''No one likes us - we don't care.'' https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67124315 I thought I'd put this in the VAR thread - as another example of the F'A's inconsistency - considering the fine Gills got for much the same crime ! ....apologies to Mr. Scally and all other Millwall fans for using your 'tag.'
Cocked up again ! Haaland pulls the shirt of the Chelsea defender - to get in front of said defender -- who then pulls the shirt of Haaland to regain his ground...VAR then awards a penalty - but overlooks the initial shirt grab..... Mad ! .... (( and I don't even like Chelsea )) not sure why the City players were upset at conceding the penalty - clearly a correct decision..... ... and why can't VAR intervene when there is an obvious error by the officials outside of the penalty area (( it's done for offside )) -- I refer to the handball by Walker (2nd half), just outside City's penalty area --- how - how - HOW did the officials not see it ??? .... maybe there could be a 'review' system - such as in cricket ?........oh well, brb will tell me that VAR needs to be scrapped and that decision even themselves out etc (( how many penalties do Man Utd concede at Old Trafford etc etc ))
Offside --- and, with VAR, it doesn't pay to be ' well endowed ! Warning - some of this post isn't total nonsense ! After the Villa v Arsenal game I may have a better understanding of VAR's offside protocol - and why it takes VAR soooo long to make a decision when it comes to offside. I watched the game on Sky... In one passage of play, Ollie Watkins was adjudged to be offside.. Sky's camera angle suggested an outstretched arm was the offending body part (( although I thought offside only applied to parts of the body that could be used 'legally' to score. )) The rigamarole still took 'too' long. Later that night, I watched MOTD.. The same incident was shown at a very slightly different alignment of the camera angle -- and probably one frame before Sky's footage... The BBC version did not show an outstretched arm - and NO part of Watkins as being offside................... ........ The conclusion I have drawn is that the VAR team must have several different footage and camera angles for their consideration. Please don't expect me to understand which camera angle they use to make their final decision...so it's no wonder that you can boil an egg in less time than to expect a decision from VAR. In this particular incident, the only possible bit that was in an offside position was an arm ((( don't get me started as to what is /isn't handball these days. )))..... Anyway, does this mean that if a player is feeling the early onset of the effects of Viagra - that he may have taken in anticipation of apres-match exercises, might he be at a disadvantage if his 'manhood' is too prominent - and sticking out & 'offside' ? - any celebration of a subsequent goal would be 'premature' ( no chap wants to be 'premature.' ).......... .....mind you - (( Whilst I have no specific dimension details )), I don't know if any Gills player can boast of being ' hung ' like a donkey..... now -ask me if they can play like a donkey ....
And whilst I'm talking nonsense ((( although my point, I believe, is quite serious ! ))) If an outstretched arm can be considered as 'offending' when it is in an 'offside' position - consider a scenario - for a possible penalty... ((( And I am basing my argument on what is acceptable when it relates to the position of the ball (( allegedly )) inside the corner quadrant. ))) If an 'attacker' has his legs positioned 3 - 4 feet outside the opponents penalty box - and a defender fouls him ...... whilst the forward is leaning forward - and has his head - or, indeed, an outstretched arm - which are overhanging the penalty box line - then surely it must be a penalty.... if the same considerations about what body part is offside (( regardless of any contact with the ball . )) If we return to the Watkins situation - why should a player with arms as long as a gorilla ((( I haven't said anything about Gills' players ))), be penalised if their fingertips are 'offside' - it's not his fault that the nearest defender has a slim arse that keeps the offending fingernail in an offside position !
