Refs and VAR at the World Cup
- Thread starter Lyricist
- Start date
Just the small case of the non existant penalty
In basketball terms, that was a clear charging foul considering that the GK was standing with both feet on the ground.
He didn't stop him from getting to the ball.
Alvarez took the shot.
Then contiunued to clash into the gk.
Why didn't he check with the cameras?
Pointed straight to the spot.
Maybe because we're not playing basketball?
1) VAR is a TERRIBLE way to look at this penalty unless it's in real speed. Slowing down gives you the impression that he's sort of fixed on the ground when the real time image clearly shows he isn't.
2) Even by basketball standards thats a foul, the keeper's legs are FAR too spread when he hits Alvarez.
They just need to be on the ground, and not moving.
The GK then proceeds to move his right leg away from Alvarez in order NOT to touch him, but Alvarez is determined to clash into him and muster a pen.
Where's the GK going to go?
Fine, he didn't get the ball first.
Nor does he have to.
He just stood there, Alvarez took the shot.
What would happen if Alvarez shot the ball straight into the GK and nevertheless clashed into him?
We would say, "damn fine save" right?
Foul on the GK.
The only difference is, the ball didn't hit him. The player did though.
But that's not a foul.
If it was, you could just kick the ball next to a defender and proceed to crash into him and say that's a pen.
Now that would be dumb now wouldn't it.
The GK then proceeds to move his right leg away from Alvarez in order NOT to touch him, but Alvarez is determined to clash into him and muster a pen.
Where's the GK going to go?
Fine, he didn't get the ball first.
Nor does he have to.
He just stood there, Alvarez took the shot.
What would happen if Alvarez shot the ball straight into the GK and nevertheless clashed into him?
We would say, "damn fine save" right?
Foul on the GK.
The only difference is, the ball didn't hit him. The player did though.
But that's not a foul.
If it was, you could just kick the ball next to a defender and proceed to crash into him and say that's a pen.
Now that would be dumb now wouldn't it.
Where do you get this rule from?
And he IS moving unless you watch it at half the speed.
Common sense.
You've got two feet on the ground, you're not advancing, staying right where you are.....the attacker kicks the ball next to you and crashes into you.
Yes, he was moving, but he stopped.
It's actually not possible to move with both feet locked in on the ground.
It's Alvarez who proceeds to crash into the GK, not the other way around.
It's certainly not "common sense", if I run fast and sudenly lock both of my feet on the ground, inertia will shift the weight of my body forward even if i'm locked in the ground.
They both crash into each other, I don't know how you can say the keeper isn't also responsible. The only difference is, Alvarez touches the ball and the keep misses it.
Your logic is completely flawed. If the ball hits the keeper he's made a block before the contact, therefore not a foul.
Wait what?
So, all it needed for it not being called a pen is for the keeper to have a slight touch?
But he didn't foul him?!
It was Alvarez running full speed ahead into the GK, not the other way around.
But that didn't happen.
What actually happened was that the GK was even able to pull his leg away in order NOT to touch Alvarez.
They don't both "crash into each other".
One of them is standing still with both feet on the ground.
Watched the replay again and when Alvarez changes direction the keeper realizes and steps his right leg down, blocking the way in the opposite direction the ball was going.
There is no attemp to move the leg away, on the contrary the leg is moved to be in the way of Alvarez.
There is no attemp to move the leg away, on the contrary the leg is moved to be in the way of Alvarez.
Are you actually serious?
I'll ask you again, are you Croatian? You must be to still be going on about it?
Well exactly. He moves to his right and leaves his knee high.
That's just false.
He doesn't realize anything. He's making himself big, as a GK should do.
He doesn't come after Alvarez, he doesn't proceed to get into his path.
His leg is down because it has nowhere else to be.
It's a crash.
A crash that Alvarez gets into, not the other way around.
Look at where the “crash” happens. How does it take place that far from the goal without the keeper running towards Alvarez? And when a keeper runs towards a striker the onus is usually on them to play the ball or get penalised for any subsequent collision.
Refereeing has been poor in general during the knockouts imo.
What difference does it make "where the crash happens"?
Yes, he went out to close down the space. Stopped, made himself big like a GK should do. Both feet on the ground.
Why don't you look at it from the attackers position? Sprinting hard as he can, gets there before the GK - takes the shot!, and then inertia and physics come into play - he crashes INTO the GK.
The GK didn't foul him, he didn't crash into him. It was the other way around.
Well, that's the trouble. If the ref did what he had to do in a semifinal game of the world cup - and that is to go back to the camera and see for himself who's to blame for the crash, he would probably see the above mentioned.
Nevertheless. It's late.
I don't see it as a pen. I'm quite certain a lot of refs and former players (not that i'm proud of sharing their opinions) don't see it as a pen as well.
Yes, it could have been called as it did get called.
