Complete Bulls***

[Hillhead 114]

 

"The VAR can only penalise "encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, crossbar or goalkeeper".

This doesn't mean the ref got the decisions right. Just dictates when VAR get involved

What really frustrates me though is.....

"The VAR identified that both Aarons and Arsenal players had encroached inside the penalty area before the ball was kicked and because Aarons' encroachment had a material impact, the VAR correctly advised the referee that the penalty should be retaken."

So if Aarons had slipped over and an encroaching Arsenal player followed up it would have been a free kick to us. Seems odd. If you're going to use VAR use it see that Zimmerman would have been next onto the ball (as pointed out previously) They would use such information for deciding a last man red card situation so why not use it here to give the correct result?

Edited December 1, 2019 by Hillhead

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,421]

3 minutes ago, Hillhead said:

 

"The VAR can only penalise "encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, crossbar or goalkeeper".

This doesn't mean the ref got the decisions right. Just dictates when VAR get involved

What really frustrates me though is.....

"The VAR identified that both Aarons and Arsenal players had encroached inside the penalty area before the ball was kicked and because Aarons' encroachment had a material impact, the VAR correctly advised the referee that the penalty should be retaken."

So if Aarons had slipped over and an encroaching Arsenal player followed up it would have been a free kick to us. Seems odd. If you're going to use VAR use it see that Zimmerman would have been next onto the ball (as pointed out previously)

So they change the interpretation for VAR than the actual Law (14) ? That makes even less sense ! 
What an absolute shambles ! 

Edited December 1, 2019 by Graham Paddons Beard

[hogesar 9,609]

2 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

So they change the interpretation for VAR than the actual Law (14) ? That makes even less sense ! 
What an absolute shambles ! 

I'm confused.

The other fans in the ground are confused.

The ref is confused.

The linesmen are confused.

The VAR officials are confused.

The football commentators are confused.

Anyone think Neil Swarbrick might have to come up with a better response than us fans will just have to "live with it"?

 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,154]

Not massively important in the scheme of things, but Cantwell lucky not to be booked for annihilating the corner flag while celebrating his goal. 😆

[Hillhead 114]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

I'm confused.

The other fans in the ground are confused.

The ref is confused.

The linesmen are confused.

The VAR officials are confused.

The football commentators are confused.

Anyone think Neil Swarbrick might have to come up with a better response than us fans will just have to "live with it"?

 

I thought I was doing alright but then the Games match officials guys put out a statement to clarify things and now i'm confused too.

[hogesar 9,609]

11 minutes ago, Hillhead said:

I thought I was doing alright but then the Games match officials guys put out a statement to clarify things and now i'm confused too.

Just when you thought youd nailed it too!

[ron obvious 1,495]

According to Paddy tv replays show Max didn't encroach. I shall watch MOTD2 with interest.

Edited December 1, 2019 by ron obvious

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

Missed a fair  bit of to and fro there as I was on a call, so maybe  out of  sync  with the discussion.  My point was about  the  interpretation,  essentially a pen is advantage  to the  taker, we could encroach really badly but if he sticks it away , it wont be retaken. It was a rough  watch  today but not essentially wrong,  by my understanding of the interpretation  rules .....at the moment. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I would like to see the “foul” given for the free kick that led to the penalty again. At the time I thought that was a poor decision. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

On the VAR/encroachment thing I think it’s like offside and they are going to have to change the rules as there is encroachment if some sort at every single penalty abs we are just going to end up with penalties constantly retaken. It was probably technically the correct decision (although is it the feet or any part of the body and their player embraced as well) but neither the taker nor the keeper knew and arguably resulted in an unfair outcome. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Just to cite another example of where the VAR line appears false. Right at the end they were given a throw in that was clearly ours. They took it quickly and the player went up the wing and crossed it into a dangerous situation from which I think they got a corner. If they had scored from that move could VAR have gone back and ruled it out as the throw in decision was wrong? I’m guessing not. 

[BroadstairsR 2,135]

I have always supported VAR believing that if the technology is there (ie. to lead to more accuracy) then it should be used.

However.it is quite clear that a drastic rethink of it's implementation need be done over the Summer  as it has thus far been nothing short of a disaster.

