Jump to content
canarydan23

Complete Bulls***

Recommended Posts

"If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:

the player taking the penalty kick or a team-mate infringes the Laws of the Game:

  • if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
  • if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts with an indirect free kick

except for the following when play will be stopped and restarted with an indirect free kick, regardless of whether or not a goal is scored:" .......

What is interesting is that the rules suggest that if Lacazette was the one done for encroaching it should have been an indirect free kick for us. If you watch again he comes from a running start and its his movement that arguably triggers our players moving into the box.

Anyway its a mess but the moral of the story is for Farke to tell our defenders not to encroach under any circumstances!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

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!

He didn't step foot in the box before the penalty was kicked. His body was leaning in. Lacazette and Hernandez had feet in the box.

Even now, sober and having calmed down somewhat, I was correct with the title of this thread. Complete and utter ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like those councils using anti-terrorist legislation to catch people putting incorrect things in their dustbins.

VAR should be used to eradicate clear and obvious errors that our referees make all too frequently.

It also should not be triggered or operated by any of the clowns who have necessitated its need, namely our proven and consistently incompetent referees and officials.

If encroachment was not so obvious as to be noticed by the on field officials then the player did not gain a significant advantage. Furthermore, the fact that if Aarons had been removed from the equation would not have affected the outcome of the penalty miss adds more frustration. The PGMOL, perhaps the only organisation that can rival The FA with their utter ineptitude, say that Aarons involvement had a material outcome on the game, which is objectively nonsensical. And I'm not even sure whether he enroached at all. His feet certainly didn't enter the box and whilst I am aware a football pitch is 3 dimensional and that a ball mid-air that passes a line is considered over it, are the rules the same for player's bodies? It's not like it's a throw in if a player has one foot off the pitch and touches the ball on the field with his other foot. By what happened yesterday, if a player was stood, toes to chalk on the edge of the box as a penalty is struck but had his arm pointing forwards and then subsequently cleared a missed penalty, that would be encroachment.

It's complete and utter ****. And anyone who thinks if the boot was on the other foot that we would be getting a retake is two stops short of Dagenham.

VAR needs to be taken out of the hands of these jokes. Give the coaches and/or captains a flag a la NFL.They get one or two challenges a half which they have to throw on the field within a few seconds of the decision. If the challenge is successful, they get the flag back, if not then it's wasted. It's very visual so once the flag has been thrown on the field, everyone watching, including the poor saps in the stadium, know there will be a review.

No one from Arsenal would have been flagging for encroachment after that penalty.

It would have also given us a chance to challenge when Aubamayang handled the ball near the halfway line in front of the South Stand about 30 seconds before they won their corner from which the second goal came.

Complete ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

That wasn't really my point Jim. By the law Aarons was the guilty party because he was the first to touch the ball after the penalty was saved. If an Arsenal player had touched it first, it would have been a corner to Arsenal at best if we had cleared it  behind.

My point is that VAR was used when a goal wasn't scored. I think the spirit of VAR, identifying major incidents and reviewing them is not being used properly at all.

Why didn't they review MacLean's "foul" on Xhaka. Because at that stage it wasn''t a major incident and you cannot review restarts. But if on review they thought the ref should look at the "foul" then maybe he might not have awarded the free kick. Many seem to think it was a foul but I disagree. Just because there is contact doesn't make it a foul. So we have a matter of opinion. And that is where VAR falls down. Most of its work is reviewing matters of opinion. And that isn't right.

Goal line technology is brilliant and instant. Fact.

Handballs, fouls, offside are still clearly open to interpretation although offside less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

 Many seem to think it was a foul but I disagree. Just because there is contact doesn't make it a foul. So we have a matter of opinion. And that is where VAR falls down. Most of its work is reviewing matters of opinion. And that isn't right.

Goal line technology is brilliant and instant. Fact.

Handballs, fouls, offside are still clearly open to interpretation although offside less so.

This is what I said on numerous occasions before the season started. Lots of people seemed to think that would be no more controversial decisions with VAR and all decisions would be correct, but when so many decisions are opinion and not matter of fact, it's impossible.

As long as VAR gets the matter of fact decisions right and eliminates the howlers, I think that's the best we can hope for. Yesterday I think all the matter of fact decisions were correct, and there weren't any obvious errors given by the ref so what we saw yesterday is almost as good as VAR could ever be, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

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?

That wasn't really my point Jim. By the law Aarons was the guilty party because he was the first to touch the ball after the penalty was saved. If an Arsenal player had touched it first, it would have been a corner to Arsenal at best if we had cleared it  behind.

My point is that VAR was used when a goal wasn't scored. I think the spirit of VAR, identifying major incidents and reviewing them is not being used properly at all.

