[Football] Eng-Ger-Land v Italy tonight

[seagulls4ever]

Tarkowski himself said it was “never a penalty”.

“I stood on his foot but I didn’t think a lot of it,” he told ITV.

Former England international Alan Shearer was among those to question the decision.

“Don’t talk to me about VAR!” he tweeted. “How on earth is that clear and obvious?”

Gary Lineker tweeted: “If VAR is going to turn us over, it’s better to happen now. A clear and obviously deserved victory taken away.”

I just want to comment on the misrepresentation of the quote by the BBC (not sure where you got it from but I saw similar on the BBC website). When asked whether it was a penalty, Tarkowski laughed and said "it never is", implying when the decisions go against you, they are always wrong. He didn't say "It's never a penalty".

 

[LlcoolJ]

Technically probably a penalty, but the type of incident that is hard to see and usually isn't given during a game without VAR.
Not a fan of constant stoppages to look at every incident at football. We all hate teams time wasting if we're behind in a game.
Seems to work quite well for sports like NFL and Rugby which is more stop and start and has more rules. Football is meant to be a free flowing game.

This.

 

[Albion my Albion]

God var is bollox

Who is Godvar?

 

[Mellotron]

I don't think it was a pen because the player put his foot out into Tarkowski's stride, which is the only reason he got stood on. He was going down at the time. Not sure the ref will have seen that in the heat of the moment, instead focusing on the studs on the foot. Reminded me a bit of the Stephens incident.

You’re missing my point, and - for my understanding - the point of VAR. It’s only for clear and obvious errors. The fact we’re still debating penalty or not shows that VAR shouldn’t have been used.

 

[jimhigham]

Just very glad that the international matches are over and that we can get back to business.

 

[Mellotron]

There's some seriously odd stuff going on on this thread. I don't like VAR at all in the way that it's been implemented in games I've seen previously.

But this was spot on. It was a penalty, it didn't take long for the decision. It was correct.

Other way round I bet most people complaining about it would be saying how great it is even though it's not.

I still don't want it in the World Cup as it's not been refined to anywhere near where it needs to be. But there we are.

But there’s clearly debate about whether it was a pen or not. The ball was gone, and there’s no way he trod on him intentionally. VAR is only for “clear and obvious” errors. The amount of debate proves it wasn’t a clear and obvious error to not give the pen. Ergo, it wasn’t used correctly, even if you believe it was (just) a penalty.

 

[LlcoolJ]

But there’s clearly debate about whether it was a pen or not. The ball was gone, and there’s no way he trod on him intentionally. VAR is only for “clear and obvious” errors. The amount of debate proves it wasn’t a clear and obvious error to not give the pen. Ergo, it wasn’t used correctly, even if you believe it was (just) a penalty.

That's why I said I don't want it used in the World Cup. Or anywhere until/if they sort it out properly.

It works really well in cricket but the decisions are generally 99% one way or the other. It's used in egg chasing and from what I've seen it can totally ruin the game with the best part of ten minutes deliberating over a decision and nobody any the wiser at the end of it.

Surprised about there being any debate that the penalty tonight was a penalty but as you say, that just proves that even after seeing 100 replays you're still not going to get a definitive decision that everyone agrees with.

So basically it should probably just be binned for football. Anyway, the World Cup is gonna be fun.......

 

[seagulls4ever]

You’re missing my point, and - for my understanding - the point of VAR. It’s only for clear and obvious errors. The fact we’re still debating penalty or not shows that VAR shouldn’t have been used.

I didn't miss your point. I understand what you were saying. Since you said it was 50:50 at best whether it was a pen, I added my viewpoint. That's all. I think I made the same point as you're making now during a recent VAR Spurs match when there were calls which were not clear and obvious.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

That whole statement is absurd.

What part is ABSURD?
I thought it was a pen. Tarkowski trod on Chiesa. People banging on about intent as if it plays any part in the decision.

Let’s all take our England tinted specs off for a minute. If that foul was against Knockaert and Mike Dean missed it, we’d be going absolutely mental.

Clear foul. Ref missed it. VAR didn’t.

I don’t want VAR. But this was the best use of it you’re gonna get.

 

[beorhthelm]

But there’s clearly debate about whether it was a pen or not. The ball was gone, and there’s no way he trod on him intentionally. VAR is only for “clear and obvious” errors. The amount of debate proves it wasn’t a clear and obvious error to not give the pen. Ergo, it wasn’t used correctly, even if you believe it was (just) a penalty.

here's the problem with VAR, to the chap watching the VT and able to signal "hey there was an incident" it was a clear and obvious error. or their threashold is far too low. if its really clear and obvious, just missed by the ref/linesman, then its shouldnt take any time to decide. VAR needs tight time limit to be credible, otherwise we may as well change the rules to make it referal from ref (players, manager, etc. ) and that would totally ruiun football. i reckon its technology for the sake of it, to be seen to be using somthing modern and they dont really know how or what they want to do with it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

What part is ABSURD?
I thought it was a pen. Tarkowski trod on Chiesa. People banging on about intent as if it plays any part in the decision.