Today's decisions seem to have been considered correct because they adhered to the laws of the game, but these are now laws which have increasingly become more vague. The current off-side rulings seem a mess, when they were once clear cut, and hand-ball in the penalty area now includes the whole of the arm when before the "hand" was only considered to extend up to the elbow. Furthermore, if that arm is deemed by the official to be "unnaturally" positioned (ie. not pinned to the side of the defender's body) then it is still "hand" ball even if that ball comes at said defender from an acute angle, from two inches away or at maximum speed.

Half the time it seems to be the way the laws of the game have become complicated to the point of confusion rather than the the dystopian nature of VAR that has caused the current mess.

In this respect and in view of today's decisions it would seem to me that Norwich should not have been penalised for encroachment because their opponents were guilty of it as well (ie. of seeking advantage.)

Re:- VAR decisions. Perhaps they should try putting it in the hands of the players as in cricket, with say two appeals for each side for each half when it comes to vital decisions, ie. no appeal, no VAR? Then everybody will be happier.

AND, please no more thickness of a fag paper off-sides. There has to be a margin of error.

[Peanuts 150]

I’m fairly sure VAR wasn’t introduced in order to solve the problem of players encroaching at penalties, hardly something that was ruining the game until now.

If it’s the letter of the law, fine. But let’s have VAR awarding penalties and free kicks for every nudge, grab and pull in the box then? Or how about VAR identifying every throw in that isn’t taken from exactly where the ball went out of play?

We we were promised more accurate and consistent officiating with VAR but all we’re getting is the same haphazard decision making, only now it takes longer. 

Edited December 1, 2019 by Peanuts

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

It's total and utter ****.

There have been five missed penalties this season. Three we obviously know well.

Tettey encroaching

And again, with Lewis joining him.

 

Leitner in the box. Maginal, but RuLeS aRe RuLeS. **** ref.

Pogba v Wolves in August? Retake. Erm, no.

Rashford misses again, James encroaching. Retake? Nope, man that ref must be rubbish.

And how lucky did Liverpool get against Leicester? Last minute penalty to win it, but rules are rules and encroachment is clear...

Retake? I'll give you a clue, the answer isn't yes. And Liverpool take all three points.

For sure, apply the letter of the law absolutely rigidly and every single penalty miss this season should have been retaken, as should Milner's against Leicester. But it never happens and it shouldn't happen. But presumably you think the referees were incorrect in all the above instances but correct today, right?

Furthermore, if you are applying the letter of the law to that, then you do it for all facets of the game...

...and therefore grabbing on to the arm of a defender as he attempts to head clear a freekick is a foul, even moreso when the other arm is pushing against the same player's midriff.

 

This sums the missed penalty up for me, look at the arsenal player ahead of all of ours 

[Branston Pickle 3,632]

The whole penalty incident is actually down to the ref and his giving them a f/k for our player winning the ball. DF after the game said he’s seen again and it was no foul, he sounded really disappointed with the reffing...it did seem rather a lot of marginal decisions went their way.

The whole thing is annoying, but nothing we say is going to change anything. We move on to the next game, and maybe we’ll actually get a var decision go our way for once....

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,421]

27 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

The whole penalty incident is actually down to the ref and his giving them a f/k for our player winning the ball. DF after the game said he’s seen again and it was no foul, he sounded really disappointed with the reffing...it did seem rather a lot of marginal decisions went their way.

The whole thing is annoying, but nothing we say is going to change anything. We move on to the next game, and maybe we’ll actually get a var decision go our way for once....

This is how we saw it in the Ground. The whole thing started with a crap decision.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Okay just watched the highlights on MOTD. Here are my thoughts on the penalty incident;

- The initial foul for the FK  by McLean was a foul (in contrast to what I thought was a fair challenge at the time).

- The penalty was a penalty, small amount of contact not enough to justify Zimmermann sticking his arm out to the ball like that IMO, no complaints there. There is contact like this all the time when FKs / corners are concerned and I wouldn’t like to see fouls given for that on a regular basis. 

- Retaking the pen because of the encroachment by Aaron’s because he was first to the ball, thus gaining an advantage, unfortunately was the correct decision and I’d go further to say that this rule actually does make sense... This was how I thought the rules should’ve been interpreted in my previous page - that the rules appear to be shown differently online is a separate issue, which clearly this needs addressing. This does also explains why all those penalties provided by canarydan were not retaken.