Why didn't they review MacLean's "foul" on Xhaka. Because at that stage it wasn''t a major incident and you cannot review restarts. But if on review they thought the ref should look at the "foul" then maybe he might not have awarded the free kick. Many seem to think it was a foul but I disagree. Just because there is contact doesn't make it a foul. So we have a matter of opinion. And that is where VAR falls down. Most of its work is reviewing matters of opinion. And that isn't right.

Goal line technology is brilliant and instant. Fact.

Handballs, fouls, offside are still clearly open to interpretation although offside less so.

The free kick wasn't a foul. Xhaka dived. This whole "there was contact" thing is a relatively recent phenomenon. There was significantly more contact on Zimmermann prior to the handball than there was from McLean on Xhaka. Xhaka had his back to goal, McLean made an honest attempt to win the ball and makes next to no contact on Xhaka who then threw himself to the floor, reasonably confident he'd be given a freekick. Cheating pr!ck even then grabs his shin as if that somehow could have gotten hurt. David Luiz actually grabs Zimmermann's arm with one hand and with his other arm pushes it into Zimmermann's stomach and, as he already left the floor, actually alters the trajectory of his jump. I suspect had Xhaka been in Zimmermann's position, he'd have thrown himself to the floor and rolled around as if he'd been stabbed and the useless sack of **** with a whistle would have given him the freekick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

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.

96587834_Encroachment-EKtXBMzXkAAElyH.thumb.jpg.200908a5d0b16198764d0cdc30787a21.jpg

By the letter of the law - not the Video Assistant to Relegate smaller clubs new rule that I assume has not been sanctioned by FIFA and UEFA an Arsenal player is also encroaching, therefore an indirect free kick to us. Was there any need for Aaron’s to clear the ball ? If we had just let the Arsenal player score following their logic the save would have stood and no retake. They are making up their own rules as they go along.

I wonder if this rule change has been communicated to the clubs and managers or if the EPL just think they can change UEFA and FIFA rules as they see fit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

"If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:

the player taking the penalty kick or a team-mate infringes the Laws of the Game:

  • if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
  • if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts with an indirect free kick

except for the following when play will be stopped and restarted with an indirect free kick, regardless of whether or not a goal is scored:" .......

What is interesting is that the rules suggest that if Lacazette was the one done for encroaching it should have been an indirect free kick for us. If you watch again he comes from a running start and its his movement that arguably triggers our players moving into the box.

Anyway its a mess but the moral of the story is for Farke to tell our defenders not to encroach under any circumstances!

 

Spot on, but unfortunately the Video Assistant to Relegate smaller teams have made up their own rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching it on MoTD2. You cannot encroach. Aaron’s would have comfortably made the clearance without encroaching. It was the correct decision. 


Zimmerman should never had has his hand in the air in the first place, I don’t know wtf he was doing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had Krul not have saved the penalty and it was planted in the onion bag would it have been retaken for encroachment, no it would not ?

VAR is a joke !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Had Krul not have saved the penalty and it was planted in the onion bag would it have been retaken for encroachment, no it would not ?

VAR is a joke !

No, because the encroachment wouldn’t have affected the outcome. I’m a Norwich fan through and through but the encroachment by our players was unnecessary and wasted Krul’s save. No-one to blame but ourselves, we need to wise up!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

No, because the encroachment wouldn’t have affected the outcome. I’m a Norwich fan through and through but the encroachment by our players was unnecessary and wasted Krul’s save. No-one to blame but ourselves, we need to wise up!

What if it had been an Arsenal player encroaching when it was scored ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not altogether sure that this "affected the outcome" element (which seems to have been made up by the English VAR refs group probably thinking they are clever) is particularly helpful for things like this. I know they are probably trying to reduce instances of retakes but it just introduces further confusion. Aarons is obviously here widely regarded as "affecting the outcome" because he cleared the ball away but if you take a step back he didn't have to challenge one of their players for the ball and we actually had 2 or 3 players there who could have cleared it. In fact Krul maybe could have got it himself. It seems to me a bit of a nonsense to say that if Zimbo was the one that cleared the ball its no re-take but because Max did it gets re-taken. 

Once again I will admit that accordingly to the laws the decision was correct but I think we do have to ask ourselves what we are trying to achieve here and what is best for the game moving forward. Is it to see great penalty saves ruled out due to technical infringements like that which in reality did not effect whether Arsenal scored the penalty (notwithstanding the fact Max booted the ball out) or do we now want to see endless checks and reviews of every phase of play. As with offside, this is not a problem with VAR but an issue that VAR will bring to prominence that was perhaps not on the radar (and the game may have been better for that).

My own take on it is that fans generally do not want to see that sort of situation arising. Aubameyang took a cr*p penalty and Krul made a good save.  The outcome prior to the re-take was fair to all concerned. They should either look at reforming the rules so players can go into the box once the player starts his run up or alternatively just get rid of penalty rebounds like they do in penalty shoot outs! Just my opinion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What really niggled me was Aubameyang doing his somersault after scoring a penalty (a free shot at goal from 12 yards) and missing miserably the first time. What next? Sliding on his knees after winning the toss?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

They should either look at reforming the rules so players can go into the box once the player starts his run up or alternatively just get rid of penalty rebounds like they do in penalty shoot outs! Just my opinion though.

There were rumours that this rule would change this season but the rumours kicked off a bit of a stink and the IFAB came out and said that they were not considering, though no smoke without fire so they probably were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Had Krul not have saved the penalty and it was planted in the onion bag would it have been retaken for encroachment, no it would not ?

VAR is a joke !

Surely  you understand  the principle of playing the advantage rule, of course it wouldn't  be retaken . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A day on, where I've settled is that if VAR wasn't involved yesterday, the penalty is not retaken- and the fact of the matter is that MOTD wouldn't then have been highlighting Aarons' front couple of toes being on the line and saying it was an unacceptable lapse in judgement. 

That is for me what VAR was brought in for; unacceptable lapses in judgement, like in the Man U / Arsenal game some weeks ago where a linesman inexplicably called a player offside when he was 5 yards on. That's perfect.

Instead it has developed into a soul-crushing Big Brother scenario, where the on-pitch ref feels a bit superfluous. I think it's clear that we don't like it this way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

What if it had been an Arsenal player encroaching when it was scored ?

If Krul has saved it and the encroaching player affected the outcome by scoring the rebound, yes. If the penalty taker just scored from the spot, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not have a line that is say, 3 metres drawn outside the penalty area (players stay behind that) , and (like in Rugby Union, when a conversion is being taken) when the taker moves to take the kick, then it is free game, for all the other players to move as they see fit. This could be aided by the penalty taker to signal to the ref that he is ready to start and the ref blows his whistle for the kick to proceed. Once the whistle goes, it's every man for himself!

🙂 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

If Krul has saved it and the encroaching player affected the outcome by scoring the rebound, yes. If the penalty taker just scored from the spot, no.

👍Simple  eh?  As the old saying goes ' move Along  , nothing to see  here '

Edited by wcorkcanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the season kicked off I had been comforted that the smaller teams would now get a fair crack of the whip and not be disadvantaged by "big team" refs. Looks like we are now disadvantaged by 'big team' refs AND 'big team' VAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Well b back said:

By the letter of the law - not the Video Assistant to Relegate smaller clubs new rule that I assume has not been sanctioned by FIFA and UEFA an Arsenal player is also encroaching, therefore an indirect free kick to us. Was there any need for Aaron’s to clear the ball ? If we had just let the Arsenal player score following their logic the save would have stood and no retake. They are making up their own rules as they go along.

I wonder if this rule change has been communicated to the clubs and managers or if the EPL just think they can change UEFA and FIFA rules as they see fit.

I think that this photo is the perfect time to review the "offside but not interfering with play" interpretation. Things were so much clearer when anyone offside means it's offside, and in this case anyone encroaching means it's encroaching. The fact an attacker is clearly in the box means he is likely to to pull defenders in with him... 

96587834_Encroachment-EKtXBMzXkAAElyH.thumb.jpg.200908a5d0b16198764d0cdc30787a21.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Van wink said:

Before the season kicked off I had been comforted that the smaller teams would now get a fair crack of the whip and not be disadvantaged by "big team" refs. Looks like we are now disadvantaged by 'big team' refs AND 'big team' VAR.

Yep and after all who is it that is manning VAR.......the same refs 🙄

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

For their second goal, two balls on the pitch, the game should have been stopped.

Apparently only if it influences  the play. If the fan had thrown it into the middle of the goal area, then play would have stopped. Mind you, if Aubameyang had been marked........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez lads, this is all getting a bit  " the worlds against us". If this thread was on TWTD, we would be  laughing our gonads off at them. 

Ha ha Gonads gets through the filter,  maybe cos it's a medical word.

How about a scampi suppository Jobbo?

Edited by wcorkcanary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interests of balance I think Mclean could have been sent off so I don’t think it’s really a “big club” thing. 
 

it’s just that VAR was not really intended to be used for this kind of minutiae and now it is its having unforeseen impacts that I think could detract from the game if we are not careful. 
 

I took my son on Sunday. He’s just starting out as a City fan. Imagine his joy at seeing Krul save a penalty and then how disappointed he was to see it retaken for that infringement, regardless of whether technically the correct decision. It’s not what the game should be about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm up for the one or two appeals per game from each coach approach that has been mentioned. That works fine in the NFL. They way VAR is operating now is just silly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...