Retroactive VAR is a farce

[rebel]

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.

[The Cravenette]

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.

[Jim©]

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.

[rebel]

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.

[Statto]

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:

[Jim©]

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!

[fulhamfever]

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.

[toshes mate]

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.

[SG]

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

[Lighthouse]

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.

[jarv]

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.

[Craven_Chris]

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

[Lordedmundo]

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?

[Big T]

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

[Big T]

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

[F(f)CUK]

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.

[Twig]

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.

[Whitesideup]

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.

[ffcne]

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.

[Sting of the North]

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.