neilbard
Hedging up
- Oct 8, 2013
- 6,280
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] VAR
- Thread starter Driver8
- Start date
But there was players in the box BEFORE he did that.
It shouldn’t have counted but should have been retaken.
- Thread starter
- #43
Illegal fainting is more Dele Alli’s thing.
Maybe he did actually faint briefly before taking the penalty
Washie
Well-known member
Doesn't matter, the taking of a penalty was a foul, therefore an indirect free-kick.
He used to be a cyclist not a ref.
No it doesn't. I thought it was a horrendous idea when it was suggested; thought it was a horrendous idea when it was implemented and think it's a horrendous idea as it's been implemented.
But there a lot of people on here rewriting history; there were many, many people on NSC who couldn't wait for it be brought in, despite what we sensible people were saying
How does that work (I’m not doubting you) but if an offence happens before another surely you go by that one?
Washie
Well-known member
It's the extra step that's illegal, you can stop then hit the ball, but not stop then take another step.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Correct decision and no retake for feinting.
Washie
Well-known member
As the feint happened before the kick took place, so the penalty kick should not take place, hence you cannot encroach if there is nothing to encroach on.
Shirt pull for the disallowed goal.
The law for penalties has been for a while that you can stutter with your run up, but you can't stop. Son came to a clear stop halfway through his run-up then continued. Players from both teams encroached, normally that would result in a retake, but, the feinting is a more severe offence, so supercedes and as an offence by the taking team means it isn't re-taken.
The foul 'continued into the box'.
As far as I'm concerned, VAR resulted in the correct decisions being made.
The focus should be the process and the system, and how that impacts on spectators, and whether getting the correct decisions are worth it. I don't agree that fans need to see the footage used for the VAR. Fan's opinion of potential offences is irrelevant, and will never be fair and balanced (on the whole). But I don't understand why it took so long for the VAR to say to the ref 'the foul started outside the box, but carried on into it'. I don't understand why the ref was stood there with his finger to his ear for so long before indicating a penalty.
The law for penalties has been for a while that you can stutter with your run up, but you can't stop. Son came to a clear stop halfway through his run-up then continued. Players from both teams encroached, normally that would result in a retake, but, the feinting is a more severe offence, so supercedes and as an offence by the taking team means it isn't re-taken.
The foul 'continued into the box'.
As far as I'm concerned, VAR resulted in the correct decisions being made.
The focus should be the process and the system, and how that impacts on spectators, and whether getting the correct decisions are worth it. I don't agree that fans need to see the footage used for the VAR. Fan's opinion of potential offences is irrelevant, and will never be fair and balanced (on the whole). But I don't understand why it took so long for the VAR to say to the ref 'the foul started outside the box, but carried on into it'. I don't understand why the ref was stood there with his finger to his ear for so long before indicating a penalty.
Least you get more value for money.
130 minute games
130 minute games
Washie
Well-known member
Only 5 mins added time?
I'm sure your last sentence is correct.
However, the rest of it is ridiculous and it's the law that needs changing. Penalties should be scored, they're generally awarded because foul play has stopped a good goal scoring chance. Imagine the outrage if we were playing Palace and had a shot blocked on the line with a handball, leading to a Palace defender being sent off. Hemed, already booked, steps up to take the penalty and does his usual trick of waiting for the keeper to commit before slotting in.
The ref, unsure if this technique is legal, refers it to VAR who rules it a feint, only marginally. The ref has no choice but to rule it out, leading to the goal being ruled out and Hemed going off for a second yellow.
All this may be perfectly correct in the letter of the law but in the spirit of the law it sucks big hairy ones. Far from calming down managers and fans that sort of decision could lead to a riot.
Jimmy Grimble
Well-known member
Stroke of genius getting Alan Partridge on the commentary tonight.
Si-SOCK-o indeed
Si-SOCK-o indeed
- Aug 8, 2005
- 27,231
As I said right at the start of VAR it may kill football.
The balance is too much in favour of ruling goals out rather than goals in. Less goals mean worse football. Also the biggest single pleasure of football is scoring and celebrating a goal. If you take away that moment of joy then it becomes nothing. Totally futile.
People say it works in rugby, but that’s a totally different, stop start game, and a try does not mean as much as a goal does. It’s hat simple.
Bin it now.
The balance is too much in favour of ruling goals out rather than goals in. Less goals mean worse football. Also the biggest single pleasure of football is scoring and celebrating a goal. If you take away that moment of joy then it becomes nothing. Totally futile.
People say it works in rugby, but that’s a totally different, stop start game, and a try does not mean as much as a goal does. It’s hat simple.
Bin it now.