VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

What's the criteria for "winning the ball"?

He throws a leg out and gets the ball but it's still a foul? He makes contact with the ball well before the player. He doesn't go through the player to get the ball. It was ball then man.
 
Shane88 said:
What's the criteria for "winning the ball"?

He throws a leg out and gets the ball but it's still a foul? He makes contact with the ball well before the player. He doesn't go through the player to get the ball. It was ball then man.
Click to expand...
He touched it rather than winning it as such maybe. I'm not really sure.
 
arnie_ni said:
He touched it rather than winning it as such maybe. I'm not really sure.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he simply gets too little of the ball. Despite Lamptey’s touch, Jesus is still going past him, and then Lamptey completely swipes his legs. Clear penalty.
 
Shane88 said:
What's the criteria for "winning the ball"?

He throws a leg out and gets the ball but it's still a foul? He makes contact with the ball well before the player. He doesn't go through the player to get the ball. It was ball then man.
Click to expand...

There will be players across the land utterly smashing someone having skimmed the ball and furiously drooling "i got the ball" to the ref.

Skimming it doesn't mean you've won it.
And my comments are in no way related to us needing Arsenal to win to keep the pressure up on Liverpool, or because I have Saka in my fantasy team!
 
Sandikan said:
There will be players across the land utterly smashing someone having skimmed the ball and furiously drooling "i got the ball" to the ref.

Skimming it doesn't mean you've won it.
And my comments are in no way related to us needing Arsenal to win to keep the pressure up on Liverpool, or because I have Saka in my fantasy team!
Click to expand...
He didn't smash him, it was a normal tackle. What more could he have done there?
 
Sandikan said:
There will be players across the land utterly smashing someone having skimmed the ball and furiously drooling "i got the ball" to the ref.

Skimming it doesn't mean you've won it.
And my comments are in no way related to us needing Arsenal to win to keep the pressure up on Liverpool, or because I have Saka in my fantasy team!
Click to expand...
I understand an overly aggressive/reckless tackle getting a foul called despite winning the ball but this wasn't one of those. It was just an outstretched leg, no aggression in it and it catches the ball first.
 
Shane88 said:
What's the criteria for "winning the ball"?

He throws a leg out and gets the ball but it's still a foul? He makes contact with the ball well before the player. He doesn't go through the player to get the ball. It was ball then man.
Click to expand...
Doku apparently touched the ball before hitting MacAllister in the chest.

Despite it being against Liverpool and funny, it’s still a foul.

(edit. Which your next post sort of covers)

Ball or man first is a red herring
 
mu4c_20le said:
He didn't smash him, it was a normal tackle. What more could he have done there?
Click to expand...

Winning the ball I'd say means either yourself or your team mate get the ball, or you at least get a much firmer contact.
Not a slight touch on it, felling your opponent who then can't get it.

Let me ask you, did you think Dalot tripping over his arse and felling matey on Thursday was a pen?
 
mu4c_20le said:
He didn't smash him, it was a normal tackle. What more could he have done there?
Click to expand...
Stand his ground, uses his body to reduce Jesus chance to shoot and not swipe his leg brainlessly
 
Shane88 said:
I understand an overly aggressive/reckless tackle getting a foul called despite winning the ball but this wasn't one of those. It was just an outstretched leg, no aggression in it and it catches the ball first.
Click to expand...

Just touching a ball hasn't been enough to classify as "winning" the ball for a fair old while though has it?
 
Shane88 said:
I understand an overly aggressive/reckless tackle getting a foul called despite winning the ball but this wasn't one of those. It was just an outstretched leg, no aggression in it and it catches the ball first.
Click to expand...

He didn't win the ball and Jesus would have retained posession and been heading towards goal, if he wasn't taken out. Clearly a pen.
 
Shane88 said:
I understand an overly aggressive/reckless tackle getting a foul called despite winning the ball but this wasn't one of those. It was just an outstretched leg, no aggression in it and it catches the ball first.
Click to expand...

Grazing the ball doesn't give you license to commit a foul.

