[Albion] Penalties chaos - Clattenburg & G.Neville clear it up

[KZNSeagull]

At a complete tangent, my wife is convinced that Ronaldo wears eyeliner. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[seagulls4ever]

Ok, same scenario but the defender is on the ground with his leg flat, Ronaldo trips over his leg by dragging his foot along the ground (as they do) without changing direction and falls over, is that a foul?

In the original scenario, the defender is nowhere near the ball but does not trip the attacker, so if anything he is guilty of obstruction. Indirect free kick to Portugal at most.

It depends on the specific situation but if that example is not a penalty, it's because the attacker's movement is a lot more unnatural than Ronaldo's was.

Ronaldo was sprinting and Nacho left his left in front of him, trying to bring it away at the last second but failing. Ronaldo is under no obligation to try and avoid that leg. He will have seen Nacho coming, and could have avoided him if he wanted to, but then he wouldn't have won the penalty.

If Ronaldo left a trailing leg it's him who has made the effort to change the situation, he's actively done that. If Ronaldo carries on running he hasn't changed the situation - to avoid the player he would have to actively do so.

 

[seagulls4ever]

"Whoever initiates contact" is the fouler.

The difference with Aguero is he actively put his leg towards the Icelandic defender, whereas Nacho put his leg toward Ronaldo. That's why Aguero initiated the contact.

 

[seagulls4ever]

Anyway, I understand there are different opinions and that's fine. But Ronaldo's penalty wasn't clearly and obviously not a penalty, and so it was right to not be overturned. The one Aguero won was a lot of obvious in terms of who the initiator was, less debatable I guess, and so it's surprising VAR wasn't used to review it. If both were not penalties, Arugro's was more obviously not a penalty.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

It depends on the specific situation but if that example is not a penalty, it's because the attacker's movement is a lot more unnatural than Ronaldo's was.

Ronaldo was sprinting and Nacho left his left in front of him, trying to bring it away at the last second but failing. Ronaldo is under no obligation to try and avoid that leg. He will have seen Nacho coming, and could have avoided him if he wanted to, but then he wouldn't have won the penalty.

If Ronaldo left a trailing leg it's him who has made the effort to change the situation, he's actively done that. If Ronaldo carries on running he hasn't changed the situation - to avoid the player he would have to actively do so.

Similarly you don’t have to get out the way as defender. Though poor refs believe you should.

 

[seagulls4ever]

Similarly you don’t have to get out the way as defender. Though poor refs believe you should.

I agree with that. Defender's have the right to stand their ground.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I think the fact that we’re all debating almost every spot kick given so far, even with the benefit of replay, shows that VAR is just slowing the game down rather than making the game fairer. On that respect alone it’s a failed experiment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm not saying it was or wasn't a pen, but there was an alternative for Ronaldo. An alternative that was the norm in the first 130 years of football, until the post-Klinsmann era of "going to ground".

For CR to use his power, reactions and balance to beat the slight coming together, and go on and score/create.

What a shame that the game has changed this way, and week by week more fans and punters are acclimatising to new endless claim for penalties by supreme athletes.

agree with that to a degree, its changed. though in the old days the defender would have made a proper effort to tackle or tried to marshal the player, not just half step in front because they know they'd fluff a tackle or get skinned/dummied. why should the attacker have to dodge a half hearted challenge? it was a pretty cynical effort at defense, and there was alot of that, from both side

 

[beorhthelm]

At a complete tangent, my wife is convinced that Ronaldo wears eyeliner. Can anyone confirm this?

ask you wife if eyeliner would survive intact through a game. maybe off pitch.

 

[AZ Gull]

At a complete tangent, my wife is convinced that Ronaldo wears eyeliner. Can anyone confirm this?

Yes, I can confirm your wife thinks Ronaldo wears eyeliner.

 

[Shooting Star]

My biggest problem with VAR is that it's far from being "tried and tested", yet they've implemented it in the biggest tournament in the world. It's like rolling out driverless cars tomorrow on the M25.

