defending team. You don’t get the ball back after scoring an offside goal and get to have another go at it!?

I think the decision was right yesterday, but by maddison encroaching and scoring he gained Leicester another penalty. If he hadn’t scored play would have continued.

Not sure it would have. Our players encroached in the penalty area and the penalty was saved - wouldn’t the decision be to retake the penalty?

The law is quite clear.

Encroachment from both sides means the penalty is retaken. The laws add that the penalty kick is only completed when the ball stops moving, goes out of play or the referee stops play for any offence. So - in this instance, Maddison scoring was still 'part of the penalty kick' move.

VAR only looked at encroachment because there was a goal resulting from it.

I think in this instance we're sort of saying that the law should change, not VAR.

 

[symyjym]

They do not have to be interfering with play, the mere fact that as in the case of Burn the defending players were in the box is sufficient for the kick to be retaken if saved or missed. It is quite possible that if all Albion players had been where they should have been Maddison would have been offside not certain but possible. Burn was 1-2 yds inside the box when the kick was taken.

So this would mean that if Maddison missed his header, the penalty should be retaken again for our encroachment?

 

[BensGrandad]

So this would mean that if Maddison missed his header, the penalty should be retaken again for our encroachment?

yes the encroachment was before Ryan made the save so everything would be wiped out unless Vardy had scored.

 

[Bozza]

So this would mean that if Maddison missed his header, the penalty should be retaken again for our encroachment?

I've been mulling over different scenarios that may result from penalties now we have the "benefit" of VAR being able to forensically examine every movement retrospectively.

I'm not aware of any other VAR interventions in penalties so far this season - is anyone aware of any to date? As players routinely encroach from penalties, presumably this sequence: kick taken - goalie saves - defender clears would see the kick retaken if the defender was inside the box when the kick was taken.

 

[symyjym]

yes the encroachment was before Ryan made the save so everything would be wiped out unless Vardy had scored.

Okay. So you are saying that the retaken penalty would have been awarded even when taking Maddison out of the loop?

 

[Acker79]

I've been mulling over different scenarios that may result from penalties now we have the "benefit" of VAR being able to forensically examine every movement retrospectively.

I'm not aware of any other VAR interventions in penalties so far this season - is anyone aware of any to date? As players routinely encroach from penalties, presumably this sequence: kick taken - goalie saves - defender clears would see the kick retaken if the defender was inside the box when the kick was taken.

One that springs to mind is Man City on the opening day. Was saved and cleared by West Ham (declan rice?) and retaken and scored.

 

[drew]

They do not have to be interfering with play, the mere fact that as in the case of Burn the defending players were in the box is sufficient for the kick to be retaken if saved or missed. It is quite possible that if all Albion players had been where they should have been Maddison would have been offside not certain but possible. Burn was 1-2 yds inside the box when the kick was taken.

How on earth could Maddison be in an offside position from a penalty? For that to happen he would have to be ahead of the penalty taker before he strikes the ball. I'm pretty certain that Dean would have noticed that!!!!