Moment of, like the handball pen we got, makes sense. Three minutes later because some rando can spend all the time in the world for every inch of a possibility. Disgusting.
It's a penalty, imagine it went the other way.
Absolutely ridiculous and ruins the flow of the game. Needs to go!
Quote from: Pluto on October 18, 2020, 02:01:23 PM
Absolutely ridiculous and ruins the flow of the game. Needs to go!
This exactly.
Quote from: FFCFOREVER on October 18, 2020, 02:13:30 PM
Quote from: Pluto on October 18, 2020, 02:01:23 PM
Absolutely ridiculous and ruins the flow of the game. Needs to go!
This exactly.
The fact no Urd player appealed for it gives you a clue it wasnt a pen
Quote from: Mitrovic the warrior on October 18, 2020, 02:01:01 PM
It's a penalty, imagine it went the other way.
The fact it was a pen is not in dispute. It's the manner in which it's given and VAR is crap.
Looked to me like there was a nudge on Ariola and the Sheff U player had his boot under Mitro's chin, which is dangerous play. How come VAR doesn't look at those incidents? Should only ever be used for clear and obvious mistakes.
I like VAR. It will benefit us one day. It was a penalty.
I imagine Sheffield fans disagree and we would if it was the other way around.
Mitro kicked is leg instead of the ball, in the box. It's a stupid penalty but a penalty just the same.
It's hard to fault Ariola and he was one of our best again, but a better punch out would have been nice. Cav not losing control and rugby tackling the opposition to give away the free kick in the first place would have been even better
Technically it was a penalty, but it doesn't fit the crime. Penalties are designed to prevent deliberate illegal obstruction of a clear goalscoring opportunity (anywhere within the area of the box). If Mitro hadn't lifted his foot, where was that ball going? Exactly where it landed anyway. So were Sheffield United denied a goalscoring opportunity? Apparently, and they earn a free goal for it. I have no complaints about the penalty given that it was awarded according to the rules. It's just that the rules and use of VAR are strangling the game. I am really losing interest in it.
Imagine we had scored from that chance too. That would have been a goal disallowed and a penalty given due to unfortunate off the ball contact.
Never a penalty for me
Quote from: Mokes on October 18, 2020, 02:21:42 PM
I imagine Sheffield fans disagree and we would if it was the other way around.
Mitro kicked is leg instead of the ball, in the box. It's a stupid penalty but a penalty just the same.
It's hard to fault Ariola and he was one of our best again, but a better punch out would have been nice. Cav not losing control and rugby tackling the opposition to give away the free kick in the first place would have been even better
Agree, especially about Cav. Such a disappointment again but thats for another thread.
QuoteNever a penalty for me
I agree, that was never a penalty.
I look forward to these rules being interpreted in our favor every time a defender slightly tugs back or climbs on Mitrovic on a cross. Retroactive VAR will be our best assist man this season.
(Of course, that won't happen, which is exactly why today's penalty to Sheff Utd was ridiculous. The incident created absolutely zero disadvantage for them. He blindly skied a ball in the box, which is exactly what would have happened had Mitrovic not nicked his leg afterward.)
Quote from: Denver Fulham on October 18, 2020, 02:37:20 PM
I look forward to these rules being interpreted in our favor every time a defender slightly tugs back or climbs on Mitrovic on a cross. Retroactive VAR will be our best assist man this season.
(Of course, that won't happen, which is exactly why today's penalty to Sheff Utd was ridiculous. The incident created absolutely zero disadvantage for them. He blindly skied a ball in the box, which is exactly what would have happened had Mitrovic not nicked his leg afterward.)
I'm still seething.
Along with the handball rule, VAR has made the game a bizarre spectacle. I used to have a dream as a kid that I would get home from a match and the result would have changed because of some referee mistake. Now it is becoming more than likely.
VAR has spoilt the spirit of the game where clear mistakes by the referee were to be corrected. We are back now to opinion and 'well I suppose if we take things into account it may have been a penalty' type of farce. I am not enjoying this new game I used to love. I no longer will watch matches on tv because it isn't the game I enjoy anymore.
