VAR and Refs | General Discussion

Striker has kicked through the ball and made the contact. See that happen every game and honestly never seen it given as a pen. I'd be absolutely fuming had that been given against my team.
Not a penalty for me. The way I saw it, Kane kicked the defender. Surprised VAR decided to look at it. Don’t think anyone would have been surprised had play continued.

Not a good argument for me. It's similar to those when the fullback clears and the winger goes to block with studs up. Those are given as yellow card often.
 
It's technically a penalty but they're so rarely given for contact after the ball is played, it shouldn't really be given and certainly not as a clear and obvious VAR intervention.

Arsenal got one for a foul on Jesus by Ederson after he shot. Jesus didn't even appeal. That's the last one I remember.
 
Ridiculous penalty decision.


He put his foot up to block the shot and Kane kicked his foot after he got his shot away.

If that's a penalty, defenders may as well not even trying to block shots inside the box just in case they get kicked and give away a penalty.
I’ll add though mate, I hate VAR, and if it wasn’t a thing everyone would just move on. Once you slow it down and analyse it, it’s a foul. I’d rather we didn’t bother.
 
Does that get given as a foul everywhere else on the pitch? Definitely. 10 times out of 10. Therefore penalty.
 
I’ll add though mate, I hate VAR, and if it wasn’t a thing everyone would just move on. Once you slow it down and analyse it, it’s a foul. I’d rather we didn’t bother.

When you slow it down it always looks worse, Kane gets his shot away and missed. It's not like he was smashed before he shot or after, Dumfries is putting a leg across to block the shot and Kane kicks him on the follow through.

I just don't see how it's a penalty.
 
Does that get given as a foul everywhere else on the pitch? Definitely. 10 times out of 10. Therefore penalty.
That‘s what I am thinking.
That was 100% a foul.
There is no rule that says that in the penalty box the foul has to be harder to be given.
 
When you slow it down it always looks worse, Kane gets his shot away and missed. It's not like he was smashed before he shot or after, Dumfries is putting a leg across to block the shot and Kane kicks him on the follow through.

I just don't see how it's a penalty.

It was obvious it was going to be given as soon as they showed what the ref was seeing.

Slow motion replay of the few frames where Dumfries hit Kane with his studs, zoomed in so there's no real context to where the ball is.
 
Shit decision, for me. Dumfries doesn’t come flying in with his studs up, he sticks his foot up to block and Kanes follow through hits him rather than him hitting Kane.
 
Ridiculous penalty decision.


He put his foot up to block the shot and Kane kicked his foot after he got his shot away.

If that's a penalty, defenders may as well not even trying to block shots inside the box just in case they get kicked and give away a penalty.
Agree with this.
 
Last edited:
When you slow it down it always looks worse, Kane gets his shot away and missed. It's not like he was smashed before he shot or after, Dumfries is putting a leg across to block the shot and Kane kicks him on the follow through.

I just don't see how it's a penalty.
Whether the shot happens or not is irrelevant. The foul happens after. You can’t just foul someone because they’ve managed to get rid of the ball beforehand, otherwise you’d never give a foul after a ball has been passed.
 
One of those performances where you actually have to be suspicious
 
Not a good argument for me. It's similar to those when the fullback clears and the winger goes to block with studs up. Those are given as yellow card often.

I've never seen a similar one given.
 
One of those performances where you actually have to be suspicious

Only because of his history. I dont believe in referees getting bribed but just being shit or feeling the pressure.

I dont think he was actually bribed but performance was so bad and in combination with his history, you would be suspicious :lol:
 
Wait… people are actually arguing that it wasn’t a penalty? If this happens in midfield it‘s always a foul. Why would it be different in the penalty area? And I was actually rooting for the Netherlands.

edit: @Pexbo just saw your comment. I completely agree.
 
It's the kind of penalty decision made by somebody who's never played the game. I can't blame the ref too much, those folks in the booth wanted to feel important.
 
Having been regularly infuriated by refs in recent seasons, I’ve got to admit, on the whole I think they did a decent job at the Euros.

Often quick on VAR, better with letting play go on, and the automated offside seemed to work well.

Any of these changes being implemented in the Premier League? The offside tech and only captain talks to the ref seem decent steps forward.
 
The Premier League's edict on stoppage time is the proper way to do things. Piss about faking injuries, strolling to kick outs and general timewasting and you get hit with 7, 8, 9+ minutes of stoppage time with more added on for timewasting in stoppage time.

UEFA's rules of seemingly a maximum of 4 minutes is ridiculous. It rewards timewasting. Little things like have contributed to a fecking pallid tournament.
 
I thought the ref for the final did a good job with the incidents, called it all fair and booked Olmo for a foot in on Rice, seeing the replay it was a definite yellow card but on first watch I thought the player had a case of being hard done by.

There were some obvious time wasting that didn't get added on though. Once Spain went 2-1 he seemed to want to wrap the game up, should've gone to 95-96 min, maybe one last chance. No doubt Spain were the best team and deserved winners and were compared to previous teams doing less gamesmanship, so credit where it's due, they've been a great watch.
 
The Premier League's edict on stoppage time is the proper way to do things. Piss about faking injuries, strolling to kick outs and general timewasting and you get hit with 7, 8, 9+ minutes of stoppage time with more added on for timewasting in stoppage time.

UEFA's rules of seemingly a maximum of 4 minutes is ridiculous. It rewards timewasting. Little things like have contributed to a fecking pallid tournament.

There were six in the Slovakia game tbf so woud still add if one team was severely time wasting. Think Italy-Croatia had eight minutes.

Second half there wasn't really an injury or long stoppage and they haven't been adding on injury time for goal celebrations at all. Yeah Spain did waste pretty much all of stoppage time so England should've got an extra minute there.

Once more what I loved was the quick decision on the 2nd goal. Looked offside from the first replay. If that had been scored in prem it would've been 3-4 minutes of drawing lines and probably disallowing it in the end.
 
What on earth :lol:


Still far better than this:

DMP_CHP_180218MataVAR_7067MataVARJPG.jpg
 
Challenge you to quote anyone who has said “perfectly”?
Ok Mr Pedant. Works wonderfully, much better, pick whatever adjective you are more comfortable with and just ignore the point.
 
Last edited: