Wasn't aware a player can jump into another who is making an attempt to kick the ball, high boot or not, and con your way into a penalty.
VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Anyone who watches Serie A would know that Massimiliano Irrati who was the VAR tonight is a grade A cnut. Top referee my arse.
In that second half the referee was just appalling. Only going one way on everything.
Other than not giving the pen to Hojlund and the penalty at the end I thought the ref was good.
ETH said that the officials told him Rashford was onside... So erm, what the feck? 
So just the two game changing mistakes, then.
Yeah, aside from making bad decisions he was ok.
ETH said that the officials told him Rashford was onside... So erm, what the feck?
My stream was choppy so I've probably missed something. What happened?
They obviously used VAR for that corner that he overturned. That's not how it's supposed to be used. Clowns.
The officials said it wasn't offside, but also wasn't a penalty.
It wasn’t even a high foot. The most ridiculous penalty you could imagine given. How VAR didn’t intervene would be a question if we had gotten that penalty
Oh the one-on-one where Rashford got clipped/dived over? I'll need to see it again as I think Rashford tried to jump over and was too clean, thereby not initiating enough contact..
That got given as offside anyway didn’t it so didn’t matter?
It was tight and if he was off fair enough but we never saw the proof one way or the other, did we?
which would be weird as the goalkeeper actually got a touch to it and it was the correct call
I don't think i know what gets you a penalty anymore. I see the situations not given, mainly for us but also other teams and i think.. That's a penalty, surely? So many times they are not given. The weird thing is i barely react if we don't get penalties now, because it takes so much to get one i guess.
It is nothing strange about that stats. We know how we are treated by referees and VAR and have been for years and years. It is important that people don’t forget that. We are pretty much only club with different rules on pitch and in media.
Going by the guidelines, if there's contact, it's a penalty. If not, it's an indirect free kick. It wasn't clear in the replay on my screen, but what made me nervous was that McT didn't protest much (given the importance of the call). Other than that, if Rashford wasn't dead scared of any physical contact, he could have given VAR something to check. And if that's a penalty on Rasmus, Maguire's shove at Sheffield should have been a penalty, a red card and a three-game ban.
Your point about the guidelines isn’t true at all. It literally says in the rule book that a high foot is punishable by an indirect freekick.
Edit contact is even referred to here with the causing injury aspect which can only happen with contact
High foot – colloquialism for what is described in the Laws of the Game as "Playing in a dangerous manner". A foul is awarded if the referee determines that a player's foot has moved into a dangerously high position while trying to play the ball, especially if the foot threatens or causes an injury to an opponent.
If there's contact, it's a foul. Any foul in the box is a penalty. If there's no contact, it's an indirect free kick.
I didn’t watch it on TV so I can’t answer that but judging from where the game re-started and the actions of the referee, I think he pointed at the linesman who had his flag up for something.
Offside was the logical guess from there
I love how the pen against Hoijlund was instantly dismissed so pushing someone from behind no where near the ball is fine now.
Yes but they normally check and show you the proof. The Harry Maguire onside was shown some time later.
Judging from the replay, he looked on.
If Rashford wasn't offside, it was surely a penalty? The goalie clearly catches him so that he falls. The fact that Rashford jumps shouldn't matter - if he doesn't, he may cause injury to himself. He jumps to avoid serious contact. Thus the goalie is obstructing play. Clear penalty for me.
Højlund should also have been awarded a penalty - he was basically fouled by two players. The last one shoved him to the ground.
Højlund should also have been awarded a penalty - he was basically fouled by two players. The last one shoved him to the ground.
Contact doesn’t mean it’s a foul. It can only be for a high foot since you can’t even tell me if there was contact or not.
Hojlund was pushed over in the box and it wasn’t a pen, plenty of can tact there. You’re only talking about a high foot here.
Is there a rule you can quote me?
Last edited:
Pulled back and a player barged into his back.
No idea why they've not given a penalty there.
We all know by now why players dive don't we? If they don't fall they don't win penalties. Avoiding contact will rarely if ever be given even though it should
The ref has clearly deemed that there was contact then, hasn’t he??
I don’t agree but the rules of the game are pretty clear - high foot? Indirect free kick unless there is contact and it becomes a direct free kick - direct free kicks in the penalty area become penalties.
I can only presume the delay was asking VAR to confirm contact or not and presumably they did.
Another example as to why there should be live audio of the analysis and decision making.
The refs decision was wrong and should have been overturned by VAR. You only need eyes on the replay to see that is never a pen.
Yes, but this is a different discussion. Personally, i wouldn't have given it and it also seemed to me that he was "looking" for a big call that would make him the centre of attention. The way McT reacted, more disappointed with himself rather than angry at the referee, is a (small, if you prefer) indication that there was contact. This is why he blew his whistle, he saw a contact that prevented the attacker from playing the ball. Not just the high foot, a clear (to him) foul inside the box. And this was probably what he was discussing with VAR, not the amount of contact (he had already made his mind that the attacker was obstructed), but if he had made "a clear and obvious error" and McT hadn't touched his opponent.
For those arguing that it was a penalty last night, what would have happened had the attacker gone for an overhead kick?
We see this all the time, yet hardly ever do attackers get punished for throwing their legs as high as they can in the air to get on the end of a cross.
It was never a penalty,
We see this all the time, yet hardly ever do attackers get punished for throwing their legs as high as they can in the air to get on the end of a cross.
It was never a penalty,
That may be so and I stated that I didn’t/don’t agree with the decision BUT based on what I saw and the way it played out, my take on the matter is above.
I think he blows, incorrectly for a high foot. The conversation is then probably/possibly about the contact, if any, which VAR presumably/possibly confirm. The confirmed contact then makes the decision a penalty as the ‘foul’ had already been given. The foul was never getting overturned.
Like I said, this would be cleared up by simply having the audio between the referee and VAR live for people to hear and understand the reasoning for the decision
If the attacker kicked the defenders face like mctominay did it would a free kick to the defending team. Simple, see it often in football.
That was insane. Didn’t help that he changed his mind at the exact moment the TV replay showed he was right the first time.
He didn't kick him in the face.
The only contact comes when the attacked literally just jumps into his leg (thats on its way down) after the ball has gone.
Was their contact? Nothing was conclusive for me, no marks on his face, he got up unscathed,
Most of the time during an overhead kick the defender is trying to protect their head so contact is minimal, yet it's never given as a foul.
He didn't
Was the Rashford penalty maybe not given because of some stupid VAR technicality? Offside only checked when a goal is scored. And penalty not checked because he was called offside?
For the Rashford incident, I'm not sure the keeper touches him.