I am used to referee mistakes and controversy. We always had them. But now we just have a bizarre wait when frankly a decision could go either way depending on the mood of those watching.
It was NOT a penalty! If a player is about to kick a ball and an opponent who cannot play the ball sticks his boot in the other's path, it is obstruction and a bookable foul by the opponent, not the other way around. Take also into account it was also a high boot therefore dangerous play. But Fulham are at the bottom of the Premier league influence table and will always receive the worse decisions in EVERY match.
''I am not going to complain about the (penalty) decision because we have talked about some that have gone against us this season, so we have had a touch of luck today. We will take that and I think it is due."
Chris Wilder Sheff Utd Manager.
As a side note I thought VAR was supposed to get rid of the 'bit of luck'.
Quote from: Lighthouse on October 18, 2020, 03:06:15 PM
''I am not going to complain about the (penalty) decision because we have talked about some that have gone against us this season, so we have had a touch of luck today. We will take that and I think it is due."
Chris Wilder Sheff Utd Manager.
As a side note I thought VAR was supposed to get rid of the 'bit of luck'.
It got rid of Fulham's "bit of luck" in that the ref was mistaken in Mitro having got to that ball in the box first. A good day from VAR's perspective.
Not a penalty in my book and I'm a qualified ref!
Quote from: Fulham Joe on October 18, 2020, 02:33:42 PM
QuoteNever a penalty for me
I agree, that was never a penalty.
Not kicking the ball but instead kicking the calf/ heel of the opponent in the box is NOT a penalty?!? I must not have been watching the same match...
100% not a penalty. Unless I'm mistaken football is still a contact sport. Two players going for the same ball. Not surprisingly there was contact but no way did that warrant a pen.
Quote from: winterline on October 18, 2020, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: Fulham Joe on October 18, 2020, 02:33:42 PM
QuoteNever a penalty for me
I agree, that was never a penalty.
Not kicking the ball but instead kicking the calf/ heel of the opponent in the box is NOT a penalty?!? I must not have been watching the same match...
The contact was so minimal and when it happened there was not even any thought that it was a pen, can players not challenge for balls anymore
Quote from: winterline on October 18, 2020, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: Fulham Joe on October 18, 2020, 02:33:42 PM
QuoteNever a penalty for me
I agree, that was never a penalty.
Not kicking the ball but instead kicking the calf/ heel of the opponent in the box is NOT a penalty?!? I must not have been watching the same match...
So, every time Mitro wins a header but is then clattered by the defender, that is a penalty?
We should be getting 5 or 6 per game.
The Sheff U boss was honest enough . It was a joke of a decision.
looked very harsh didn't it . ref was right in front of it and he said no . mitro had eyes on the ball , looked like they came together at the same moment . but thats what var does , it will spot everything . lets hope it evens up
What would have happened if we had scored in the 3 minutes between the incident & the VAR award of the pen?
Quote from: bill taylors apprentice on October 18, 2020, 03:34:21 PM
Not a penalty in my book and I'm a qualified ref!
I don't know the wording of whatever rule or guidance is relevant here but yeah, to anyone who's played football or knows the game, two players' legs clashing harmlessly when they swing them at the ball should not be a penalty.
Sheff U player is off balance, because his foot is high, he's falling over anyway, because of his own actions. Collisions like this happen all the time. If the attacking player is already falling and has lost control of the ball when collision comes, it's never a penalty. When Lookman got his shot away after the Sheff U keeper fumbled it, he was clattered by a defender as he lost balance. No one even thought of suggesting penalty.
Never a penalty, both players were trying to clear the ball and made contact with each other, wasnt a goal scoring chance either
ALSO the big question for me is what if Cairney would of gone on to score that goal, would they of cancelled that too as it came from the same play ???
