I’ll help you - have a read http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/786/111531_110319_IFAB_LoG_at_a_Glance.pdf
Armstrong made a dodgy tackle in the penalty area yesterday....looked like a good shout for a penalty, but VAR didn't interfere as not clear and obvious mistake. Went in our favour this time....but even if it didn't on another occasion, I do agree with the VAR gnomes not interfering in such cases. My great fear was holding up a game whilst something was looked at from all angles whilst a 50:50 decision was discussed. Remember how some penalties are argued about for days....sometimes it isn't a case of black or white. The ref is there for such decisions...we have to accept that.
That's the stupidest thing ever, it WASNT a dive, clearly. He passed the ball even AFTER he'd been clipped. He fell as the defender clipped him whilst at high speed. It wouldn't have taken that long to clear up on VAR. A clear case of refs never having played actual footy. For me, disallowing that goal is one of the most clear and obvious worst decisions I've ever seen. Imagine if villa go down by one point this year.
The PL have admitted they dropped the ball at that one, I understand. VAR should have overturned the goal. Whoever was the VAR (and the assistance VAR) missed the handball.
He passes it before he was clipped. replays clearly show that. the pass actually changes his fall direction into the defender due to him planting his front leg. though it was the trailing leg he left due to the pass that actually caused contact, but he was clipped as he fell. it was a natural fall though imo. but with a trailing leg, change in direction towards the defender and fall before contact you can see why the ref would think simulation from certain angles. We've seen players kick the ball away and then fall over for a penalty before.
In your view it wasn't a dive. That's absolutely fine, but if someone else has a different view then that too is fine. The sheer fact that we can't even agree just on here is surely enough to illustrate that it the incident wasn't something which has unanimous agreement. But in any event, that is irrelevant to the VAR debate. Other than to check if it was a penalty (and I can't even recall it is was inside the box, before even getting onto whether there was a clear and obvious error in relation to any foul), VAR has no reason to get involved with that incident. The "goal" was scored after the whistle has blown. To suggest that VAR should be allowing things which have happened after play is stopped is ludicrous in my mind.
Some things aren't yes/no and in those circumstances it is best if VAR doesn't get involved....this will mean that sometimes things don't seem ''fair'' and in life you just have to live with it. In any season there will be unclear decisions...I bet if you check all the season's games for a relegated side there will be turning points and some will be for them and some against them. Then do the same for a successful side....result will be just the same. Not suggesting that they necessarily cancel each other out, but when playing a game such things have to be accepted. The best you can hope for is that VAR reduces mistakes without affecting the flow of the game too much...perfection is impossible. Live with it.
The complaint they made on MotD was that he could have waited one more second to see what happened with the shot and let VAR decide if it was a dive... Not sure that that is the point of VAR, but I get it when a ref is so incompetent he thinks you can dive and pass at the same time. A dive can not just be classed as deliberately falling over, but an attempt to win a pen by falsehood. To do that, the dive must be completed and a claim made, surely. If someone pulls out of a ta kle, we don't book them, and the same with a dive. To add to that he was stumbling naturally from contact, so it was not a dive. In summation: **** decision.
It's a travesty of a decision, if it had happened to a saints player everyone on here would be fuming. It's as bad as the doucore handball against us, IMO. Especially as we've been told that refs and linos should allow play to continue if unsure. If friend was sure that he dived, he needs to retire asap.
Have we? I'm happy to be corrected, but this is news to me if so - and changes things quite dramatically. I know that school of thought applies to offside, but that is because there is no subjectivity with offside. It's completely different, and doesn't apply to this particular debate. We're talking about subjective decisions. With subjective decisions - where the 'clear and obvious' rule comes in - the on-field decision becomes the primary basis of the decision. So if a referee decides against calling a foul (for example), that then becomes his decision. It can only be overturned if there was a clear and obvious error. Hence they don't just pass the responsibility onto the VAR - they have to make the call themselves. It's a bit like the test match last week. McGrath said that the umpire should have given Stokes out, purely on the basis that England had a review left and therefore could claim the review in order to ensure that DRS then gave the correct decision. But Cook pointed out this was rubbish, because by giving it out on the field, the 'umpires call' (which is sort of the cricket version of clear and obvious) would be in Australia's favour. It remains the case that the umpire has to give the decision which he believes is correct - not just pass the buck onto the guy upstairs.
So exactly the same as before? Seems pointless then. They're basically just backing the refs up at present.
We've had a decision overturned in our favour so it obviously isn't. As long as its overturning some incorrect decisions and not changing the correct ones its going to be an improvement.
I mean in the sense that some you'll get, some you won't, life isn't fair and we just have to live with it. And that's exactly how it was previous wasn't it? Whether it has a positive or negative effect on us has no impact on my opinion on its merits.
In my view they messed up twice yesterday. Firstly, with the Newcastle handball (but like I say, they've apparently accepted they made a mistake there). Secondly, with the West Ham non-penalty. For me, it should have given as a West Ham penalty (although the lack of people jumping on that maybe suggests that I'm in a minority of believing that to be penalty, and hence it wasn't as clear and obvious as it looked to me). It wasn't a good day for a VAR as a result. But instead of focusing on those two incidents, for some reason we're focusing on the Villa incident, which has nothing to do with VAR except for the possible awarding of a Villa penalty.
So the fact we could very possibly incorrectly be on 1 point and bottom of the table if not for VAR has no impact for you?
I'm not going to change my opinion based on if it goes for us or not, no. It's ****e whether it's in our favour or not.
then, the fact a club could be incorrectly on 1 point and at the bottom of the table instead of 13th without VAR has no impact for you?
I haven't seen all of yesterday's incidents yet so will have to come back to you on those, any pen decisions overturned yet? Mine was a general point regarding that as it's currently being used to back refs to the hilt which will look a bit silly when they trot out whatever 90-something percent correct stat they decide to use.