However, this doesn’t change the fact that all the waiting around and confusion is farcical, when watching the games live it is a very different experience to the TV. And I suspect this is what has enraged people (rightly) into ranting on here  and wildly swearing at their kids (just kidding). It all just feels so unfair and somehow fixed when you are standing and waiting in the stands. If they aren’t going to get rid then I hope microphones are introduced a la cricket in the future and maybe even show the replays and analysis on the big screens. Keeps everyone understanding in the ground and would stop so much negativity / anger with some explanations as to why decisions have been made... although would maybe create even more when the crowd still doesn’t agree or understand...

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

VAR is supposed to change it if the referee has made a clear error. The FIFA page says regarding penalties:

The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick.

Why does the word clear need to be there? Surely if the referee has made a wrong decision is enough. What is an unclear decision? And we don't know if the referee asked VAR to check or whether VAR brought it to the refs attention. And surely the latter should mean the referee has to look at it.

The penalty was awarded after their free kick was adjudged handled by Zimmermann. Why couldn't VAR check to see if the free kick should have been awarded that led to the penalty? Because VAR cannot check restarts.

I think it is fair and not biased to say we have suffered because of VAR.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

VAR is supposed to change it if the referee has made a clear error. The FIFA page says regarding penalties:

The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick.

Why does the word clear need to be there? Surely if the referee has made a wrong decision is enough. What is an unclear decision? And we don't know if the referee asked VAR to check or whether VAR brought it to the refs attention. And surely the latter should mean the referee has to look at it.

The penalty was awarded after their free kick was adjudged handled by Zimmermann. Why couldn't VAR check to see if the free kick should have been awarded that led to the penalty? Because VAR cannot check restarts.

I think it is fair and not biased to say we have suffered because of VAR.

But McLean did foul Xhaka

[Well b back 3,180]

2 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Okay just watched the highlights on MOTD. Here are my thoughts on the penalty incident;

- The initial foul for the FK  by McLean was a foul (in contrast to what I thought was a fair challenge at the time).

- The penalty was a penalty, small amount of contact not enough to justify Zimmermann sticking his arm out to the ball like that IMO, no complaints there. There is contact like this all the time when FKs / corners are concerned and I wouldn’t like to see fouls given for that on a regular basis. 

- Retaking the pen because of the encroachment by Aaron’s because he was first to the ball, thus gaining an advantage, unfortunately was the correct decision and I’d go further to say that this rule actually does make sense... This was how I thought the rules should’ve been interpreted in my previous page - that the rules appear to be shown differently online is a separate issue, which clearly this needs addressing. This does also explains why all those penalties provided by canarydan were not retaken.

However, this doesn’t change the fact that all the waiting around and confusion is farcical, when watching the games live it is a very different experience to the TV. And I suspect this is what has enraged people (rightly) into ranting on here  and wildly swearing at their kids (just kidding). It all just feels so unfair and somehow fixed when you are standing and waiting in the stands. If they aren’t going to get rid then I hope microphones are introduced a la cricket in the future and maybe even show the replays and analysis on the big screens. Keeps everyone understanding in the ground and would stop so much negativity / anger with some explanations as to why decisions have been made... although would maybe create even more when the crowd still doesn’t agree or understand...

 

So in the words of the great Brian Clough ( when referring to offsides ) If you weren’t trying to gain an advantage why were you there ?

Every player that encroached in all those situations including today’s was trying to gain an advantage, Are you now penalised for being the fastest of the group trying to gain an advantage ?.

This is becoming a farce, sooner or later someone will come up with something tactical to do something like block all attackers off, the ball is dead until struck so no foul.

[All the Germans 1,073]

2 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Okay just watched the highlights on MOTD. Here are my thoughts on the penalty incident;

- The initial foul for the FK  by McLean was a foul (in contrast to what I thought was a fair challenge at the time).

- The penalty was a penalty, small amount of contact not enough to justify Zimmermann sticking his arm out to the ball like that IMO, no complaints there. There is contact like this all the time when FKs / corners are concerned and I wouldn’t like to see fouls given for that on a regular basis. 

