Blackpool Wolf
Groupie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2016
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 459
Just watched Saiss penalty again - how did VAR get involved -;ref had clear view - no clear and obvious error for me - sorry if covered elsewhere
Doesn’t look a penalty to me but of course against a so called super league team you expect them givenJust watched Saiss penalty again - how did VAR get involved -;ref had clear view - no clear and obvious error for me - sorry if covered elsewhere
I must admit, my first instinct was penalty.I had 8 pints, was at the other side of the ground with bad eyesight. Immediately said penalty and haven’t changed my mind.
Beyond idiotic defending trying to win a physical battle with Lukaku. Just get rid of the ball.
We wouldn’t get one if Rudiger smashed Jimenez on the back with a steel chair, Thiago Silva put him in a headlock before The Undertaker made his Chelsea debut and tombstone pile drived him into the penalty spot.I must admit, my first instinct was penalty.
Would we have been given it, I very much doubt it.
this. Having seen the replays and the way Saiss move his leg back making contact then I think it was a penalty, but it took multiple replays from lots of angles to be able to see that and certainly other angles it looked like there was no contact or maybe if there was in wasn't in the box, so certainly not a clear and obvious error.It was a penalty, let’s be honest, but at the same time the OP is correct in that it wasnt a clear and obvious error from the ref.
We wouldn’t get one if Rudiger smashed Jimenez on the back with a steel chair, Thiago Silva put him in a headlock before The Undertaker made his Chelsea debut and tombstone pile drived him into the penalty spot.
That last bit for me.this. Having seen the replays and the way Saiss move his leg back making contact then I think it was a penalty, but it took multiple replays from lots of angles to be able to see that and certainly other angles it looked like there was no contact or maybe if there was in wasn't in the box, so certainly not a clear and obvious error.
So really what is needed is clearer guidance on when and how VAR should be used. Difficult to feel too aggrieved in this case as the correct decision was reached, but what is needed is consistency in what VAR does and doesn't get involved in.
The other bit of the sequence that doesn't seem to have been looked at was what caused Saiss to go down in the first place i.e. was there a foul on him first ?, probably not but was part of the incident so should have been looked at in the review
Agree that that penalties these days seem to be given with very minimal contact, but thats a separate issue, at least on that front things generally seem a bit more consistent. There is the issue of if the attacker initiates looks for the contact, and that was one area they were supposed to be looking at this season and not giving penalties for, can't really see I've seen any change in what is or isn't deemed a penalty in those situations.That last bit for me.
I’m not convinced it was a penalty for me, as that contact was minimal, Lukaku made sure he fell over that leg, was starting to go down as soon as he saw it never mind felt it. But ok, if that’s the threshold for a foul, so be it. So….if there’s the threshold for a foul, was that not a barge in the back by Lukaku leading to the pen incident?
Neither or both should surely be the correct, consistent interpretation. Which means either way it shouldn’t be a pen.
You are eminently, except being a bit lightweight on the alcohol front, qualified for PGMOL....I had 8 pints, was at the other side of the ground with bad eyesight. Immediately said penalty and haven’t changed my mind.
Beyond idiotic defending trying to win a physical battle with Lukaku. Just get rid of the ball.
Unfortunately your last sentence says it all.Was at the other end and immediately thought it was a pen. At slow speed it looks less of a pen but I thought it was in real time. Saiss panicked because he'd not seen the ball out and thrashed at it.
Re VAR, we all hate it for two reasons, it's used too much and takes too long but it's here to stay. The reason it seems better elsewhere is because its used to stop clear and obvious mistakes over here we have the obsession with being too forensic driven by the pundits obsession with dissecting every decision against the big six.
Unfortunately we're lumbered with it but I'd advocate two rules for its use:
1. If offsides are that minute you have to freeze frame and draw lines then its not obvious. (No lines and no freeze frame)
2. If there's a debate about a goal it has to be identified by the time the teams are ready to restart. (Can't see an offence in 30 seconds, goal stands)
Use it in real time as an extra pair of eyes for the officials not as a safety net. They are simply an extra lino looking at a screen and need to be able to make a call in the same time the other officials have. Basically if they can't abide by these rules they're not fit to officiate!
And herein lies the problem, instead of tackling the real issue of quality of match officials they use technology to compensate. Treat the cause not the symptom.Unfortunately your last sentence says it all.
this. Having seen the replays and the way Saiss move his leg back making contact then I think it was a penalty, but it took multiple replays from lots of angles to be able to see that and certainly other angles it looked like there was no contact or maybe if there was in wasn't in the box, so certainly not a clear and obvious error.
So really what is needed is clearer guidance on when and how VAR should be used. Difficult to feel too aggrieved in this case as the correct decision was reached, but what is needed is consistency in what VAR does and doesn't get involved in.
The other bit of the sequence that doesn't seem to have been looked at was what caused Saiss to go down in the first place i.e. was there a foul on him first ?, probably not but was part of the incident so should have been looked at in the review
I read somewhere that the Championship play off games this season have VAR. Thin end of the wedge.I swore I wouldn't set foot in any football ground to watch a game if VAR was being used. I have stuck to that pledge and will continue to do so. For the rest of my life if needed.
I could go on about the many variances of how VAR can lead to incorrect, game / season defining outcomes. For example, no VAR on things like incorrectly awarded corners, team scores from corner = 'legitimate' goal. But VAR will gladly get involved in looking for handballs or such in the lead up to a goal, accidental or otherwise.
But that's not the point.
VAR means you can never, properly, celebrate a goal at a game. Even goals that look totally legit sometimes get VAR'd. Watching the Championship game last night was refreshing. A late winner from Sunderland that their fans could properly celebrate without worrying if the ref is going to put his hand to his ear 60 seconds later.
It's made the sport of football magnitudes worse. I'm not paying my money to travel up and down the country to basically downgrade from celebrating a goal, the very essence of why we go to football, to provisionally celebrating a possible goal. Not doing it. Deal breaker.
The Saiss one was a penalty though. Just highlights further that the refs are terrible and are increasingly relying on the crutch that VAR provides. The Moutinho penalty against City ought to be enough for the entire sport to say, hey, this VAR thing seems to be hated by most fans and it doesn't even work properly.
VAR has puzzled me since its inception. If I had my way it would be ditched today. I notice that the championship play off games will use VAR. To the four teams involved, welcome to our world!!