The ball is going past the defender and Jesus is right behind it and should be bearing down on goal. Except the defender cuts his leg out in the box. Clear penalty.

If Lamptey had booted the ball into row zed and clipped Jesus in the leg on the follow through it wouldn't be a penalty. But he didn't do that.
 
Sandikan said:
Winning the ball I'd say means either yourself or your team mate get the ball, or you at least get a much firmer contact.
Not a slight touch on it, felling your opponent who then can't get it.

Let me ask you, did you think Dalot tripping over his arse and felling matey on Thursday was a pen?
Click to expand...
Dalot made contact with his arm. He was nowhere near the ball so the ref probably felt it would be a foul anywhere else on the pitch. In this case Lamptey actually makes enough contact to lift the ball and away from Jesus. He also didn't violently collide with him, just a normal follow through. I think it's subjective at worst, and in no way stonewall.

awop said:
Stand his ground, uses his body to reduce Jesus chance to shoot and not swipe his leg brainlessly
Click to expand...
I meant in that moment. He swiped low and went for the ball as well as minimizing risk of injury to the player. It was a good tackle, just slightly under the ball given the timing and pace of the moment.
 
Wolves honestly would be close to European football but for VAR.

Also has anyone scored from a corner before?
 
mu4c_20le said:
Dalot made contact with his arm. He was nowhere near the ball so the ref probably felt it would be a foul anywhere else on the pitch. In this case Lamptey actually makes enough contact to lift the ball and away from Jesus. He also didn't violently collide with him, just a normal follow through. I think it's subjective at worst, and in no way stonewall.


I meant in that moment. He swiped low and went for the ball as well as minimizing risk of injury to the player. It was a good tackle, just slightly under the ball given the timing and pace of the moment.
Click to expand...
Well he took the chance and it went horribly wrong.
No idea how anyone can watch that and think "nah he got the ball for me" :wenger:

14xCL05.gif
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
Doku apparently touched the ball before hitting MacAllister in the chest.

Despite it being against Liverpool and funny, it’s still a foul.

(edit. Which your next post sort of covers)

Ball or man first is a red herring
Click to expand...

Yep. Well, if memory serves Doku didn't even get a touch in the end, but either way VAR justified not giving it because they thought he got a very, very slight touch.

No point expecting consistency from the idiots in charge of officiating in England though.
 
awop said:
You could have posted a picture of a cat and it would have as much relevance; Completely differents situations and type of challenges.
Click to expand...
Do you think thats a pen? And do you think the ref decisions favoured you?
 
mu4c_20le said:
Do you think thats a pen? And do you think the ref decisions favoured you?
Click to expand...
The Doku one ? I could understand giving it and not giving it. To me it's a high foot but Doku is also focused and watching the ball, i don't think he intends to clean his studs on McAlister. His intent probably don't matter if there is more force than that. It's a very grey area.
Which ref decisions ? Doku and today's or in general ? In general, of course we've had very favorable calls against Liverpool and United. Not sure how it plays into today's stonewall penalty though.
 
That Wolves offside was just such a poor decision. The ref should have had the balls to allow it after seeing it on the monitor
 
He got so much of the ball that if he didn't wipe him out with the follow through the ball would have been exactly where Jesus intended it to be, still in complete control of the ball and situation.
 
Oranges038 said:
Wolves have been screwed over so many times this season by VAR. Probably more than most teams.
Click to expand...

Yeah I said this a month or two ago, and to see it keep happening to them is pretty gross. GON has done a great job with them and were it not for ridiculous decisions they'd probably be neck and neck with Utd, which I suppose is a saving grace for us, but still, it's gross how badly VAR has screwed them.
 
DavelinaJolie said:
Yeah I said this a month or two ago, and to see it keep happening to them is pretty gross. GON has done a great job with them and were it not for ridiculous decisions they'd probably be neck and neck with Utd, which I suppose is a saving grace for us, but still, it's gross how badly VAR has screwed them.
Click to expand...
Us not getting ridiculous decisions we would potentially have at least 15 points more.
 