- Retaking the pen because of the encroachment by Aaron’s because he was first to the ball, thus gaining an advantage, unfortunately was the correct decision and I’d go further to say that this rule actually does make sense... This was how I thought the rules should’ve been interpreted in my previous page - that the rules appear to be shown differently online is a separate issue, which clearly this needs addressing. This does also explains why all those penalties provided by canarydan were not retaken.

However, this doesn’t change the fact that all the waiting around and confusion is farcical, when watching the games live it is a very different experience to the TV. And I suspect this is what has enraged people (rightly) into ranting on here  and wildly swearing at their kids (just kidding). It all just feels so unfair and somehow fixed when you are standing and waiting in the stands. If they aren’t going to get rid then I hope microphones are introduced a la cricket in the future and maybe even show the replays and analysis on the big screens. Keeps everyone understanding in the ground and would stop so much negativity / anger with some explanations as to why decisions have been made... although would maybe create even more when the crowd still doesn’t agree or understand...

 

I agree with all of this.

What irritates me is that we know the rules, we know VAR automatically reviews penalties etc, so why put ourselves in such a position. I like Aarons and he's been brilliant since he first played against the scum but he is at fault here. Show some discipline and stay out of the area. We have been the architect of our own problems today and if we had been more disciplined in our approach, we would have won.

I like the idea of VAR, I think it will be good in the future. My problem is with the implementation of it, mainly the idiots using it but also the rules themselves. 

[Making Plans 936]

The simple fact is that if Aarons hadn't got to the ball first and someone else, who was not encroaching, had cleared it then the penalty would not have been retaken.

The rule about encroachment has always been there and every player is aware of it.

It has been implemented on numerous occassions in the past long before VAR was even thought of.

Sometimes you get away with it and sometimes you don't.

VAR just makes it more likely that if you encroach, and then clear the rebound, then you're gonna get caught.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Making Plans

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

13 minutes ago, Making Plans said:

The simple fact is that if Aarons hadn't got to the ball first and someone else, who was not encroaching, had cleared it then the penalty would not have been retaken.

The rule about encroachment has always been there and every player is aware of it.

It has been implemented on numerous occassions in the past long before VAR was even thought of.

Sometimes you get away with it and sometimes you don't.

VAR just makes it more likely that if you encroach, and then clear the rebound, then you're gonna get caught.

 

 

Will you ever pack up with all this common sense and level headed appraisal. 😉

[Making Plans 936]

Just watched the highlights. Before the penalty was taken the ref walks all the way along the edge of the area, points to the line and is obviously reminding the players not to encroach.

And for the retake Aarons is a yard out side the box and doesn't even move

Edited December 2, 2019 by Making Plans

[Jim Smith 2,314]

7 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

VAR is supposed to change it if the referee has made a clear error. The FIFA page says regarding penalties:

The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick.

Why does the word clear need to be there? Surely if the referee has made a wrong decision is enough. What is an unclear decision? And we don't know if the referee asked VAR to check or whether VAR brought it to the refs attention. And surely the latter should mean the referee has to look at it.

The penalty was awarded after their free kick was adjudged handled by Zimmermann. Why couldn't VAR check to see if the free kick should have been awarded that led to the penalty? Because VAR cannot check restarts.

I think it is fair and not biased to say we have suffered because of VAR.

So does it actually say anything about encroachment when the kick is taken because that is not related to the award or non award of a penalty kick?

as I have said above, I think they may need to tweak the law although Farke also needs to be telling our players in no uncertain terms not to set foot in the box, especially as we now have a keeper who actually can save penalties!

[Well b back 3,180]

3 hours ago, Making Plans said:

The simple fact is that if Aarons hadn't got to the ball first and someone else, who was not encroaching, had cleared it then the penalty would not have been retaken.

The rule about encroachment has always been there and every player is aware of it.

It has been implemented on numerous occassions in the past long before VAR was even thought of.

Sometimes you get away with it and sometimes you don't.

VAR just makes it more likely that if you encroach, and then clear the rebound, then you're gonna get caught.