Quote from: Big T on October 18, 2020, 05:07:50 PM
Never a penalty, both players were trying to clear the ball and made contact with each other, wasnt a goal scoring chance either
ALSO the big question for me is what if Cairney would of gone on to score that goal, would they of cancelled that too as it came from the same play ???
Yes, they would cancel it.
Quote from: Big T on October 18, 2020, 05:07:50 PM
Never a penalty, both players were trying to clear the ball and made contact with each other, wasnt a goal scoring chance either
ALSO the big question for me is what if Cairney would of gone on to score that goal, would they of cancelled that too as it came from the same play ???
I think the goal would have been disallowed. When the remote ref is analysing an incident, we enter a kind of virtual reality. The events that happen may not actually happen. They can cease to exist, if the ref goes back to a previous passage of play. Could be even more interesting if we had broken and red card offence was committed. Does the ref ignore all events that take place in the virtual space between decisions?
personally i think the rules have become a farce. two players going honestly for the same ball..one has to get it first that cannot be a foul.
however with today's rules it is classed as foul play..ridiculous.
the var thing is good, if it is a foul and the ref misses it then that is good, it's just that really shouldn't be a foul.
Player A and Player B attempt to kick the ball.
Player A is slightly earlier and player B kicks Player A's leg which is where the ball was a fraction of a second ago.
Has happened a billion times in the history of football. Even someone with the non-violent attitude of a Ghandi coud not play a game of football without making accidental contact with an opponent's limbs.
Some jester in a TV studio, whose job depends on making some intereference during matches, on frame-by-frame analysis, decides there was some hostile intention.
Utterly ridiculous.
This is where the game has sold out to TV. The idea, obviously promoted and supported by TV itself, that slo-mo, freeze frame somehow gives a more valid version of the truth than real life.
Quote from: cmg on October 18, 2020, 05:38:58 PM
Player A and Player B attempt to kick the ball.
Player A is slightly earlier and player B kicks Player A's leg which is where the ball was a fraction of a second ago.
Has happened a billion times in the history of football. Even someone with the non-violent attitude of a Ghandi coud not play a game of football without making accidental contact with an opponent's limbs.
Some jester in a TV studio, whose job depends on making some intereference during matches, on frame-by-frame analysis, decides there was some hostile intention.
Utterly ridiculous.
This is where the game has sold out to TV. The idea, obviously promoted and supported by TV itself, that slo-mo, freeze frame somehow gives a more valid version of the truth than real life.
Exactly. And you can guarantee if Player A had kicked Player B it would've just played on as a Free Kick is not as exciting as a Penalty. They are inventing 'incidents' now that would've been the norm before VAR.
Mitro should watch Harry Kane's performance against West Ham to see how he needs to perform in the Premiership.
Never a penalty an absolute farce.
Quote from: The Enclosurite on October 18, 2020, 08:48:25 PM
Quote from: cmg on October 18, 2020, 05:38:58 PM
Player A and Player B attempt to kick the ball.
Player A is slightly earlier and player B kicks Player A's leg which is where the ball was a fraction of a second ago.
Has happened a billion times in the history of football. Even someone with the non-violent attitude of a Ghandi coud not play a game of football without making accidental contact with an opponent's limbs.
Some jester in a TV studio, whose job depends on making some intereference during matches, on frame-by-frame analysis, decides there was some hostile intention.
Utterly ridiculous.
This is where the game has sold out to TV. The idea, obviously promoted and supported by TV itself, that slo-mo, freeze frame somehow gives a more valid version of the truth than real life.
Exactly. And you can guarantee if Player A had kicked Player B it would've just played on as a Free Kick is not as exciting as a Penalty. They are inventing 'incidents' now that would've been the norm before VAR.
FWIW I think it was super soft but what you're describing is a misstimed tackle which is often a foul.
