What partly gives it away is the reaction of Kimpembe - Most will look bemused or even angry, he looked like a man who knew he'd just messed up
Straight away puts his head in his hands when the decision gets given - Of course it might be that he doesnt see the point in appealling to the ref
Not just that. Kimpembe's immediate reaction was to look at the ref and wag his finger (unless I was seeing things) and then nodded his head as he saw the ref pointing to the corner. He knew.
Pen all day long, defender jumps and turns his back hanging his arm out......fair play to the ref for having the b*llocks to actually give it
My mate argued “how is he supposed to get his arm out of the way if he’s jumping and turning his back” as if he’s not responsible for jumping and turning his back.
Best way for him to have avoided giving the penalty away would be to not turn his back and keep his arms down or behind him I thought.
Pen all day long, defender jumps and turns his back hanging his arm out......fair play to the ref for having the b*llocks to actually give it
My mate argued “how is he supposed to get his arm out of the way if he’s jumping and turning his back” as if he’s not responsible for jumping and turning his back.
Best way for him to have avoided giving the penalty away would be to not turn his back and keep his arms down or behind him I thought.
The VAR, after checking various different angles available to him, recommended to the referee an on-field review following the penalty area incident.
Given that the referee did not recognise the incident clearly during live play (referred to as serious missed incident in the VAR protocol) an on-field review was conducted.
Following the on-field review, the referee confirmed that the distance that the ball travelled was not short and the impact could therefore not be unexpected. The defender’s arm was not close to the body, which made the defender’s body bigger thus resulting in the ball being stopped from travelling in the direction of the goal. The referee, therefore, awarded a penalty kick.
All the above-mentioned decisions were made in full compliance with the VAR protocol.
The problem is more around the law than VAR IMO. The deliberate act has been clarified to making yourself bigger. It is going to be clarified further in June. Hopefully for the better. I think the solution to the mess is probably any contact with the arm/hand is hand ball. There will probably be a lot more penalties although we may see more effort from defenders to have their hands behind their backs! The problem is that when you rely on opinion, people see things differently. Whether the PSG handball was right or wrong, it certainly felt harsh to me watching it.
I think they are basically saying, if you think the ball may hit you, it's your responsibility to make sure it doesn't hit your arm/hand and if it does it's handball.
I think they are basically saying, if you the ball may hit you, it's your responsibility to make sure it doesn't hit your arm/hand and if it does it's handball.
Which is fine as long as everybody understands it. It was interesting listening to Michael Owen saying that all the players he has spoken to thought it was harsh and all the refs thought it was a penalty. What we may have here is a case of refs deciding on a movement to clarify a problematic rule (sorry law for the refereeing pendants), but not adequately explaining it to everybody else.
Maybe the rule change in June is to fall into line with VAR. You can see how the authorities may want to avoid situations were a decision is open to interpretation like the handball law is. By making it the responsibility of the player for it not to hit his hand or arm, VAR makes a yes or no decision.
The problem with the Man U penalty for me is that I think the player was more worried about getting a ball in the privates than making himself bigger, hence him turning away from it. But we can argue that, it is my opinion and I can't read the player's mind.
We had something similar in the Accrington game. I think some of us thought it was a penalty and some thought it was harsh. The team I coach won a quarter final a couple of weeks ago and that was on a late penalty which I thought was a ridiculous decision as the opponents hands were by his side and the shot was hard and impossible to escape from. Of course we were happy to take it, it has felt like we have had much more gone against us, but I did tell the other manager I didn't think it was a penalty and gave the ref a lower mark because of it.
VAR is forcing rule changes to the game although 99.99.. % of matches at all levels will be played without VAR.
The current rule when playing without VAR is that if the referee and linesman have any reasonable doubt that an offence was deliberate it is not a penalty.
With VAR this rule is meaningless because viewing the incident over and over again for three minutes means that, by definition, there is doubt so it should never be a penalty if an incident is reviewed!
This is what I don't like about VAR. The new laws are for the elite and armchair viewers - not for most people actually playing and refereeing football.
