Topic: Premier League Fixtures 25th - 27th November

[SamLad]

to me the defender starts putting his hands up in the "oh no" gesture before they even make contact.

[Wghennessy]

You choose to stay on your feet or not in those circumstances..

Not relevant to whether its a penalty or not.

[SamLad]

damn glad I'm not a ref. 

[Fromola]

Again, VAR should not be used for penalty decisions - they're too subjective. So is clear and obvious.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

This is one of the many issues with VAR though. Consensus here is very split. If VAR or the ref said no penalty, there’d still be loads of people saying it’s a bad decision. So should you just bum use of VAR for anything subjective? Would we be any worse off?

Just fuck off the clear and obvious bullshit. The only reason this overturn is contentious is because there are countless examples of similar incidents (even from this weekend) where they've stuck with the onfield decision.

For fouls in the box they should just answer three questions:-

Was there contact? Yes / no
Was the contact initiated by the defender? Yes / no
Was the contact sufficient to impact the attacker? Yes / no

If and only if the answer is yes to all three questions should there be a review when the onfield decision is no penalty - and the review shouldn't be a case of VAR saying we think this is a penalty, but rather just saying this needs another look. Then let the referee decide without them already thinking they've got it wrong.

Similarly if the onfield decision is a penalty but the answer is no to any of the above questions.

[Wghennessy]

Again, VAR should not be used for penalty decisions - they're too subjective. So is clear and obvious.

Sometimes yes but it doesnt help that refs are shite and they are relying on VAR as opposed to refereeing games as if it didnt exist.

I do think they need an "umpires call" like situation like in Cricket and a sin bin like in Rugby. If it takes 10 minutes to decide is a foul is a red card, so be it, have him off the field whilst it happens.

[slaphead]

Didn't see the pen but seems very split, which begs the question, and I'm a bit lost with the rules now but, did the ref make a clear and obvious error not giving the penalty? If not then I thought VAR wasn't supposed to be used to re-ref the games

[AllyouneedisRush]

Not relevant to whether its a penalty or not.

It should be... we moan when the ref get things wrong,  but players don't help by doing that...

[Pistolero]

No contact? Theres clear contact but there doesnt need to be any contact anyway. If Wilson is impeded, of which he is, then its a foul. Gomez not knowing Wilson is there isnt relevant.

Absolute arsewater. There was no intent, no contact, no impeding. Wilson dived.   Simple as that.

[Wghennessy]

Just fuck off the clear and obvious bullshit. The only reason this overturn is contentious is because there are countless examples of similar incidents (even from this weekend) where they've stuck with the onfield decision.

For fouls in the box they should just answer three questions:-

Was there contact? Yes / no
Was the contact initiated by the defender? Yes / no
Was the contact sufficient to impact the attacker? Yes / no

If and only if the answer is yes to all three questions should there be a review when the onfield decision is no penalty - and the review shouldn't be a case of VAR saying we think this is a penalty, but rather just saying this needs another look. Then let the referee decide without them already thinking they've got it wrong.

Similarly if the onfield decision is a penalty but the answer is no to any of the above questions.

But contact isnt what determines if something is a foul. You can not make any contact and it can still be a direct freekick / penalty.

[SamLad]

Just fuck off the clear and obvious bullshit.

that phrase sounds more stupid every time you hear it now.

by definition, anything subjective is neither of those things.

[Wghennessy]

Absolute arsewater. There was no intent, no contact, no impeding. Wilson dived.   Simple as that.

But there was contact...youre fucking blind if you cant see it.

[Robinred]

I’ve always been of the view that this question is asked (because some pundits view comings-together in the box as somehow ‘special/different’) - if that occurred on the halfway line do you give a free kick?

[Fromola]

Didn't see the pen but seems very split, which begs the question, and I'm a bit lost with the rules now but, did the ref make a clear and obvious error not giving the penalty? If not then I thought VAR wasn't supposed to be used to re-ref the games

The definition of clear and obvious is subjective in itself.

VAR should be sticking with matter of fact decisions and nothing else.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

But contact isnt what determines if something is a foul. You can not make any contact and it can still be a direct freekick / penalty.

I mean any such incidents are incredibly rare? I can't think of any example where there wouldn't be contact but that would absolutely warrant a penalty being given?

[Wghennessy]

I mean any such incidents are incredibly rare? I can't think of any example where there wouldn't be contact but that would absolutely warrant a penalty being given?

A foul being given. A penalty is no different, its just a foul in the box.

This is half the problem, the laws arent followed to the T. Maybe they need to actually have a law for what a penalty is.

[Fromola]

I’ve always been of the view that this question is asked (because some pundits view comings-together in the box as somehow ‘special/different’) - if that occurred on the halfway line do you give a free kick?

Free kicks are given for basically nothing all game in the PL though.

The reward of a penalty (80%-90% chance of a goal) rarely fits the crime if the threshold is any contact in the box.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

That replay they just showed of the first penalty - gets loads of the ball and zero of the man. Obviously VAR didn't have access to this though

[SamLad]

Free kicks are given for basically nothing all game in the PL though.

The reward of a penalty (80%-90% chance of a goal) rarely fits the crime if the threshold is any contact in the box.

there'd be 3 pens at every corner.

[The North Bank]

That replay they just showed of the first penalty - gets loads of the ball and zero of the man. Obviously VAR didn't have access to this though

Blame the angles when the ref and var are shite. Might as well blame the angels .

[Robinred]

Free kicks are given for basically nothing all game in the PL though.

The reward of a penalty (80%-90% chance of a goal) rarely fits the crime if the threshold is any contact in the box.

So you’re one of the pundits I referenced? I.E - in the box different criteria apply.

[Fromola]

So you’re one of the pundits I referenced? I.E - in the box different criteria apply.

Well, I think free kicks are given far too liberally anyway which was part of my point.

But I don't think the punishment and reward of a penalty meets the crime in a lot of cases. Pre-VAR there was a higher threshold and refs tended to abide by it. The forensic nature of VAR means that yardstick is applied more (i.e. if it's a foul on the halfway line then it's a foul in the box). But then there's the clear and obvious template. It's all just subjective and one area where VAR has always been a clusterfuck. We can remember the season United manipulated it to get a penalty literally every week.

Personally though yeah I do think a penalty should be for a very clear foul/push or a deliberate handball and generally a higher threshold than outside the box. I just think VAR as judge and jury on it is unworkable. It doesn't matter how many replays they get, people will never agree with their decisions.

[Robinred]

Well, I think free kicks are given far too liberally anyway which was part of my point.

But I don't think the punishment and reward of a penalty meets the crime in a lot of cases. Pre-VAR there was a higher threshold and refs tended to abide by it. The forensic nature of VAR means that yardstick is applied more (i.e. if it's a foul on the halfway line then it's a foul in the box). But then there's the clear and obvious template. It's all just subjective and one area where VAR has always been a clusterfuck. We can remember the season United manipulated it to get a penalty literally every week.

Personally though yeah I do think a penalty should be for a very clear foul/push or a deliberate handball and generally a higher threshold than outside the box.

I think lots of football fans would agree with that.

But if we want clear, unambiguous and non-subjective application of the laws of the game, it shouldn’t be contentious or controversial - if it’s a foul it’s a foul; and in the box that means a pen.

In other words, officials, pundits and fans make a rod for their own backs ‘bending’ the laws vis-a-vis penalty decisions.

[Zaffarious]

that first pen against wolves he clearly wins the ball, its never a pen.

i feel like the second one against them is a pen. cant believe the first one has been given though. also how is that guy not sent off for head butting the other player, wtf is var for?!