No penalty for me Mitro did not deliberately foul their player. It was very soft
If their player gets there first and takes a touch to put it into a shooting position or chance to play it to someone....ok, fine, I can just about understand it...but he literally just hoofs it in the air and gets a faint touch brushing his foot. If that's what footballs becoming, count me out. Who wants penalties given for that kind sh**...just like the penalty given against Bryan for having a hand lightly on someone's back...so dull...bore off VAR....and yes its annoyed me seeing it happen in all games not just against us.... I say keep it at goal line technology and call it a day
Surely relevance of the 'foul' must be a factor. Technically Mitro has kicked their player (albeit clearly accidently after the forward has made contact with the ball) and that has not affected the game in any way. If fouls and penalties are to be given for every contact during a goalmouth scramble then penalties (or free kicks to the defenders,let's not forget it works both ways) will be every few minutes. Mitro had a header which he put wide but was knocked in the back immediately afterwards by a player trying to defend the cross, so will that now be deemed a penalty even though he missed.
Surely there must be some thought into was it deliberate, was it dangerous, did it impact the outcome of that situation because if not I just can't see where we are going with the game.
The fact that the Ref is asked to look at it and has limited time to do so, influences and puts pressure on him. Any contact is deemed 'wrong', is incorrect.
When you look at the replay again Mitro has his shirt being pulled just before that. Is that not a foul?
The point being if you look at any incident in the 18 yard area on video, slo-mo, over and over again you will find something. As has been said, not one Sheff Utd player appealed believing that was a pen. It was definitely not a clear mistake by the ref, I just can't understand how the VAR guys can bring it back. Once they ask the ref to look you know he is going to agree with their decision.
The VAR didn't have a lot to do that game so maybe they were just looking for something to prove they were there.
Quote from: Mokes on October 18, 2020, 02:21:42 PM
I imagine Sheffield fans disagree and we would if it was the other way around.
Mitro kicked is leg instead of the ball, in the box. It's a stupid penalty but a penalty just the same.
It's hard to fault Ariola and he was one of our best again, but a better punch out would have been nice. Cav not losing control and rugby tackling the opposition to give away the free kick in the first place would have been even better
But when two players go for the ball, it is very, very likely that there will be some contact. This is where frame by frame analysis from afar is pointless. Not one single Utd player questioned or called for a penalty. All they saw was two players challenging for a ball.
It used to be human decision- ie if a player rounded a keeper, got tripped but the ball had already run off for a goal kick= no pen. Where was that element in this? What was Robinson going to do with the hoofed up ball?
Terrible decision IMO, spoiling the game, no wonder there's so many goals- defenders can't defend anymore.
Even Wilder didn't think it was one, from his reaction, he talked about 'things evening themselves out and they had harsh calls this season.'
It's nonsense that they carry on playing, then a few minutes later the 'dynamics' of the match can be changed.
Quote from: Jim© on October 19, 2020, 11:15:26 AM
Quote from: Mokes on October 18, 2020, 02:21:42 PM
I imagine Sheffield fans disagree and we would if it was the other way around.
Mitro kicked is leg instead of the ball, in the box. It's a stupid penalty but a penalty just the same.
It's hard to fault Ariola and he was one of our best again, but a better punch out would have been nice. Cav not losing control and rugby tackling the opposition to give away the free kick in the first place would have been even better
But when two players go for the ball, it is very, very likely that there will be some contact. This is where frame by frame analysis from afar is pointless. Not one single Utd player questioned or called for a penalty. All they saw was two players challenging for a ball.
It used to be human decision- ie if a player rounded a keeper, got tripped but the ball had already run off for a goal kick= no pen. Where was that element in this? What was Robinson going to do with the hoofed up ball?
Terrible decision IMO, spoiling the game, no wonder there's so many goals- defenders can't defend anymore.
for once I agree with you entirely Jim
:54:
Quote from: Statto on October 19, 2020, 11:26:46 AM
Quote from: Jim© on October 19, 2020, 11:15:26 AM
Quote from: Mokes on October 18, 2020, 02:21:42 PM
I imagine Sheffield fans disagree and we would if it was the other way around.
Mitro kicked is leg instead of the ball, in the box. It's a stupid penalty but a penalty just the same.
