This.
VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
So are you telling me that if a full back does that to a winger who has pushed the ball past him it’s not a foul? We see that given as a foul at least once a game. Why should it be any different when it is in the box.
The keeper has virtually stopped here, he has no obligation to get out of the way either, this one isn't even slightly controversial, there isn't a foul, if the ref had given it though VAR wouldn't, as already said, wouldn't overturn the decision because it isn't an obvious error
Getting your body between the opponent and the ball to shield it away is not a foul.
He has a much more important obligation to not get in the way in the first place. That’s how those situations are always referee’d. If a keeper comes for the ball, fails to make contact and gets in the way of the attacker (who is successful in playing the ball) then there’s a very high chance of a penalty.
But he isn’t shielding there. He is barging him off the ball. AWB loses the ball due to his barge and he doesn’t even get anything on the ball. That is a foul anywhere else on the field.
Re Bruno/Ramsdale.
Technically I'd say it's an indirect free-kick for obstruction.
Obviously referees don't have the balls to make a call like that, but that's basically what it was.
Technically I'd say it's an indirect free-kick for obstruction.
Obviously referees don't have the balls to make a call like that, but that's basically what it was.
The challenge on AWB is 100% penalty, a classic foul aftet a bad touch from Martinelli there.
It's not a foul and that argument is made too often. There's plenty of outfield fouls that wouldn't be given in the box.
He was intending to take the ball by getting his body in the way, someone else took it. If he ran away with that ball nobody cares.
Nobody looked for it, nobody complained.
Except some CAF members
The Bruno one is never a penalty in a million years. Keeper is allowed to hold his ground, he doesn't move in to him and is stopped. Bruno is trying it on, dive pretty much...
The AWB one might be, the quality of the replay isn't very good, not having proper replays of it during the game or after is also rather suspect.
The AWB one might be, the quality of the replay isn't very good, not having proper replays of it during the game or after is also rather suspect.
He doesn’t get his body in between, the ball is away from him because AWB got to it first and he touches it to the side. Martinelli then comes charging in from the other angle. He’s nowhere near the ball. The ball isn’t even away from AWB, he pops it up right in front of him and it’s the contact that bounces the ball off AWB and away.
As soon as AWB wins that ball it doesn’t become a 50/50 or any sort of out. Martinelli is simply late
Definitely not a dive, he jumped to get his foot to the ball first and also momentum took him into the keeper and there was contact. Pen or no pen it really wasn’t a dive
This is the problem. You say it wasn't a foul but if it was given, VAR wouldn't over turn it because it wasn't an obvious error.
Have we entered the twilight zone? How does giving a penalty when there was no foul not fall under the category of 'clear and obvious error'?
It's not a foul.
Blame the VAR rules,, they are based on the referee making a reasonable decision, in this case giving or not giving a penalty was 50-50 call, whichever decision the ref made it wouldn't have been overruled
No it wasn't a dive but let's face it, Bruno does dive a lot so you can see why some say he did
Some weird posts in here. On the Bruno one, on the second angle I’ve definitely seen them given and if for example Forest get a pen on Wednesday in that situation, nobody will bay an eyelid. On the AWB one. I’ve no idea how that isn’t a foul because it 100% is.
Yes because it was a foul. Var doesn’t overturn fouls that aren’t given all the time. It very rarely doesn’t overturn a penalty that isn’t a foul though.
But you just said there was no foul and were arguing it wasn't a pen. I'm unsure how it's now 50/50.
Regardless, my point really was the rules are now absurd, not fit for purpose and the clear and obvious error bit which they've made worse with their 'let them foul', sorry, 'let it flow' needs to be ditched.
If they think the on-field ref could have made a mistake he can have a look. They seem to have introduced technology only to turn around and invent reasons not to use it.
Last edited:
Exactly
This exactly. He is late in the tackle and barges AWB off the ball. 100% stonewall penalty.
It looks weird because the defender is behind the attacker and you’d swear it was in Uniteds box but AWB is goal side of Martinelli there and Martinelli just goes through him
IMO it wasn't a foul but we've all seen them given or not given hence what I call a 5-50
The rules are a farce, no argument there, it should only be used for matters of fact and that's basically offside and the very rare mistaken identity, or, if in the opinion of the VAR ref, that the on filed ref has cocked up, if the latter then it should be reviewed on the screen - but it has to be limited to specific scenarios - like a penalty otherwise games would take longer than an average NFL game!
Stupid reason to though, he dived before so he must have dived this time doesn’t really wash.
there was clear contact and if he hadn’t have collided with the keeper could have Possibly got to the ball.