VAR would be better if a referee was only allowed to watch a replay of something he missed once and had to make his decision immediately. If he cannot make that decision immediately there is doubt involved and therefore no offence was committed.
I think we will be seeing more penalties before June and I will certainly be advising my players to be aware where their arms are. But I think the link to VAR is an indirect one. The question on this is more about what is or isn't a penalty.
Also, I don't see an issue with most football matches not having VAR. It is still the same game. Village cricket doesn't have video reviews.
I think we will be seeing more penalties before June and I will certainly be advising my players to be aware where their arms are. But I think the link to VAR is an indirect one. The question on this is more about what is or isn't a penalty.
Also, I don't see an issue with most football matches not having VAR. It is still the same game. Village cricket doesn't have video reviews.
Most decisions in cricket are based on "facts". No one really minds VAR for goal line decisions or even offsides so long as it doesn't hold the game up too much.
It is the laws relating to subjective decisions which need to be changed to suit to VAR if it is to be successful.
Yes, and that is the biggest impact I think VAR is going to have. A law like hand ball is often about opinion and it will become a yes or no fact to fit in with VAR. Did the ball hit the player on the hand or arm or not? But the PSG v Man U game was a bit messy because it was still about the opinion of the ref at the end of the day. He could have given that opinion without VAR and VAR helped him take a closer look to decide based on his opinion.
Shocking decision by ref to give Man city their 1st goal. Assistant flaged but ref overuled him. VAR would have confirmed no goal as Sterling off side.
Lee Mason made a terrible decision by not sending off Pickford. The new rule said you only stay on if you make a honest attempt to win the ball. Pickford made a rugby challenge on the forward. 100% red card. Not sure if VAR is allowed to overall the wrong decision by ref because he didn't send off the keeper ?
Shocking decision by ref to give Man city their 1st goal. Assistant flaged but ref overuled him. VAR would have confirmed no goal as Sterling off side.
Lee Mason made a terrible decision by not sending off Pickford. The new rule said you only stay on if you make a honest attempt to win the ball. Pickford made a rugby challenge on the forward. 100% red card. Not sure if VAR is allowed to overall the wrong decision by ref because he didn't send off the keeper ?
Nice balanced view @soapb@soapboxsam. How about mentioning the difficult and thus good decisions made by referees over the weekend; none better than the recognition and subsequent booking of Hernandez for diving
In the build up to Leicester's 3rd goal yesterday, the winger deliberately ran off the pitch to get a better angle to control the ball. I would have disallowed it
In the build up to Leicester's 3rd goal yesterday, the winger deliberately ran off the pitch to get a better angle to control the ball. I would have disallowed it
Why though? As long as the ball wasn't off the pitch he broke no rules
In the build up to Leicester's 3rd goal yesterday, the winger deliberately ran off the pitch to get a better angle to control the ball. I would have disallowed it
Nothing wrong with momentarily leaving the field of play under the circumstances you describe.
The offence of "Leaving the field of play without the referees permission" usually was enacted when said player did so to avoid being penalised for offside. However, given the current offside interpretations, players are rarely penalised for interfering unless they touch the ball or are seeking to do so. Therefore players do not need to illegally leave the field of play in such circumstances.
Shocking decision by ref to give Man city their 1st goal. Assistant flaged but ref overuled him. VAR would have confirmed no goal as Sterling off side.
Lee Mason made a terrible decision by not sending off Pickford. The new rule said you only stay on if you make a honest attempt to win the ball. Pickford made a rugby challenge on the forward. 100% red card. Not sure if VAR is allowed to overall the wrong decision by ref because he didn't send off the keeper ?
Nice balanced view @soapb@soapboxsam. How about mentioning the difficult and thus good decisions made by referees over the weekend; none better than the recognition and subsequent booking of Hernandez for diving
Peter, I was pointing out two poor decisions by Refs that a good ex ref watching the VAR screen could have cleared up.
Roger East was very good at the Valley, and refs have a difficult job because of the gamesmanship and in many cases cheating that goes on.
Only the operator and one Ex referee who's legs have gone but eyes are ok should ajudicate In unison with the ref on VAR.