It's hard to fault Ariola and he was one of our best again, but a better punch out would have been nice. Cav not losing control and rugby tackling the opposition to give away the free kick in the first place would have been even better
But when two players go for the ball, it is very, very likely that there will be some contact. This is where frame by frame analysis from afar is pointless. Not one single Utd player questioned or called for a penalty. All they saw was two players challenging for a ball.
It used to be human decision- ie if a player rounded a keeper, got tripped but the ball had already run off for a goal kick= no pen. Where was that element in this? What was Robinson going to do with the hoofed up ball?
Terrible decision IMO, spoiling the game, no wonder there's so many goals- defenders can't defend anymore.
for once I agree with you entirely Jim
:54:
It had to happen at some point!
LMAO we had a penalty and missed due to the taker changing his mind where he wanted to slot it. Strikers error.
Harsh penalty? No such thing a penalty is a penalty. We had ours flopped, they had theirs and scored.
VAR was correct.
Quote from: Beamer on October 19, 2020, 08:21:34 AM
Surely relevance of the 'foul' must be a factor. Technically Mitro has kicked their player (albeit clearly accidently after the forward has made contact with the ball) and that has not affected the game in any way. If fouls and penalties are to be given for every contact during a goalmouth scramble then penalties (or free kicks to the defenders,let's not forget it works both ways) will be every few minutes. Mitro had a header which he put wide but was knocked in the back immediately afterwards by a player trying to defend the cross, so will that now be deemed a penalty even though he missed.
Surely there must be some thought into was it deliberate, was it dangerous, did it impact the outcome of that situation because if not I just can't see where we are going with the game.
I think you make an important point about the need for consistency in the application of 'the rules'. I do not see any evidence that VAR is improving consistency of decision making at all. What I see is VAR adding to the problem of inconsistency via a jobsworth satisfying their intended worth by suggesting they see things that the onfield officials do not whilst missing many other examples of the same thing happening. It was a joke of a decision especially given the time lapse and Marriner's contemporaneous reaction.
One of the problems stems from the leader of the Professional Games Official Body - Mike Riley. He was a crap referee and now he is theoretically applying his crapness to the rest of the officials instead of giving them sensible practical guidance. The referee had a clear view of the incident and deemed it not to be a foul. That should be the end of the matter. These people are ruining our game and its about time other people stood up to them. I have little sympathy for the big clubs but Liverpool's winner being ruled out on Saturday was another complete joke. Players and managers livelihoods are dependent upon these crass decisions
I think we must now insist that as VAR is now so much part of the game. As so much time is now wasted reviewing etc. The referee must now either make his decision clear publicly during or after the match. Most of the time it is obvious but there are times when I simply don't see why a decision has been made. Football is becoming like Rugby in that the referee must now explain his decisions. Rugby rules are layered and complicated. Football not so much but clearly there is a gap between the official understanding of incidents and the simpletons like me.
A light tangent to VAR. The linesman is not allowed to raise his flag immediately and I have said for ages, this endangers 2 players coming together if the play is not stopped. Witness Liverpool losing their best defender for months, the linesman might have prevented that. Players know, and always look to the linesman if they suspect they are offside. At any level of football which has 2 linesman, say, county league which I played at we were always paying attention to the linesman, if nothing else to see if he is keeping up with play which might help of hurt us and take appropriate action.
Under the current VAR, why bother to have linesmen (or lines people) except for thrown in decisions.
On the question of whether it should be a penalty or not, there has been some discussion here about what does or does not constitute a foul: so thought it might be helpful to set out the rules...
The following offenses against an opponent, when committed in a manner which is careless, reckless or using excessive force can result in a direct free kick (including penalty)
•charges
•jumps at
•kicks or attempts to kick
•pushes
•strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
•tackles or challenges
•trips or attempts to trip
Note that the list includes tackles or challenges and also that it does not require any intention to commit a foul, accidental (but careless) fouls are quite possible (indeed probably the norm).
