[Albion] The penalty

[Sheebo]

Absolute joke of a decision that brings the game into disrepute, but I'm not complaining.

Never a pen - VAR a joke - but we deserve it.

 

[Bodian]

For all those who say it wasn't a penalty, do you then also say that Propper and their chap accidentally clipping toes should not have been a free-kick (and a booking)?

 

[nickjhs]

@%1;

No im saying it wasn't a penalty.

I am aware of that and you are incorrect.

 

[Munkfish]

I am aware of that and you are incorrect.

I dont think so and theres others that agree. Have a nice day.

 

[amexer]

Why, will the screen look different in the ground?

I’m guessing those decisions are taken remotely to take the pressure of the ref, particularly when giving a decision against a home side in a possibly hostile environment.

Wouldnt look different but having been advised by VAR should have a look at least it is match ref deciding on decision. Would guess he would have still said no pen. Delighted we won but game will be poorer if penalties start to be given for such minor infringements and also ball brushing against arm.

 

[maffew]

The only way to fix this seems to be to replace the ref entirely with technology and robots so at least it can be applied consistently, wrong or rightly

 

[nickjhs]

Delighted we won but game will be poorer if penalties start to be given for such minor infringement.

I agree, but there is no such thing as a perfect solution either option has a trade off. Have VAR and the ensuing millimetre perfection, or get rid of it and accept howlers are part of the game. At the moment, although uncomfortable, I am just on the side of VAR. One option I have floated is a tennis style system. Remove VAR from the ref and give each side one maybe two VAR calls. If you are correct you keep it, if wrong you lose it.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

VAR was brought in to overturn incorrect decisions by the on field ref. What will they bring in to overturn the incorrect decisions by the VAR ref?

Complete waste of time as the arguing still continues so may as well just bin it and go back to the old system of moaning at the ref for a dodgy decision. At least the game will flow properly again and we can all celebrate immediately rather than waiting 2 mins by which time the elation has subsided

 

[darkwolf666]

VAR was brought in to overturn incorrect decisions by the on field ref. What will they bring in to overturn the incorrect decisions by the VAR ref?

Complete waste of time as the arguing still continues so may as well just bin it and go back to the old system of moaning at the ref for a dodgy decision. At least the game will flow properly again and we can all celebrate immediately rather than waiting 2 mins by which time the elation has subsided

Agree 100% - bring in goal line technology, like that which worked so well at Newcastle with Connolly effort cleared off the line and leave the rest of the decisions to the officials.

 

[Easy 10]

I agree, but there is no such thing as a perfect solution either option has a trade off. Have VAR and the ensuing millimetre perfection, or get rid of it and accept howlers are part of the game. At the moment, although uncomfortable, I am just on the side of VAR. One option I have floated is a tennis style system. Remove VAR from the ref and give each side one maybe two VAR calls. If you are correct you keep it, if wrong you lose it.

In which case, teams will simply save up their reviews in the hope of getting goals chalked off. Its too valuable to use for anything else.

Last minute goal and the oppo still has a review ? You can forget celebrating it immediately, because they WILL call for review on something - anything - in the hope of getting it cancelled.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

I dislike VAR but our penalty was justified . The guy stood on Connolly's foot and he was hurt. ( unless acting to a convincing standard is also one of his talents)
Penalty ...no doubt.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I dislike VAR but our penalty was justified . The guy stood on Connolly's foot and he was hurt. ( unless acting to a convincing standard is also one of his talents)
Penalty ...no doubt.

I’ve not seen a replay but the press said his foot was trod on, but he clutched his shin?

 

[piersa]

joke of a decision but i'll take it as we deserve a bit of Donald.

 

[Acker79]

A question I have is that, for subjective issues like the penalty, I thought VAR would only come into play when a clear and obvious error had been made. I think the language is literally that, clear and obvious. The foul on Connolly wasn’t clear or obvious error.

Clear and obvious is what var was meant for we were led to believe. The fact, again, its not a blatant ref cock up and its being discussed has changed the game for the worse irreversibly now, my opinion. Yes we will take this one. Doesnt.sit well though

If a foul has occurred and the ref doesn't give it, isn't that a clear error? But that aside, I read this article a while back that gave an interesting point of view:

https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2018/6/20/17484152/world-cup-2018-var-video-replay-review

The notion of a standard of review comes from the law, where judicial decisions are occasionally reconsidered by higher appellate courts.
...
However, judicial decisions are not all reviewed at face value — or de novo. In any appellate proceeding, different aspects of the lower court’s decision are reviewed under different standards. The court reviews questions of fact, for example, only for “clear error”; matters of discretion, however, are reviewed under a “abuse of discretion” standard. These two standards are materially different: a “clear error” is a significantly deferential standard, requiring a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”; and “abuse of discretion” is “a plain error, discretion exercised to an end not justified by the evidence, a judgment that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts as are found”.

Basically, this means that higher courts are extremely deferential to lower courts on issues relating to the facts of a case. So, for example, a reviewing court would not overturn a lower court’s determination that the plaintiff slipped on ice outside the defendant’s store, even if the defendant produces a witness saying that the sidewalk wasn’t slippery that day. Instead, the reviewing court would need a “clear error”: in this case, a clear error would be that the lower court didn’t consider that it was 80 degrees out and the defendant had covered the sidewalk in sand hours before the supposed accident.​

 

[Triggaaar]

I’ve not seen a replay but the press said his foot was trod on, but he clutched his shin?

May have gone down his shin before landing on his foot? Don't know.

 

[NooBHA]

I think the accidental aspect shouldn't be the major issue. There are many accidental trips or hand balls which are Penalties and they get given.

I think if the VAR Official thought that Connolly could conceivably have latched on to the ball otherwise then it should be a Penalty. If he couldn't then I think no goal scoring opportunity was hampered.

They must have conceivably thought tha Connolly might have been able to get on to the ball.

It's a very soft Penalty but I think a Penalty none the less

 

[nickjhs]

In which case, teams will simply save up their reviews in the hope of getting goals chalked off. Its too valuable to use for anything else.

Last minute goal and the oppo still has a review ? You can forget celebrating it immediately, because they WILL call for review on something - anything - in the hope of getting it cancelled.

Or they will use it for what they think is a clear and obvious ref error.

 

[Acker79]

I’ve not seen a replay but the press said his foot was trod on, but he clutched his shin?

If your foot is pointed down it stretches your shin muscle. If you try pulling your foot up and someone is stood on it, your foot goes into that pointing down motion and so you will feel that muscle stretch and when your foot becomes free it suddenly contracts and maybe that almost strains the muscle, or causes a sharp feeling that concerns you so your grab that muscle first?

 

[Bob'n'weave]

He stood on his foot, end of.

Richarleson threw himself to the ground, end of.

Getting a bit fed up with this 'Brighton VAR robbery' talk from dickhead pundits and the media going batshit mental, calling it a 'bizarre call' and 'VAR nightmare'. Silva, in tears as the fabric of football unravels before us all, appealing for sanity in the midst of such utter madness. I'm expecting a points deduction any day now.

 

[NooBHA]

I’ve not seen a replay but the press said his foot was trod on, but he clutched his shin?

That half true. His lower ankle adjoining his foot was stood on. And Aaron grasped his upper ankle adjoining his leg

However when a foot gets stood on sometimes the pain can shoot up someone's leg. That said I think Connolly knew the chance had gone and the only way to bring it to the attention of VAR was to look like he had been shot.

He had every right to do that because he had Indeed been fouled.