So your telling me if a player stands on a players foot it’s a foul? The standing of the foot and nothing to do with him falling over. It’s irrelevant. So your proposing every time a player stands on anyone it’s a foul or touches anyone? Might as well make the game a non contact sport. Considering the player dived to start with and flung himself in the air has no baring? I couldn’t care less which team it’s for, this is what’s wrong with football. There’s no way that’s a foul, anyone who thinks it is and been blinded by accepting football has gone soft over the last 20 years.
Also the way the player went down to start with had no reflection of the initial hand off. So it’s a dive.
Erm, yes I am saying that’s a foul. And I know it didn’t make him fall over. Are you saying it does make a difference whether it makes him fall over or not?
So him standing on his foot has stopped the player from getting the ball? Or the fact he’s fallen over from diving has meant the balls gone out of play. He can’t have it both ways?
Whether it stops him getting the ball is completely immaterial. I don’t know why you think that is of relevance.
Here’s one for you then. A players through on goal, he’s 1 on 1 with the keeper, he slides it past the keeper and it’s off in the net but he stands on the keepers foot before the ball goes in the net? Is that a foul?
It was a penalty, once he went to the VAR he was always going to give it. Made up for the one they should have had in the first five minutes.
Did VAR make the correct penalty decision in England vs. Italy? The Video Assistant Referee (VAR) never seems to be out of the headlines in English football. The decision by German referee Deniz Aytekin to award Italy a late penalty in the international friendly at Wembley on Tuesday evening caused outrage among many fans and pundits in England. It was a decision that meant the game finished 1-1 after Lorenzo Insigne scored the resulting spot kick in the 87th minute. The main issue seems to be around the missuse of the phase "clear and obvious error," what that applies to and how you interpret the use of VAR. What is a "clear and obvious error" in VAR? It's a misconception with the phraseology which has now become common-place in the VAR discussion in England. Not once in the official VAR handbook from the International Football Association Board (IFAB) is the phase "clear and obvious error" used. In fact, the only time the word "obvious" appears is in relation to "denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity." The actual phrase is "was the decision clearly wrong?" VAR handbooksays a referee should "utilise slow motion and 'frame-by-frame' functionality for point of contact only." It means that in the England game the referee will only have been shown a slowed down replay to confirm Tarkowski made contact with Chiesa. Why did the referee decide it was "clearly wrong"? This is another massively important point. It doesn't matter if I think it was a foul, or a wrong decision. It doesn't matter if you do. Nor does it matter if Gareth Southgate, Alan Shearer or former referees like Mark Halsey think it was a foul. The whole point is that the decision is referred to the on-pitch referee for him to decide, based on the replay, if he himself feels he has got the decision "clearly wrong." It's a subjective call. Some will say it was a correct decision; some won't. But will we always get this if VAR is being used for fouls rather than only objective decisions. The match referee now believes he has made the correct decision, and this is the key factor. Was VAR protocol followed? If VAR had over-ruled the referee without an OFR, then we could have questioned the protocol. The key thing here is that, as noted in the handbook, "the referee's decision can only be changed if the video review shows a clear error." Important point: the VAR did not over-rule the referee on the pitch. VAR told the referee to look at the decision himself using an OFR. That the referee then decided to award the penalty is purely his own decision. So was it a foul? Yes, it is completely irrelevant if a player is not in control of the ball, or if the ball has run in front of him. Neither does it matter if a player appears to already be on the way down. You can still be fouled. VAR got the decision right? Yes, and most pundits now agree that while they may not be comfortable with awarding a penalty for a decision that does not seem to be a major injustice, it was in fact a foul. And we want VAR to do this, get decisions right? Many fans and pundits are concerned that, if we are analysing every single decision, the game will be stopping all the time. But the whole point of VAR is that is does look at every major game-changing moment -- goals, red cards, penalties. We only notice it when the on-pitch referee needs to stop the game. The VAR will have looked at the early incident involving John Stones and Ciro Immobile and decided it was not worthy of any kind of review. What about the Italy players encroaching on the penalty? The VAR has no remit to look at encroachment on a penalty kick, unless the player encroaching "scores or is directly involved in a goal being scored" or "prevents an attacker playing or being able to play the ball." Therefore there is nothing for VAR to decide as Insigne scored directly from the spot kick. Did these officials know how to use VAR? Yes, all officials were German, and the Bundesliga has had VAR all season. That said, as noted by Raphael Honigstein last month, "much controversy abounds about the exact rules of engagement." Will VAR at the 2018 World Cup be a success? It seems like this will be a World Cup too early for VAR. Coaches, players, officials, pundits and supporters just do not know or understand enough about it for it to be effective. There will be a lot of confusion -- and many of the referees will have had little practical experience of its use. http://global.espn.com/football/eng...-correct-penalty-decision-in-england-vs-italy
Here’s one for you - a player forcefully stands on another player’s foot 70 metres from the ball. Is that a foul?
Interesting that this ‘clear and obvious’ thing is a load of bollocks that somehow people seem to have run with. I’ll admit I didn’t check, it was mentioned so much I assumed it was true.
As I said I don’t even know why this is being debated. If that was an England player in a competitive match every single one of us would be hailing justice being served. It’s ridiculous.
From past World cups, there are a number of referees that are used, that IMO are not up to the job. They have officiated lower and slower level games in their relative areas where they referee. The worry I have is that games they will be involved in, could well be faster than they are used to, and they could rely on VAR to make up for their inadequacies.
If the player stands on the players foot on purpose 70 yards from the ball it’s a foul yeh. But if he stands on him by mistake it isn’t. Common sense is going out of football. Like I said we are on the brink of a non contact sport.
I just watched the highlights on ITV and I thought we were luck at times not to concede. Stones made a couple of glaring errors early on, that against a sharper side could well have cost us. Interesting that both Dixon and Hoddle have Maguire as a shoe in to start in the world cup. From what I saw Sterling has certainly come on under Pep, and he looks a real threat going forward. Wasn't impressed with Tarkowski, thought he look vulnerable at times.
No defender is thinking about deliberately standing on an opponent's foot as they race past them. Even the Italians only do it at set pieces when no one's looking.