If any of the above are done in a manner which is 'careless' a direct free kick or pen is given, if it is done in a reckless manner the free kick is accompanied by a yellow card, and if done with 'excessive force' a red card should be given. We know Mitro was not booked so the one of the above must have been done in a 'careless' manner.
Careless in this context means 'when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution'
So I guess the ref would say that Mitro kicked the player in a careless manner. Obviously the rules are highly subjective, did the attacking player challenge for that high ball more carefully than Mitro? He got there faster and with a higher boot after all, doesnt that imply less care taken for the saftey of the opponent? How can we tell from the video that Mitro was careless? What precautions would they expect him to take in that situation? What precautions do they think the attacker took that Mitro didnt?
These are slightly facetious questions, but they illustrate the problem of creating subjective rules and then applying forensic video analysis to the decisions against them
Quote from: fulhamfever on October 19, 2020, 11:47:34 AM
LMAO we had a penalty and missed due to the taker changing his mind where he wanted to slot it. Strikers error.
Harsh penalty? No such thing a penalty is a penalty. We had ours flopped, they had theirs and scored.
VAR was correct.
You do realise that if 'VAR was correct' there would be about 10 penalties per game.
Plus - should it really be possible to cancel out the 3mins of play that took place before the ref was told to review the video. As others have mentioned - what would happen if one or more goals are scored that period?
Quote from: cmg on October 18, 2020, 05:38:58 PM
Player A and Player B attempt to kick the ball.
Player A is slightly earlier and player B kicks Player A's leg which is where the ball was a fraction of a second ago.
Has happened a billion times in the history of football. Even someone with the non-violent attitude of a Ghandi coud not play a game of football without making accidental contact with an opponent's limbs.
Some jester in a TV studio, whose job depends on making some intereference during matches, on frame-by-frame analysis, decides there was some hostile intention.
Utterly ridiculous.
This is where the game has sold out to TV. The idea, obviously promoted and supported by TV itself, that slo-mo, freeze frame somehow gives a more valid version of the truth than real life.
ABSOLUTELY
2 players looking up at the sky trying to clear a ball make contact
I agree television is destroying football, imagine if the stadium would of been full during that decision,
AND
imagine if Tom would of Scored
Quote from: fulhamfever on October 19, 2020, 11:47:34 AM
LMAO we had a penalty and missed due to the taker changing his mind where he wanted to slot it. Strikers error.
Harsh penalty? No such thing a penalty is a penalty. We had ours flopped, they had theirs and scored.
VAR was correct.
Utter nonsense
Ours - came from a players hand in the wrong place, you never raise your hands when a balls coming in
Theirs - came from two players kicking upwards to clear a ball
I'd have exactly the same opinion if it was the other way round
The bit that really annoys me is that the ref was looking directly at the incident and thought that it was ok. Shown to him in slow motion several times with someone telling him that he may have made a mistake and suddenly he changes his mind.
Quote from: Craven_Chris on October 19, 2020, 04:35:30 PM
On the question of whether it should be a penalty or not, there has been some discussion here about what does or does not constitute a foul: so thought it might be helpful to set out the rules...
The following offenses against an opponent, when committed in a manner which is careless, reckless or using excessive force can result in a direct free kick (including penalty)
•charges
•jumps at
•kicks or attempts to kick
•pushes
•strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
•tackles or challenges
•trips or attempts to trip
Note that the list includes tackles or challenges and also that it does not require any intention to commit a foul, accidental (but careless) fouls are quite possible (indeed probably the norm).
If any of the above are done in a manner which is 'careless' a direct free kick or pen is given, if it is done in a reckless manner the free kick is accompanied by a yellow card, and if done with 'excessive force' a red card should be given. We know Mitro was not booked so the one of the above must have been done in a 'careless' manner.
Careless in this context means 'when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution'
So I guess the ref would say that Mitro kicked the player in a careless manner. Obviously the rules are highly subjective, did the attacking player challenge for that high ball more carefully than Mitro? He got there faster and with a higher boot after all, doesnt that imply less care taken for the saftey of the opponent? How can we tell from the video that Mitro was careless? What precautions would they expect him to take in that situation? What precautions do they think the attacker took that Mitro didnt?
