Arsenal 2-0 Watford FC - 29/09/2018

Discussion in 'Match Day' started by domthehornet, Sep 27, 2018.

  1. Burnsy

    Burnsy Reservist

    It will be interesting. There are plenty of instances where contact is made (somewhat minimally) and the attacker makes the most of it and a penalty is given. How do you clear that up with VAR?
     
  2. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    Without sounding sarky, surely the referee just watches it from as many angles as possible and then uses his experience and professional judgement to either give it or not? VAR is about giving the referee more information, not making the decision for them (except offsides obviously).
     
  3. Cassetti's Beard

    Cassetti's Beard Squad Player

    By watching it from several different angles and at different speeds
     
    Forzainglese likes this.
  4. Forzainglese

    Forzainglese First Year Pro

    I think a few of the 'pundits/experts' and quite a few people on here might like to read the rules:
    Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct
    IFAB Laws of the Game 2018-19
    Mr Google can get it for you.
    As regards fouls such as the Lacazette/Kabasele one: There is nothing that says a player has to fall over for it to be a foul. Even more surprising, perhaps, for some of you is the fact that there does not even have to be any contact for it to be a foul: '...attempts to trip....'.
    Kabasele tripped Lacazette, it should have been a penalty.
    The only way the ref could excuse himself, I think, is if he considered that Lacazette 'got a shot away' and thus could be considered to have been allowed to play on under the 'advantage rule'. Given the split second all this happened that seems to me to be a lame excuse for getting it wrong. Indeed, Lacazette had to re-adjust his feet after the trip and so he was disadvantaged, anyway.
     
  5. The undeniable truth

    The undeniable truth Squad Player

    I'm not sure it's quite for "celebrity status" or they would be equally liable to give dubious pens to the likes of us. I genuinely think they make a career decision when they are faced with possible pens for the big 6 against the likes of us. A ref will know that the fallout from giving a dubious penalty against us would be far less than missing a valid penalty against us or, perish the thought, giving us a dubious pen against the big boys.
     
    Unhappy bunny likes this.
  6. The undeniable truth

    The undeniable truth Squad Player

    So how is a foul defined ? Could any contact at all be construed as a foul ? Surely not.
     
  7. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    Though, without contact, it'd only be punished by an indirect free kick in the box.
     
  8. Sort of OK

    Sort of OK First Year Pro

    I'm with you on this, he seemed to pat him on the shoulder in a bit of a sympathetic manner, think he also stared waiting for Cathcart to look up for a unlucky mate gesture but he didn't so he moved on. Didn't exactly rush off and celebrate wildly but in fairness is entitled to join his teammates as they have just taken the lead.

    Amazing how different people can interpret this at completely different ends of the scale, who knows which he meant but you can see why people fall out when important things happen.
     
    Siohmy and Glenhorn like this.
  9. The undeniable truth

    The undeniable truth Squad Player

    My take on it too.
     
  10. Burnsy

    Burnsy Reservist

    No no, I see your viewpoint so it doesn’t sound sarcastic at all. I just think one of the biggest scourges in the game is players throwing themselves theatrically to the floor with the slightest touch. For me, a penalty should be given only when reasonable force makes a player go to ground. In this respect, I can only see VAR making things worse, not better as I believe referees approach things in this day and age with a mindset of ‘Is there any reason why I can’t give a penalty?’ as opposed to the preferable ‘Is there sufficient reasons why I should be giving a penalty?’
     
  11. Burnsy

    Burnsy Reservist

    But that’s not clearing it up is it? 7/10 angles could show that minimal contact was made but the player still exaggerated going to ground. Who’s side do you take? What’s the worse offence? For me, as I have previously said, if a player is in any way shown to be ‘looking’ to go to ground, a penalty should automatically be out of the question. I forget the referee but whoever we had for the Brighton home game last season who gave an indirect FK in the box for a Doucoure high foot, he showed what should be a more common thing happening in football. Put simply, a lot things that happen in the box are fouls but don’t deserve to be punished with a penalty.

    I would much rather see penalties only given for instances where the attacker would obviously have scored or at least have been expected to have got a shot on goal. If an attacker is going away from goal and is fouled or a ball is fired at an arm from 2/3 yards, indirect FK. Too many penalties are awarded where the punishment outweighs the crime.

    I can see most referees saying any contact at all is a penalty whilst ignoring the play-acting (cheating).
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2018
  12. The undeniable truth

    The undeniable truth Squad Player

    I think they then default to the "are they top 6 or managed by Mark Hughes or Eddie boy" before concluding.
     