I no longer have a clue..............some would say that I never had a clue ......perhaps that makes me overqualified to be a referee or operate VAR. In recent games ( especially in the EPL ), there has been an incredible number of decisions by referees and VAR that are beyond normal comprehension. I cannot say what part (if any), of the body constitutes the hand. (( an extended hand - in an offside position is now deemed to be a body part with which you can score - hence the player is offside !! )) I cannot understand how a player isn't booked (eg, Joelinton ), for an outrageous pull of the shirt ........ one of the worst I have ever seen.......... and shirt-pulling actually being seen by a linesman is not part of their job description ! And in the last couple of days, I see that diving has become a new year resolution for certain players -- and this form of cheating is being given a helping hand ( or not hand -- if you get my drift ), by referees -- who must seem to think that by simply blowing into the ear of an opponent amounts to enough physical contact to award a penalty. There is differing opinion between football fans, regarding whether or not football is / is not a 'contact' sport... Purists may say that the sport is solely concerned with contact between ball and feet (or head - definitely not a hand) -- and that there should be no requirement for any physical contact between players...... ....In reality, there cannot be non contact between the players. .. but that contact needs to be regulated equitably, sensibly and proportionally.... How often do we see terrible fouls (outside of the penalty box), go unpunished.... How often do we see soft fouls ( or -not a foul ) in a penalty area resulting in a spot kick ?..... On each of those occasions, the decision bewilders all players and fans - from both sides. What I find particularly galling is when an obvious foul in the penalty area is unpunished - yet the identical contact is deemed a free kick anywhere else on the pitch. Yesterday, Liverpool were awarded a couple of penalties... The second one was as a result of the tiniest contact from the defender--- which caused a delayed reaction from Diaz before he 'fell' (dived?) .... Despite VAR involvement, the original decision to award a penalty was upheld - because there was 'contact' between the players.................In my defence, I raise the argument because when we hear a Referee 'pundit' on Sky (etc), they talk about not enough contact ((for a penalty)), from a defender, when the referee gives nothing...... confused ?? - you should be ! Oh well, I suppose it is pantomime season - where more rubbish is improvised and the cast make it up as they go along.....a bit like my ramblings - of which, you can anticipate much more in the next 12 months......... ....Happy New Year to all ((( except Diaz - I will delay my best wishes to him - for when he's ready to take a dive )))
GOAL .... oh no it wasn't ! Last night's header from Masterson ( on viewing the X footage ), might not have been completely over the line....The referee certainly wasn't sure, and in the Sky TV footage, you can see the ref immediately look to his linesman for confirmation........ THIS is why VAR is needed in every level of professional football... It is the only area of VAR that is not contested ! It is the only area of VAR that gives instant, immediate decisions - without interruption of the flow of the game. I cannot believe that goal-line technology would cost much for it to be installed in every professional stadium - including rugby (( after the nonsense in the Scotland v France game at the weekend. )) -- I would go so far as to say that the FA could easily pay for the technology from the profits it makes from television and advertising. as far as I am concerned, the match officials need goal line technology.. it is a no-brainer (( and very important if the officials sometimes act as though they have no brain ! ))
Question 1 : If action is anywhere else, other than inside a penalty area, what action does a non cheating referee take if a player challenges for the ball - with his foot at chest height - and ' follows through', and kicks the challenging opponent ? Question 2 : What action does a cheating referee take when the action takes place inside the penalty area ?
I don't think that an even an English referee could have got it wrong ! Can somebody explain to me how England could be awarded a penalty ! Kane got to the ball first and had completed his shot before any contact by the defender.... Kane's shot went over the bar - without any interference from any part of the body of the defender...... the subsequent slight 'coming together' is irrelevant. - it had no impact on the destination of the ball, and did not prevent Kane from his shot on (off) goal.
I didn't expect Cricket to get it wrong ! In the Test Match v West Indies, the 3rd umpire ( var equivalent ), gave a 'no ball' for the 5th ball of an over....... meaning that 2 more balls were left in the over. After the next ball was delivered, the umpire called 'Over' - to indicate the end of that over.... Sky TV then told everyone watching that there was one more ball to play.... The ball was given to a different bowler - from the opposite end.....At this point the two on-field umpires must have realised that something was wrong - or maybe was alerted by the VAR umpire....The on-field umpires had a chat - but did nothing regarding the missing ball..... .....so - what is the point of VAR?
Thankfully my sporting interest only stretches to football, but yeah seems weird with the very good explanation you've given.
Strange because this was it from another angle, opposite angle to the cameras as recorded by a fan in the crowd, then someone else produced this still from it... please log in to view this image
Brb - your (clearer) picture, shows the ball off the ground --- already starting to bounce back inwards - therefore less convincing that it might have crossed the line..... I do believe that goal line technology is a part of VAR that should be used in all professional football.
Just need a chip in the ball and a signal to refs watch, always been spot on when it's been used. Don't know how much it costs but can't believe it's not used.
When push comes to shove, sometimes I despair of VAR. For my sins I suffer the double misery of being a Gills fan - and following the (mis)fortunes of Spurs..... so - I really shouldn't have any sympathy for Arsenal - but - my hate of cheating and intolerance of lack of commonsense overrides my every displeasure in life. Last night, immediately before Isak scored Newcastle's first goal, he gave Odegaard a hefty shove in the back - causing the Arsenal player to stumble forward several feet - creating all the room Isak needed to pounce on the ball and ( just about ) manage to keep under the bar for 1-0. Apparently, VAR reviewed the incident - and deemed it to not be a foul -- WHY NOT ? I think that - when it comes to pushing, shoving, shirt-pulling, cheating - the referee should consider his thoughts and subsequent action if the foul was committed against his (or her ) person.... I would defy them to be blind or apathetic. The referee would award a foul every single time.