These are slightly facetious questions, but they illustrate the problem of creating subjective rules and then applying forensic video analysis to the decisions against them
Very interesting and helpful. On this basis I have to conclude there were no objective grounds to award a penalty.
Good points made on both side of the debate.
For me the issues are
a) that the ref saw the incident quite clearly .. was it an obvious error?
b) the lapse of time - difficult to avoid as you can't really stop play for a "review" and, for me very importantly
c) the inconsistency in application of VAR - against Leeds 3-4 down .. a few minutes to go, Mitro clearly, and I mean clearly, mishandled. (He was booked for dissent he was so enraged.) Even Robbie Savage said if they gave the first penalty (against Bryan) that one had to be given as well. So why oh why was this not referred? I hear these things even themselves out ... well, we are 2-0 down so far.
Mariner saw the incident ,no one appealed .
Then 2 Yorkshiremen Atkinson and Halliday .
Strictly speaking over rule the referee and say it is a penalty.
Bloody Farce.
Atkinson hates Fulham.
Quote from: Lordedmundo on October 19, 2020, 04:58:06 PM
Quote from: fulhamfever on October 19, 2020, 11:47:34 AM
LMAO we had a penalty and missed due to the taker changing his mind where he wanted to slot it. Strikers error.
Harsh penalty? No such thing a penalty is a penalty. We had ours flopped, they had theirs and scored.
VAR was correct.
You do realise that if 'VAR was correct' there would be about 10 penalties per game.
Plus - should it really be possible to cancel out the 3mins of play that took place before the ref was told to review the video. As others have mentioned - what would happen if one or more goals are scored that period?
They have to let play continue because otherwise if they decide it is not a penalty they would otherwise have denied Fulham a counter attack. Had Fulham scored the goal would have stood if the ref had decided that it wasn't a penalty, otherwise the goal is cancelled. That is not the part of this that is wrong, but a necessary byproduct of the rule. Also only one goal could have been scored, because after play stops they will review the previous incident.
What could and should be questioned in my opinion is what constitutes a valid call for VAR review. It should be a clear mistake by the referee, or at least so I thought. As such, a second subjective review of an incident between players that was already obviously witnessed by the referee should not qualify in my book. The ref saw it, he made a judgment call and that should have been it. The use of VAR should be as restrictive as possible, but instead they have implemented it in the worst possible manner. It is as if though they have really tried to mess it up on purpose.
Quote from: rebel on October 19, 2020, 11:21:53 AM
Even Wilder didn't think it was one, from his reaction, he talked about 'things evening themselves out and they had harsh calls this season.'
It's nonsense that they carry on playing, then a few minutes later the 'dynamics' of the match can be changed.
Unfortunately there is no guarantee that these things even themselves out over the season, and those two points could be crucial by the end of the season.
So I don't believe that they generally even themselves out, that is fools gold.
VAR is more often than not a farce of epic proportions and in the hands of Buffoons who wouldn't know the difference between a football and a snowball.
Quote from: Sting of the North on October 19, 2020, 08:30:58 PM
Quote from: Lordedmundo on October 19, 2020, 04:58:06 PM
Quote from: fulhamfever on October 19, 2020, 11:47:34 AM
LMAO we had a penalty and missed due to the taker changing his mind where he wanted to slot it. Strikers error.
Harsh penalty? No such thing a penalty is a penalty. We had ours flopped, they had theirs and scored.
VAR was correct.
You do realise that if 'VAR was correct' there would be about 10 penalties per game.
Plus - should it really be possible to cancel out the 3mins of play that took place before the ref was told to review the video. As others have mentioned - what would happen if one or more goals are scored that period?