 

 

But that is not what the actual law says. That states all players must be outside the area when the ball is struck. It says nothing about if you get to the ball. The EPL and the virtual Assistant to Relegation of the smaller clubs have changed the rules to suit themselves. It’s weird they cannot look at the movement of the goalkeeper but can look at encroachment and put their own interpretation in the rules. Are you really saying for all our misses last year we were just unlucky that we did not get one retake as some are given and some are not. I can only remember the odd very rare occasion when a penalty was retaken for encroachment ( and that was on tv ). They are interpreting each rule in anyway they wish. At least in Europe you know where you stand ( even if you don’t agree ) ie if it hits your hand it’s a penalty. Not only is our system left wide open to corruption but sooner or later an operator will accused of corruption. Allowing betting on the outcomes of decisions before a match even begins means there will be corruption eventually. If they can get to highly paid sports stars I am sure they can get to referees who are on nothing like the salaries of top sports stars.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

It appears it was technically correct but its all a bit unsatisfactory in my book. A bye product of VAR will be these types of issues being detected and impacting on games more than they used to. Football as a game needs to think about whether it wants to see perfectly good penalty saves wiped out due to very minor technical infringements such as this because previously it would not have been picked up or commented on and we'd all be talking about a great save. We had 2 other players capable of clearing that ball yesterday. Is the VAR rule they are applying now saying that if one of those players had cleared the ball (which they easily could) the pen would not have been re-taken because if so that's also a bit of a nonsense. Its also a nonsense that our referees have basically once again made up their own rule over the application of VAR in this scenario albeit ti appears they have tried to be more lenient, presumably to stop too many being re-taken.

However Farke clearly needs to be talking to the players and making ti crystal clear to them that under the current rules they must not do this, Krul actually does save penalties from time to time and to have such saves cancelled out due to stupid infringements is not something we can afford. the above montage shows Lewis encroached for both Man U penalties as well so its something our players are being careless with.

As a final query does anyone know what counts as "inside" the area for the purposes of this rule because Aarons technically dod not have any feet on the ground inside the area and I think arguable Lacazette was ahead of him initially. 

 

[Ian 1,129]

I think that's right @Jim Smith - VAR not only seems to be poorly implemented - but it is really highlighting the inadequacies of some of the laws of the game when technology is available to apply these to the letter of the law.

Taking aside the obvious technicality of the encroachment rule, it's difficult to fathom that Aarons boot-toe and chest encroaching within the 18-yard box a tenth of a second before the ball is kicked would actually have had a material impact on whether he would have cleared the ball or not, in much the same way it is difficult to understand how an attacker's knee being a centimetre ahead of a defender's leg would grant them a substantial advantage in terms of an offside call.

I feel that not only is VAR taking away the referee's judgement and moving it to a faceless computer operator, but it is actually really underlining the poor nature of some of the laws of the game - there's no doubt that the game actually seems to be suffering (overall) as a spectator sport as a result of this. I often find that I don't fully celebrate a goal at Carrow Road these days because there's still a chance some sort of tenuous infringement may be discovered.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

28 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It appears it was technically correct but its all a bit unsatisfactory in my book. A bye product of VAR will be these types of issues being detected and impacting on games more than they used to. Football as a game needs to think about whether it wants to see perfectly good penalty saves wiped out due to very minor technical infringements such as this because previously it would not have been picked up or commented on and we'd all be talking about a great save. We had 2 other players capable of clearing that ball yesterday. Is the VAR rule they are applying now saying that if one of those players had cleared the ball (which they easily could) the pen would not have been re-taken because if so that's also a bit of a nonsense. Its also a nonsense that our referees have basically once again made up their own rule over the application of VAR in this scenario albeit ti appears they have tried to be more lenient, presumably to stop too many being re-taken.

However Farke clearly needs to be talking to the players and making ti crystal clear to them that under the current rules they must not do this, Krul actually does save penalties from time to time and to have such saves cancelled out due to stupid infringements is not something we can afford. the above montage shows Lewis encroached for both Man U penalties as well so its something our players are being careless with.

As a final query does anyone know what counts as "inside" the area for the purposes of this rule because Aarons technically dod not have any feet on the ground inside the area and I think arguable Lacazette was ahead of him initially. 

 

Jim, the line is part of the area, so if Aarons was on the line then he was encroaching.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Just to add to the debate!

Purple - don't doubt your point about the line. Just interesting to look at everything that is going on here.