Author Topic: D Coote (VAR) - Liverpool v Leicester- NOT!  (Read 1807 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,624
    • View Profile
I would also add, in relation to the Villa one in particular, that I think the referee's reasoning is probably quite important. If they're telling the VAR 'the defender was nowhere near the ball' then that's clearly incorrect so I would say increases the likelihood of a VAR review being appropriate.

Ref Fan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
I would also add, in relation to the Villa one in particular, that I think the referee's reasoning is probably quite important. If they're telling the VAR 'the defender was nowhere near the ball' then that's clearly incorrect so I would say increases the likelihood of a VAR review being appropriate.

I thought the Villa 'penalty' was one of those that wouldn't be definitely wrong either way.  The BT commentators both thought it was a penalty, were surprised when VAR intervened and expected Oliver to stick with his original decision.  Presumably they heard VAR's input but not the referee's.  Actually, I was quite surprised how quickly Oliver seemed to make up his mind looking at the monitor.  He presumably considered contact with the ball was enough, and the contact with the player not strong enough, to reverse his decision.

However, I tend to agree with rustyref's point about a 'directive'.  After the controversy a few weeks ago when Graham Scott kept to his goal decision despite a 'foul' in the build-up, it occurred to me after yesterday's incidents that referees may well have been advised to 'think extremely carefully' before contemplating sticking with their original decision.  The logic presumably is that it's easier to explain a referee getting it wrong with his 1 view in real time with 1 angle than it is to justify a referee effectively ignoring the view of VAR who has seen it at full speed, slo-mo, and from various angles, thus implying VAR has got it wrong.  After all, if VAR is advising the referee to look at the monitor, is he really saying "I'm not too sure about this - have a look, what do you think"?  He's implying he's reached a different conclusion and the referee has got it wrong; at least that's my understanding.
« Last Edit: Sun 22 Nov 2020 12:27 by Ref Fan »
Like Like x 2 View List

Leggy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
We are in danger of going down a rabbit hole that could be as bad as has happened with handball.

Two penalty kicks were overturned yesterday because VAR identified that the "offender" got a touch on the ball before making contact with his opponent.  Whilst the Laws state that making contact with an opponent before making contact with the ball is a foul challenge - they do not state the the opposite is true.  Just because a player makes contact with the ball first, that does not nullify any possibility of a foul challenge.

Yesterday's decisions give fresh impetus to every player who has protested using some variation of the words "I got the ball" (add in the odd expletive plus the ubiquitous hands making a ball shape gesture).

A bank robber making off with the money has still committed a crime; just as a footballer may make contact with the ball can still be guilty of a foul.

VAR may do for that what it has already done for handball.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Ref Watcher

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
the Laws state that making contact with an opponent before making contact with the ball is a foul challenge
Where do they say that?

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 583
    • View Profile


A bank robber making off with the money has still committed a crime; just as a footballer may make contact with the ball can still be guilty of a foul.




What a rubbish analogy !!!!

Leggy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
the Laws state that making contact with an opponent before making contact with the ball is a foul challenge
Where do they say that?


Errrrr - it used too.  Apologies.  :-[

Leggy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
the Laws state that making contact with an opponent before making contact with the ball is a foul challenge
Where do they say that?


Errrrr - it used too.  Apologies.  :-[


But I stand by the analogy!!

JCFC

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 684
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Brighouse
    • View Profile
the Laws state that making contact with an opponent before making contact with the ball is a foul challenge
Where do they say that?


Errrrr - it used too.  Apologies.  :-[


But I stand by the analogy!!

For the analogy to work properly, the robber would first have to cash a cheque or make some other legitimate transaction.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

bruntyboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Hiw did they decide that the Liverpool "handball" was not handball given that although the defender's arm was by his side when the ball was played he actually moved it away from his body into the path of the ball?
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 2 View List