They have to let play continue because otherwise if they decide it is not a penalty they would otherwise have denied Fulham a counter attack. Had Fulham scored the goal would have stood if the ref had decided that it wasn't a penalty, otherwise the goal is cancelled. That is not the part of this that is wrong, but a necessary byproduct of the rule. Also only one goal could have been scored, because after play stops they will review the previous incident.
What could and should be questioned in my opinion is what constitutes a valid call for VAR review. It should be a clear mistake by the referee, or at least so I thought. As such, a second subjective review of an incident between players that was already obviously witnessed by the referee should not qualify in my book. The ref saw it, he made a judgment call and that should have been it. The use of VAR should be as restrictive as possible, but instead they have implemented it in the worst possible manner. It is as if though they have really tried to mess it up on purpose.
Exactly referee had decided no foul.
Why is then looked at by VAR.?.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on October 19, 2020, 08:42:00 PM
Quote from: rebel on October 19, 2020, 11:21:53 AM
Even Wilder didn't think it was one, from his reaction, he talked about 'things evening themselves out and they had harsh calls this season.'
It's nonsense that they carry on playing, then a few minutes later the 'dynamics' of the match can be changed.
Unfortunately there is no guarantee that these things even themselves out over the season, and those two points could be crucial by the end of the season.
So I don't believe that they generally even themselves out, that is fools gold.
VAR is more often than not a farce of epic proportions and in the hands of Buffoons who wouldn't know the difference between a football and a snowball.
:plus one:
Quote from: ffcne on October 19, 2020, 08:13:33 PM
Mariner saw the incident ,no one appealed .
Then 2 Yorkshiremen Atkinson and Halliday .
Strictly speaking over rule the referee and say it is a penalty.
Bloody Farce.
Atkinson hates Fulham.
They just told Atkinson to take a look a the monitor, but having told him to take a look, that probably gives him 'guidance' on the possibility that he has missed something in real-time, so awards the penalty.
The official's are generally good in the Prem, it's not an easy job and VAR complicates things. They all miss shirt pulling. Never forget Hangeland's shirt being pulled every game in the Europa Cup even with the officials behind the goals who did nothing, same happens to Mitro.
Quote from: SuffolkWhite on October 19, 2020, 09:59:00 PM
Never forget Hangeland's shirt being pulled every game in the Europa Cup even with the officials behind the goals who did nothing...
Another stunning innovation. Did any of them ever make any decision about anything? I think the experiment ended when they decided to get them to pay to get in.
Based on this interpretation of VAR rules, I expect any header from Mitrovic that doesn't go in while a defender is grabbing him and/or making contact but not touching the ball to retroactively be awarded a penalty.
Of course that won't happen, because that's how stupid and out of context this call was -- except this was actually worse, as the contact had nothing to do with the outcome of the play. It created no change in advantage given the ball was blindly hoofed into the air and easily cleared.
Having watched the 90 mins replay, something I don't think anyone has so far commented on is VAR is being used so selectively. What I mean is, if you look at the build up to the penalty incident, there are two free kicks in close succession. The second was the rugby tackle by Cav, no argument there, however the first was given for a foul by Ream on Billy Sharp. If you look at it, Sharp was pulling Ream's shirt and then went down, but the ref got it totally wrong and gave SU a free-kick. That free-kick led almost immediately to the 2nd free-kick, and then the penalty incident.
Now I accept that you can't check all aspects of build up to every different decision being reviewed, but it seems to me that they ought to at least check that there is no prior mistake, which results in another incident and decision to be made. For example, what would happen if on the handball that led to our missed penalty, we found on VAR that Cav's corner kick had been taken from the wrong place. By rules of natural justice, there should be no penalty, as it would have emanated from a rule breach.
Similarly, by rules of natural justice, the two free kicks should be reversed and no penalty given.
Why is the referee's prior decision not reviewed? As we know, if Cairney had scored, it would have been ruled out due to a prior foul at the other end. I just don't get it and the fans generally have no faith in the way it is applied.
Reading this morning that the FA will take no action against Pickford for his GBH on VVD just takes the biscuit.