I need to watch the video on the technicalities of VAR, but from instinct surely the penalty decision in the Australia game shouldn't have been overturned as the Aussie defender's challenge wasn't a clear cut foul (proven by the debate following)? If the ref had given a penalty in the first place, I could understand the replay not giving him sufficient reason to overturn his original decision. However, I probably should watch the VAR video explanation first. However, one of the failure's of it so far seems to be that it is still subjective, displayed in the Argentina game where the ref was reluctant to look at a handful of incidents that would have been flagged in the Australia game.

One positive though: I don't think the time it has taken to review the incidents has ruined the flow of any of the games. It's all been done very quickly, and the fact that we can see the replays on the TV at the same time the ref is seeing them made me feel less lost as to what was going on.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I'm getting fed up with penalties in general and VAR in particular. There are way too many these days and are seen as legitimate alternative to having an attempt on goal. They ruin games and are given far too softly. When I first started watching football, penalties were a fairly rare event. Today, in the World Cup finals, there were 5 awarded across just 4 games. Madness.

Still, pundits love them.

 

[Easy 10]

On the whole, so far, VAR hasn't been a disaster (yet). I have 2 problems though.

1. The inconsistency of when its implemented. The France penalty that was awarded via a VAR decision was, in the end, just about correct IMO. Marginal, but correct (you could rightly argue its ONLY supposed to be used to review clear and obvious errors, but thats a whole 'nother can of worms). But then given that VARS review and subsequent pen for France, the fact that the ref didn't even see fit to review that Argentina claim for a pen - which was a stonewall btw - was bizarre. Once I saw the replay of it, I was sat there fully expecting the ref to trot to the sidelines, have a squizz, and point to the spot. Didn't happen. Why ??

2. Almost every goal now, I'm waiting for a potential review. Its like I'm on hold. When Costa scored his first v Portugal, after delightfully assaulting Pepe with his elbow, I thought "great goal, but hang on...this could be scrubbed". Didn't happen, but maybe it should've ? I don't like this lurking "will it be ruled out ?" feeling in the back of my mind. And so far, its been watching teams I don't really give a shit about. I'm going to be all over the shop when its England.

Its (kind of) working. But there is so much potential for some catastrophic buffoonery. Its in the post, I can feel it.

 

[BadFish]

Going down easily and playing for frees is in danger of ruining this World Cup for me.

Can't stand Ronaldo (literally)

 

[HastingsSeagull]

If you dive and it's not given it seems to lead to nothing 98% of the time or occasionally a yellow. If you win it you get a penalty.

Would love to see penalties at the other end / red card / both for diving and suddenly we might not see it.

Just like wrestling and extreme hugging at every corner. Oh you want to block the keeper? Or grab a player's arms so he can't even jump? Fine but it's a yellow whichever team you're on and a pen if you're the defender.

The game is getting even more about who can con the ref for a 1-0 win rather than jumpers for goalposts etc.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

My biggest problem with VAR is that it's far from being "tried and tested", yet they've implemented it in the biggest tournament in the world. It's like rolling out driverless cars tomorrow on the M25.

I need to watch the video on the technicalities of VAR, but from instinct surely the penalty decision in the Australia game shouldn't have been overturned as the Aussie defender's challenge wasn't a clear cut foul (proven by the debate following)? If the ref had given a penalty in the first place, I could understand the replay not giving him sufficient reason to overturn his original decision. However, I probably should watch the VAR video explanation first. However, one of the failure's of it so far seems to be that it is still subjective, displayed in the Argentina game where the ref was reluctant to look at a handful of incidents that would have been flagged in the Australia game.

One positive though: I don't think the time it has taken to review the incidents has ruined the flow of any of the games. It's all been done very quickly, and the fact that we can see the replays on the TV at the same time the ref is seeing them made me feel less lost as to what was going on.

There has been a fair amount of testing though. It's been used all season in Italy, Germany, Portugal, Australia and the US. Just because it's new to us, doesn't mean it hasn't been tried extensively (that's a hell of a lot of matches).

I also think it's important to distinguish between something being debated on NSC and whether there is actual doubt in the minds of the referees. Without wanting to discuss the incident again (there seem to be more than enough threads doing that already) referees seem to be pretty clear that this was a pen.

