It's only from last season, I believe (possibly even only from this season, but I think from last), that the rule change came in. And you're still allowed to slow down your run. You just can't come to a complete stand still any longer. As for giving the penalty, if a professional referee in Chris Foy says that when a foul that continues into the box it is a penalty not a free-kick, then I'm happy to accept that's the rule.
They changed it so you can't actually stop. Players who do the stutter still keep some momentum whereas Son didn't. Slight difference so really poor from Son and a great spot from the ref. Ronaldo et al just modified their stutter to keep some movement.
Chris Foy is right, definite penalty - I believe it is only for holding offences though. If foul continues into the box it's a pen.
My issue with the penalty is the attacker was clearly waiting until he got to the box before going down. If that's to be the accepted norm then expect to see loads more players using the same trick to win pens. It simply can't be taking this long to make decisions though. It's ridiculous. It's farcical enough watching it on TV with the wait but imagine being sat in the ground in the freezing ****ing cold waiting 3 minutes a time with no clue what's going on. It's mental.
As Savage and St B have mentioned they got the llorente foul wrong, but all their other decisions were correct. Just takes too long, nobody knows what's happening, don't see what the official sees, nothing on the screens in the ground. Like TLL says it does affect emotion but I believe it will be improved to a good level.
Fair enough , but the advantage was given to see if spurs could gain anything from that attack . Example - A shot at goal , score a goal... They did neither so play should be moved back , not moved forward. How is that Rochdales fault no advantage was gained? That's why players take yellow cards during count attacks to break up play, it's tactical. Awarding the penalty in this "case" should not even enter the equation.
Which is absolutely why it has to be on the big screens. You can't just have fans sat there, clueless. Again, something else that greatly improved the system in cricket. In terms of length of time, because it's still so new I'm letting VAR off the criticism somewhat. It can't be taking this long further down the line, but whilst it's still in it's infancy, I can overlook the time length. Hopefully as referees get more and more used to is, they will speed up.
I'm still hugely against the idea of it being on the big screen as many decisions are so subjective. Firstly players still aren't going to be happy with some decisions if they're 50-50. Also think it could incite the crowd in high pressure matches like derby matches etc. So a non starter for me. As for the time issue, you may well be right that it will speed up over time and personally I think they should introduce a time limit - say 60 seconds for arguments sake - where if they can't see a reason to overturn it then they stick with the decision on the field. My concern though is that to counteract the above that is over time that refs will rely on it too much and bottle ever making big decisions. So it will be taking slightly less time to reach decisions but they'll be using it 8 times a match etc. But one of my biggest concerns is still that they feel the need to review every single goal. It will take the emotion out of the game and you'll never lose your **** and be able to celebrate a goal properly every again. I fear it will become like a yank sport and the natural protocol after a goal will end up being to get to your feet, hold your foam fingers in the air and partake in some rhythmic clapping until the decision appears on the screen. **** that for a laugh. Not the game I love.
Which is another reason why it is so essential to stick to the 'clear and obvious' rule (which I really believe they didn't go for the Llorente incident). When you have the position of sticking with whatever the onfield referee has gone with, unless it is beyond doubt that they are wrong, then you can't just pass the buck over to the VAR. Because the bottle-job decision then becomes the thing that has to be absolutely, without question, incorrect for it to be overturned. With so much power, if you like, remaining with the onfield referee, they can't really bottle it. Rarely will their bottled decision get overturned (so in effect they are still making decisions), and they'll soon find themselves downgraded (eg from PL officiating).
What we now need is another official with a camera behind the VAR official checking if he has made a clear and obvious mistake. Then he can overrule the original overruled decision. Simple.
I know it's early days yet, but as I suspected....in many cases VAR will suck the life and passion from the game without managing to reduce controversy. There will be cases where all is clear and the ref made a mistake or didn't see something, but there will be lots of cases where you are just asking someone else to toss a coin and make a decision.
I think they use it too frequently. I think VAR is a great tool but i'm not a fan of them using it is as many situations as they are. I'd rather it be underused than over used. If its underused but still often overturns obvious mistakes, even if it misses one of two tight calls thats always going to be an improvement. as it is we're making more right calls, some controversial calls and killing a lot of moments which is far more debatable whether its an improvement. Hopefully they will keep testing it until they find the correct balance rather than giving up on it though.