But in reality it does, any ref who's seen some of his antics is going to have in the back of his mind that maybe he's dived, not just Bruno, every player that has that rep
Also, the keeper doesn't have to get out of the way, as long as he doesn't deliberately bring him down the contact is irrelevant, in this case Bruno tried to jump out of the way and was falling when he hit the keeper, that is not a penalty and you'd be going nuts if that had been given down the other end and rightfully so
People here believe that it was a penalty on bruno??????? Wtf
Don't think there's enough in the Fernandes/Ramsdale coming together for it to be a pen, but for the Wan-Bissaka/Martinelli one I would probably have given it. Wan-Bissaka pokes it away from Martinelli who barges into him and he was never in control of the ball. Not saying it was necessarily the case in this situation, but I feel like referees let the play continue expecting VAR to look at it. However, since 90% (statistic pulled from my behind) of these calls are subjective it's difficult to change the decision on the pitch as it cannot be a clear and obvious mistake.
The main reason VAR is such a load of shite. In a nutshell, right there. Changes the way referees officiate, while also not correcting the inevitable bad decisions that come from their natural tendency to stop making the big calls they used to make.
Nope. Still yet to see a better angle. I don't understand what role the producers of the footage plays in this, because at times you see a situation that haven't been picked up by the refs getting replayed for the viewers countless times. But the situation here just seemed to be ignored all together, with no replay at all. Yet the commentator said VAR reviewed it quickly and dismissed it. Martinelli barging into AWB for a penalty isn't something anyone would bet money on, so maybe the expectations of it happening was so low that everyone just kept going. I think that's a horrible feature in professional sports. For casual viewers that level of attention is ok, but for the actual people in the game like a ref to legitimise subjectiveness and randomness, something is off. I hoped that VAR would be the answer to this particular issue, because it could be, but it's clear they don't want it to change and they wont use VAR to archive this.
We've been conditioned to think this, because the refs usually award a foul for it. If they didn't we wouldn't believe it was a foul. It's the lack of consistency, again. When a player goes for a tackle and doesn't reach the ball but puts his body in the way, and the other player gets the ball and continue on his path, if he runs into the player who moved for the ball and didn't get it, it's a freekick.. You know, unless he intentionally runs into him for some reason. The Bruno situation is simple as Bruno pokes the ball ahead of him, stays in his natural path and doesn't initiate the contact just to go down. The keeper doesn't intend to foul him no, but he does, because he made the mistake of pushing too far our on a ball he couldn't reach. Usually... you'd see that's a penalty against us.
The keeper doesn't foul him, he basically stood his ground, he doesn't have to get out of the way, not all contact is a foul
AWB one looks an interesting one although the quality of replay is terrible so can't be certain. But Bruno? C'mon now. This place would explode with conspiracy theories if a pen like that was given against us.
Where do you get this idea from? Of course he should get out of the way. Even if it isn’t given as a direct free kick if a player doesn’t get out of the way of another player the ref can give an indirect free kick for obstruction.
The same can be said for Bruno. He doesn't have to get out of the way from the keeper, he is on his natural path. It's a 50/50 for the ball between the keeper and Bruno. One get the ball and one realises his error and stops. Yet the contact is real. One get impeded and one doesn't. One gets an advantage of the contact and another doesn't. I don't know how Bruno can get away from that. I guess if he bounced off the challenge he could have scored the goal, but he didn't manage to do that and the goalkeeper benefited from that.
Look, I'm totally on board with it if lets say Bruno stuck out a leg and fell over, but he lost balance because his hip was hit due to the goalkeeper crouching down in front of him. Goalkeeper didn't see Bruno coming, pulled out in the last minute but it wasn't enough, imo. Soft penalty yes, due to the weird mistake and the harsh punishment if deemed a penalty, but I think it's consistent to the rules of the game honestly. The difference between that situation and another where everyone agrees theres a penalty is so small it could be based on which players are involved or something like that.
Deliberate obstruction yes, no way is that deliberate
From the saints - toon game. Decision: no penalty
The refs have clearly made an agreement not to overrule each other unless the decision is obviously wrong. Makes the whole thing entirely pointless.
Problem is, referees are still relying on VAR to help them when they aren’t sure.
But VAR have been told to only act if they ARE sure and it’s obvious that the referee didn’t see it.
It’s an absolute mess
But VAR have been told to only act if they ARE sure and it’s obvious that the referee didn’t see it.
It’s an absolute mess