 

[Weststander]

If you dive and it's not given it seems to lead to nothing 98% of the time or occasionally a yellow. If you win it you get a penalty.

Would love to see penalties at the other end / red card / both for diving and suddenly we might not see it.

Just like wrestling and extreme hugging at every corner. Oh you want to block the keeper? Or grab a player's arms so he can't even jump? Fine but it's a yellow whichever team you're on and a pen if you're the defender.

The game is getting even more about who can con the ref for a 1-0 win rather than jumpers for goalposts etc.

Good post.

Attackers diving is low risk / potentially high reward.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

The point is to get MORE decisions right. So far it has. There is obviously then the question of whether getting those decisions right is worth it, but there has been minimal delay throughout the tournament, so I don't really think that applies to this current implementation. VAR isn't going to make all decisions correct: it isn't designed to, but it should reduce the number which it so far has.

Also, it's still early days for the technology, so it will take time and mistakes will be made and the process will improve. No real problems for me with it so far, of course it won't be 100%

 

[Acker79]

the Aussie defender's challenge wasn't a clear cut foul (proven by the debate following)

I think there is a fundamental issue that isn't fully understood when debating VAR: the debate about whether a challenge is a foul or not is entirely irrelevant.

Some people, and I suspect Phil Neville fell victim to this yesterday, allow their dislike of VAR to colour how they interpret the decision. Some people allow their allegiance to their team to colour how they see fouls. Some allow their dislike of referees/authority to question every decision. Some feel like the game is too soft these days. Etc. There will always be debate, so there will almost never be a clear cut foul.

That's why fouls aren't defined by popular opinion, or objective characteristics. A foul is a foul if 'in the opinion of the referee' it is a foul. That's it. If the ref thinks it's a foul, then it is a foul, regardless of what everyone else thinks. Regardless of any ensuing debate.

VAR will not ensure we all agree with every decision made, it won't ensure the ref makes the decision anyone in particular wants him to. But, by the definition of the laws of the game, the right decision will (usually) be made.

The idea of 'clear cut' decisions or clear and obvious errors aren't what most people define them as, and not necessarily how they would be defined away from VAR. If a player is offside and scores a goal, it would be a clear error to allow the goal to stand. That he was offside by half a centimetre and it is entirely reasonable for the linesman to have missed it doesn't enter into it. If a player is offside, he can't legally score.

By the same virtue, if, in the opinion of the referee (and that is all that counts), a foul has occurred in the box, it is an obvious error not to give a penalty. That other people may interpret the challenge differently (including me) doesn't mean it's not a clear error.


I don't know if this is something people will grow to accept as VAR embeds itself in the game, or if it is something that will be the undoing of VAR. I must admit part of me is a little curious to see how it plays out. Maybe eventually we'll all end up with buttons at our seats to vote in real time on every decision.

 

[Guinness Boy]

That's why fouls aren't defined by popular opinion, or objective characteristics. A foul is a foul if 'in the opinion of the referee' it is a foul. That's it. If the ref thinks it's a foul, then it is a foul, regardless of what everyone else thinks. Regardless of any ensuing debate.

VAR will not ensure we all agree with every decision made, it won't ensure the ref makes the decision anyone in particular wants him to. But, by the definition of the laws of the game, the right decision will (usually) be made.

Then, I would suggest, VAR should only have a limited use to matters of provable fact. Offside yes / no and did a ball go out of play during build up. Things you can check accurately using the technology. If the referee thinks it wasn't a foul at full speed then it is not a foul in the opinion of the referee, which is the law. He shouldn't be allowed to change his opinion. I reffed a few under 10 games for my son's club (you don't get a Sussex FA ref till under 11) and it doesn't matter what coaches or parents say, you stick to your decision. If you are saying the referee's opinion is paramount then that should be VAR's death knell.

Maybe eventually we'll all end up with buttons at our seats to vote in real time on every decision.

You could give Simon Cowell the commentary while we're at it, move all games to 7.30 on Saturday and have "the referee's decision is sponsored by Giff Gaff" or some other equally hideous shit. If this ever happens I'll go back to watching non-league quicker than you can say Burgess Hill Town.