DavelinaJolie said:
Yeah I said this a month or two ago, and to see it keep happening to them is pretty gross. GON has done a great job with them and were it not for ridiculous decisions they'd probably be neck and neck with Utd, which I suppose is a saving grace for us, but still, it's gross how badly VAR has screwed them.
Click to expand...

Even if you discount the potential penalty at Utd.

They've had some rotten Decisions against them.

Newcastle - penalty
Luton - penalty
Today's offside

Plus some others, but you only ever see that potential penalty against Utd mentioned as a wrong call.
 
MrMarcello said:
Is there a clip of the Palace incident against City 115 Charges FC?
Click to expand...

Doesn’t really matter, it’s not going to change anything.

The entire problem with VAR is that it can be used as a tool to ensure that the rules are applied as equally as possible between teams, but due to their daft focus on not re-refereeing matches they’ve landed in the middle of nowhere where identical situations can have completely opposite outcomes simply based on what the referee on the pitch decided in a split second. Which is obviously insane.

It’s more important to stay within the «clear and obvious» threshold and protect the decision made on the pitch than it is to reach the most correct decision. If the referee is unsure and plays on, thinking that VAR will correct any mistake, it will most likely result in VAR not getting involved because they can’t say it’s a clear and obvious mistake.

I think if you stick 100 referees in a room, they will come to very similar conclusions about the vast majority of situations. If you stick the same referees on the pitch in identical situations i think it’s going to be a bigger divide. Things happen quickly, there’s little time to evaluate and the angles usually mean that you won’t have a full overview of the situation.

just get rid of the clear and obvious threshold, turn it into much more of a co-op between the referee on the pitch and VAR, move the VAR responsibility to a select group of people that aren’t former/current refs who try to avoid making the main man look bad, we also get less nicknames and mate this mate that. It’s not a difficult job, which should be quite evident considering the morons involved.

Daft decisions standing on the account that the referee made a split second error because of the view he had of the situation is one thing, vastly different outcomes as a result of having a system that can’t get involved because of daft thresholds just makes it even more annoying. Red cards and suspensions, goals against, penalties for and against, then you see completely different outcomes in almost identical situations the next week for teams we’re competing with. Heck, you might even have two identical situations but different outcomes in the same match.
 
Baichung Bhutia said:
That Wolves offside was just such a poor decision. The ref should have had the balls to allow it after seeing it on the monitor
Click to expand...
Very similar to the one we had against Burnley when Evans(?) has one disallowed when the keeper was never going to save it regardless.

Poor.
 
Danny said:
Very similar to the one we had against Burnley when Evans(?) has one disallowed when the keeper was never going to save it regardless.

Poor.
Click to expand...
That disallowed goal literally came to my mind too.

I know Gary O'Neil must be sick to death of the decisions, and I think refs are generally clueless, but watching his presser on MoTD and think he shouldn't say those things on TV.
 
DavelinaJolie said:
Yeah I said this a month or two ago, and to see it keep happening to them is pretty gross. GON has done a great job with them and were it not for ridiculous decisions they'd probably be neck and neck with Utd, which I suppose is a saving grace for us, but still, it's gross how badly VAR has screwed them.
Click to expand...
If it wasn’t for their ridiculous decisions, they’d have more points.

If it wasn’t for our ridiculous decisions, we’d have more points. And still plenty more than them.
 
The goal we had disallowed was in line with the current rules, blame the rules not the decision.

Haven’t seen the Wolves situation.
 
awop said:
Well he took the chance and it went horribly wrong.
No idea how anyone can watch that and think "nah he got the ball for me" :wenger:

14xCL05.gif
Click to expand...
Yeah that's a penalty. Doesn't take the ball away from Gabriel Jesus(i.e. if he doesn't bring him down GJ could reasonably make an immediate play on the ball), which is the criteria that matters here.
 
Pretty baffling that neither City or Arsenal decision warranted any post-game analysis from Lineker and co...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.