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

[PILTDOWN MAN]

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

Can't stand Ronaldo (literally)

One thing l’d change would make exaggerated injuries/appealing a bookable offence. Still give the freekick if it was deemed a foul but the act of rolling about book them for simulation. Laying on the ground, Knocky style irritates me immensely especially when your team is defending, only for them to get up.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Broadly, I agree with what you're saying. There is somewhat of a discrepancy between the two emboldened passages. Ultimately there are certain decisions that are not cast-iron, and will involve the interpretation/implementation of the laws of the game which, I would claim, is more than just the referee's opinion: it's the referee interpreting and implementing the laws of the game. As [MENTION=616]Guinness Boy[/MENTION] indicates, there are some that are black and white (eg offside) that can be verified swiftly by VAR. I was persuaded by ITV's post-match assessment of the two penalties in the Argentina game (FWIW, I thought the Pavon one was a penalty live, but also thought the Meza was live, and the post-match commentators revised my view of this). The Griezmann one, however, I'm still unsure about; the defender got a marginal touch on the ball I think but whether that was enough to substantially divert the ball away from Griezmann's path is a different question -- and this is where my uncertainty lies -- because the defender did proceed to trip him.

 

[Acker79]

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.

There is somewhat of a discrepancy between the two emboldened passages. Ultimately there are certain decisions that are not cast-iron, and will involve the interpretation/implementation of the laws of the game which, I would claim, is more than just the referee's opinion: it's the referee interpreting and implementing the laws of the game. As [MENTION=616]Guinness Boy[/MENTION] indicates, there are some that are black and white (eg offside) that can be verified swiftly by VAR.

I think the obvious counter to your argument is that sometimes the game moves fast, sometimes there is too much going on and the in both cases the ref can miss something and getting a second opportunity to look at the action allows him a proper view to make the 'right' decision (and why the ref has to look at the footage - it's his opinion that counts). I think that these sorts of decisions are rare, and it was intended that VAR would be reserved for those big cases, the goal kick given as a goal for example. So far, I think most would agree it hasn't, that VAR has been used for smaller decisions that would probably have been forgotten about by the time the programme finished, or at the very least would have almost instantly have been dismissed as "you can see why he gave/didn't give it" and we'd move on. I think it is also why authorities were so reluctant to introduce VAR.

How this discrepancy resolves itself is what I was talking about with my last paragraph.

Will pressure from fans/the media force changes to the laws/system (limited challenges, redefine what can be reviewed and how/by whom), will the system stay as it is and force a change in fans (where needed learning the laws of the game and how they are applied, accepting decisions even if we disagree with them etc), will the system stay as it is and lose popularity to the point it gets eliminated? Will it stay as it is and be embraced, flaws and all, as an evolution of the game that maybe eliminates the big errors, but doesn't do anything to remove controversy/debate about every other small decision for which VAR is used, and that's great anyway because we all love these discussions?

I think it's mildly interesting (in a sad way) to see where it goes.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Are you serious? There is a clear movement of his leg. He tries to stop it but it's too late. I'm not sure how you can even deny that.

Watch it again in slow motion, for your benefit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44408323

This is spot on. Not sure how anyone can argue against what seagulls4ever has written.

 

[Bold Seagull]

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.

Don't know about that, I know Peru missed theirs, but that was a clear indication of VAR working, and could have been the difference between qualifying or not.

The reason it has not worked for the rest, is that as with cricket, the referee's original decision stands unless there was absolute clear reasons for overturning it. Basically there has been enough contact, forced or otherwise for VAR not to overturn, but should have VAR shown no contact on any, then overturning would have proved the system working. They've been marginal but I don't think that says it is a failed experiment.

 

[-gully-]

Now you have players hounding the ref to use VAR.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Would have to say, VAR applied and implemented spot on again for Sweden's penalty. Blatant pen waved play on by the official, 15 secs later he is stopping the game, 30 secs later Sweden are taking their now deservedly awarded penalty. No real delay, right decision reached.