All i'm saying is, i'm sorry the ref didn't get to see it on camera now that he has the technology and availability.
It's a semifinal of the WC.
And it's not a stonewall pen.
The case i'm making is that he could as well not call it, he wouldn't have been wrong in my opinion.
I don't see it as a pen. I'm quite certain a lot of refs and former players (not that i'm proud of sharing their opinions) don't see it as a pen as well.
Yes, it could have been called as it did get called.
All i'm saying is, i'm sorry the ref didn't get to see it on camera now that he has the technology and availability.
It's a semifinal of the WC.
And it's not a stonewall pen.
The case i'm making is that he could as well not call it, he wouldn't have been wrong in my opinion.
Seemed a pretty clear penalty to me.
Goalkeeper comes out, tries to stop the ball going past him, fails, and in that rush out and attempt to play the ball plants himself directly in the onrushing attacker's path, impeding him and causing the collision. You're not allowed to do that.
Goalkeeper comes out, tries to stop the ball going past him, fails, and in that rush out and attempt to play the ball plants himself directly in the onrushing attacker's path, impeding him and causing the collision. You're not allowed to do that.
Clear penalty. Only people that don't know football rules complain...
that's an offensive foul from Alvarez..
Oliver maybe the ref inThe Final?
Too many times fouls get called for standing your ground. Attacking players kick the ball past defenders and run into them. That's not a foul. You have to deliberately block to be called a foul.
That's not a penalty.
What about the Croat masked defender’s handball in their box in the 41st minute?
It looked like he moved his arm towards the ball? All the Argentines got was a corner out of that, despite the protests.
It looked like he moved his arm towards the ball? All the Argentines got was a corner out of that, despite the protests.
Last edited:
Probably the Referee didn't know who it was? Obviously he has to book him too.
Yep.
Could have and should have looked at that.
Do you wanna know why he didn't?
Cause they fecked up the first pen and didn't want to cause a riot.
It was 2-0 at the time, they've already done their job...
Yes clearly anyone who dares to disagree with you has to be wrong and does not understand the rules because you are the global arbiter on penalty decisions. Everything is so black and white to some people.
Clear penalty let’s be honest here.
The goal keepers legs were not planted on the ground for the entire period. At some point he lifted his right leg which impeded a striker who would have had a free chance to tap the ball in the net because he was ahead of all the defenders.
If he attempted to make himself bigger but didn’t touch the ball at all, his making himself bigger meant that one leg was raised (even though the ball was in the opposite direction) and thus the opposing striker who had a fair chance at goal, couldn’t move any longer as a result.
Penalty every day of the week.
It's a clear penalty, nothing to argue about.
Well, look at that.
World famous GK Iker Casillas also agrees that it wasn't a pen.
He agreed with the status of Felipe Ramos Rizo, a mexican ref who reffed on WC in 2002.
And also, look ak that, Thibaut Courtois also agrees with them, that it was not a pen.
World famous GK Iker Casillas also agrees that it wasn't a pen.
He agreed with the status of Felipe Ramos Rizo, a mexican ref who reffed on WC in 2002.
And also, look ak that, Thibaut Courtois also agrees with them, that it was not a pen.
Goalkeepers sticking up for their position, I'll bet every striker will say the opposite
No. The offside call was taken right at the moment when the ball was kicked by the player so the keeper was further in front and need not be counted.
Jesus. Are you working your way through the thread from day one? It gets a lot better. Stick with it!
Do you have any comments on the incidents from people who used to be strikers?
A keeper is allowed to move, challenge for the ball and in this case stand his ground. He dosent really raise a leg up, he comes, spreads himself Alvarez has a shot which is a poor effort and then Alvarez runs into the stationary GK.
Alvarez is never getting to the ball first after he touches it either, not in a month of Sundays because he has to go round the GK. Alvarez dosent have to have a shot he can try and control the ball and attempt to dribble round the GK if he so wishes but he doesn't he has a shot and has no chance of then challenging for the ball whatever happens, which is why for me it shouldn't be a penalty.
I can obviously see why it would be given at first viewing it does look like a penalty, it looks like the GK wipes out Alvarez but on closer inspection it's quite clear that it is the other way round you can make a fair case for Alvarez actually fouling the GK.
Goalkeepers saying if they foul someone in the box it's not a penalty, water is wet.
Referees have come out and said it is, including Peter Walton. You know, the people who are actually trained to officiate matches?
Ah, you mean Peter Walton the prem ref of 10 years said it, while Felipe Ramos Rizo, also a ref who reffed on the World cup said that it's not a pen?
You know, person who's also actually trained?
What a boring argument.
I thought it was a pen, some didn't. Whatever next.
I thought it was a pen, some didn't. Whatever next.
Someone who jokes about being gay and someone who slept with his teammates girlfriend. Good people to take advice from.