    Burnsy likes this.
  13. WillisWasTheWorst

    WillisWasTheWorst First Year Pro

    I'm absolutely with Burnsy on this. The intention of VAR is to distil down doubtful decisions to, as far as possible, make them black and white as is now the case with goal-line technology. Officially it will be advisory for the ref to possibly change his decision after a second look, but in practice it will take a very strong referee to see a contact and a player going down in a slow motion replay and not give a penalty. If he does he will be pilloried in the media.
    The Will Hughes incident at Fulham is a perfect example. A lot of people have said since that is was a penalty, but that is a modern interpretation because the contact came when Hughes was already going down. The old school interpretation (mine) is that it was not the contact that caused him to fall over so it was not a penalty. Under VAR I'm sure the decision would have been changed and this will only encourage the Zahas and Allis & co to manufacture a contact and fall over in the box all the more.
    By the way, the same principle will eventually apply to handball as well: any contact of ball on arm in the box will be a penalty. I understand Burnsy wants to see this anyway.
     
  14. Forzainglese

    Forzainglese First Year Pro

    I really don't think it is. The intention is to give the ref a second, third, fourth, etc look at the incident so that he can make a more informed opinion (just as the rest of us can after the event). If, after viewing the incident, the incident still seems difficult to interpret, then it's still down to the ref to make a decision and that will still be an interpretation. VAR will not, and does not pretend to, make everything black and white, it just allows the ref to have a better view of it to help him make a decision.
    The only way we can make things more 'black and white' is by re-writing the rules and re-interpreting them in such as way as to make them so. We are a trllion miles from that happening, for a number reasons: One is that, as it is a global game, it is extremely hard to get everybody in all nations to agree to changes. Another is that, (undeclared of course), the authorities, particularly people such as Sky, prefer it to be contentious and entertaining; that way it gives the likes of us and the pundits something to yap on about all week long, between games. Modern professional football is show-business, whether you like it or not. (& big business at that).
    With modern technology that is really good VAR is a really good idea and it should be introduced, but carefully and in a limited way so that it allows the game to be run slightly more fairly, but does not take over and dominate the game.
    BTW the up-to-date rules already contain sentences which address the possibilties of players abusing the system.
     
    UEA_Hornet likes this.
  15. põder

    põder First Year Pro

    Question for the ref types...Why when Cech was substituted in injury time at the end of the first half was the stoppage time for the injury treatment and substitution not added on? I was thinking it was the ideal time to bombard a new keeper for a couple of minutes but the ref blew for half time within a minute of the restart when a minute had been signalled even as Cech first went down.
     
    Unhappy bunny likes this.
  16. Forzainglese

    Forzainglese First Year Pro

    The decision is the referees', not VAR's. VAR does not make decisions. All it does is better inform (visually) the ref before he makes his decision.
    Your example above is probably still going to be difficult for the referee. The only thing VAR does is show the incident again, maybe from a different angle or at a different speed. This might make the referee's job easier, but it is still the referee's decision that counts.
     
  17. Forzainglese

    Forzainglese First Year Pro

    Have you read the rules?
     
  18. Forzainglese

    Forzainglese First Year Pro

    I think I've seen where within The Rules you get that from. It seems a bit ambiguous and therefore a grey area. The sort of non-contact 'foul' I was envisaging was where, perhaps, player A leaps out of the way of a scything, potentially dangerous tackle from Player B. No contact - but player B has still committed a foul under dangerous or intimidating play. I don't he could escape being penalised simply because there was no contact. I guess there could be other, less clear-cut incidents.
     
  19. Hornpete

    Hornpete Reservist

    Can someone explain what a foul without contact looks like? A lunge that the forward has to jump in order to remain safe?
     
  20. Ray Knight

    Ray Knight First Year Pro

    Good point. Do we really want to continue an argument that leads to football becoming a non-contact sport? Already the law on handball has changed from being a deliberate action to one where any contact with an arm at close range is based on the strength of the claim by players and fans in order to influence referees. Someone mentioned indirect free kicks but when did you last see one of those when obstruction is now effectively a foul. And don't even bother with offside where the lino does not know exactly when to flag. GT said football is a simple game but have they mucked about with the laws too much?
     
  21. RookeryDad

    RookeryDad Reservist

    Always looks deceptively worse in slow motion.

    Actually would be fairer to view a Benny Hill style speeded up version.

    Lee Mason chasing 3 birds in bikinis would help cheer us all up as the reality of Brexit begins to bite.
     
    Bloke and Ray Knight like this.
  22. RookeryDad

    RookeryDad Reservist

    It could be caused by the defender proclaiming such a potent zinger that the forward is mortally devastated & crumples to the ground.

    I suspect Kabasele could be our verbal axe man.

    In contrast, Mawson may struggle to pronounce his own name correctly.
     
  23. kVA

    kVA Reservist

    I suspect that any Zinger would be scoffed down pretty quickly by Dee*ney.
     
    RookeryDad likes this.

Share This Page