Shocking decision by ref to give Man city their 1st goal. Assistant flaged but ref overuled him. VAR would have confirmed no goal as Sterling off side.
Lee Mason made a terrible decision by not sending off Pickford. The new rule said you only stay on if you make a honest attempt to win the ball. Pickford made a rugby challenge on the forward. 100% red card. Not sure if VAR is allowed to overall the wrong decision by ref because he didn't send off the keeper ?
Nice balanced view @soapb@soapboxsam. How about mentioning the difficult and thus good decisions made by referees over the weekend; none better than the recognition and subsequent booking of Hernandez for diving
Peter, I was pointing out two poor decisions by Refs that a good ex ref watching the VAR screen could have cleared up.
Roger East was very good at the Valley, and refs have a difficult job because of the gamesmanship and in many cases cheating that goes on.
Only the operator and one Ex referee who's legs have gone but eyes are ok should ajudicate In unison with the ref on VAR.
Accepted @soapboxsam,@soapboxsam, but your original post only focushed upon two refereeing errors, hence my statement about a balanced view on the difficult job re refereeing
Comments
Straight away puts his head in his hands when the decision gets given - Of course it might be that he doesnt see the point in appealling to the ref
Not just that. Kimpembe's immediate reaction was to look at the ref and wag his finger (unless I was seeing things) and then nodded his head as he saw the ref pointing to the corner. He knew.
Best way for him to have avoided giving the penalty away would be to not turn his back and keep his arms down or behind him I thought.
"They've got to be allowed to block the ball"
From above link
Paris Saint-Germain – Manchester United FC
Penalty award - 90'
The VAR, after checking various different angles available to him, recommended to the referee an on-field review following the penalty area incident.
Given that the referee did not recognise the incident clearly during live play (referred to as serious missed incident in the VAR protocol) an on-field review was conducted.
Following the on-field review, the referee confirmed that the distance that the ball travelled was not short and the impact could therefore not be unexpected. The defender’s arm was not close to the body, which made the defender’s body bigger thus resulting in the ball being stopped from travelling in the direction of the goal. The referee, therefore, awarded a penalty kick.
All the above-mentioned decisions were made in full compliance with the VAR protocol.
Maybe the rule change in June is to fall into line with VAR. You can see how the authorities may want to avoid situations were a decision is open to interpretation like the handball law is. By making it the responsibility of the player for it not to hit his hand or arm, VAR makes a yes or no decision.
The problem with the Man U penalty for me is that I think the player was more worried about getting a ball in the privates than making himself bigger, hence him turning away from it. But we can argue that, it is my opinion and I can't read the player's mind.
The current rule when playing without VAR is that if the referee and linesman have any reasonable doubt that an offence was deliberate it is not a penalty.
With VAR this rule is meaningless because viewing the incident over and over again for three minutes means that, by definition, there is doubt so it should never be a penalty if an incident is reviewed!
This is what I don't like about VAR. The new laws are for the elite and armchair viewers - not for most people actually playing and refereeing football.
VAR would be better if a referee was only allowed to watch a replay of something he missed once and had to make his decision immediately. If he cannot make that decision immediately there is doubt involved and therefore no offence was committed.
Also, I don't see an issue with most football matches not having VAR. It is still the same game. Village cricket doesn't have video reviews.
It is the laws relating to subjective decisions which need to be changed to suit to VAR if it is to be successful.
Lee Mason made a terrible decision by not sending off Pickford. The new rule said you only stay on if you make a honest attempt to win the ball. Pickford made a rugby challenge on the forward. 100% red card.
Not sure if VAR is allowed to overall the wrong decision by ref because he didn't send off the keeper ?
The offence of "Leaving the field of play without the referees permission" usually was enacted when said player did so to avoid being penalised for offside. However, given the current offside interpretations, players are rarely penalised for interfering unless they touch the ball or are seeking to do so. Therefore players do not need to illegally leave the field of play in such circumstances.
Roger East was very good at the Valley, and refs have a difficult job because of the gamesmanship and in many cases cheating that goes on.
Only the operator and one Ex referee who's legs have gone but eyes are ok should ajudicate In unison with the ref on VAR.