Let’s all take our England tinted specs off for a minute. If that foul was against Knockaert and Mike Dean missed it, we’d be going absolutely mental.

Clear foul. Ref missed it. VAR didn’t.

I don’t want VAR. But this was the best use of it you’re gonna get.

VAR also proved that Lingard had stopped the ball, for the quick free kick, that led to our goal. There were protests from the Italians, but the ref accepted the ball wasn't moving.

 

[mikeyjh]

But there’s clearly debate about whether it was a pen or not. The ball was gone, and there’s no way he trod on him intentionally. VAR is only for “clear and obvious” errors. The amount of debate proves it wasn’t a clear and obvious error to not give the pen. Ergo, it wasn’t used correctly, even if you believe it was (just) a penalty.

Agreed - It's also exactly why I hate the idea of VAR, 'Clear and obvious', will surely become something much more nebulous. If the VAR are going to intervene for that, how many penalties are we going to have in an average game? You could make an argument for every corner and free kick that goes in to the box resulting in a penalty....

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Agreed - It's also exactly why I hate the idea of VAR, 'Clear and obvious', will surely become something much more nebulous. If the VAR are going to intervene for that, how many penalties are we going to have in an average game? You could make an argument for every corner and free kick that goes in to the box resulting in a penalty....

As soon as it goes to VAR you put pressure on the ref to give it.

 

[Guinness Boy]

But there’s clearly debate about whether it was a pen or not. The ball was gone, and there’s no way he trod on him intentionally. VAR is only for “clear and obvious” errors. The amount of debate proves it wasn’t a clear and obvious error to not give the pen. Ergo, it wasn’t used correctly, even if you believe it was (just) a penalty.

Just from minimal experience playing pub football and occasionally reffing my son's team's training matches that sort of challenge happens all the time. In fact my son said "people tread on my feet all the time and I never get a foul". The ball goes and there's an accidental collision.

VAR is going to ruin the game, absolutely no doubt. Not just the confusion in the stands but the extra time taken to complete games (5 minutes added on yesterday to an 8pm kick off at Wembley would have meant some struggling to get last trains and that was only one VAR decision), the controversy (it immediately kicked off on the pitch after the decision) and the change in playing styles. If it becomes commonly used then people will be afraid of 50/50 challenges. If attackers sit a yard or two off the last defender to ensure they are onside, combined with fewer challenges we are going to see incredibly dull games where the ball is held up to no effect whatever behind a defensive line and the thrill of a last minute tackle, flying block or overlapping fullback all but goes from the game. Even if that doesn't happen we are already in the world of longer, more confusing games with everyone still arguing about the decision.

 

[scamander]

did they take into account the body position of the Italian player when Tarks trod on his foot? From what I saw the player was off balance and falling over when this happened, you can't expect defenders to leap out of the way of players in the box in case they make contact.

Forwards are already looking for any contact in the penalty area as it is.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Think that it's very difficult to 'dis-invent' technology. Not sure that any sport has introduced it and then shelved it?

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Which is why we should all rejoice because friendlies will be replaced by the new international league.

Depends when the matches are being played.

A good idea though, hadn’t realised it was moving forward (that’s how much interest I have in international football).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Hehehe

I wasn't to know Germany were going to play Graeme Smith in goal.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

When VAR is introduced to the Premier League, games are going to finish 5-5, 7-6 etc. if penalties are going to be awarded for a slight nudge at a corner or a player accidentally treading on another's foot.

Despite having a soft penalty awarded against him, I think Southgate will have been impressed by Tarkowski's debut especially as he was playing on his "wrong side". Ben Mee is Burnley's left-sided central defender.

He won't be going to the World Cup, but JT will get cap No 2 before 2018 is out.

Thought he was ordinary and can’t see any reason why Southgate would have been impressed.

Understandably nervous, as you say he probably will get a second cap, unless Southgate is removed (post World Cup) and that is unlikely to happen.

See he pushed a player off the ball and was spotted this time. I’d imagine like us with Bruno and shirt pulling, you must be concerned about VAR with JT’s off the ball habits [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hans kraay fan club]

did they take into account the body position of the Italian player when Tarks trod on his foot? From what I saw the player was off balance and falling over when this happened, you can't expect defenders to leap out of the way of players in the box in case they make contact.
.

Sorry, but yes, yes you can. Your view is clearly through claret tinted specs. 'Tarks' is behind the opposition player, charging along. If he can't get the ball, then he's got to pull out, to avoid the contact. Instead he just barrels on. It was clumsy at best*. We can definitely debate the rights and wrongs of the VAR protocols, but on the actual foul, you're clutching at straws.



*That said, he did fine on the whole, that incident aside. Needs to know his limitations on the long diags though. He's no Lewis Dunk in that respect, for sure.