VAR tonight

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

Cantwell was very lucky to stay on, I was expecting that to be overturned all day long.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Just now, Feedthewolf said:

Cantwell was very lucky to stay on, I was expecting that to be overturned all day long.

Quite possibly but where on the field was it?

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Quite possibly but where on the field was it?

I don't understand why that's relevant, am I missing something?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

6 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

I don't understand why that's relevant, am I missing something?

Well I didn't see a stream so asking the question.

Just wondering if it was in front of the fourth official because as far as I know this is the area of the pitch that these yellow card reviews take place.

I'm not querying the validity of the decisions. Just wondering whether the rules are the same elsewhere on the field.

Edited January 22, 2020 by nutty nigel

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Well I didn't see a stream so asking the question.

Just wondering if it was in front of the fourth official because as far as I know this is the area of the pitch that these yellow card reviews take place.

I'm not querying the validity of the decisions. Just wondering whether the rules are the same elsewhere on the field.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I can't remember exactly, I think it was in the middle third and quite near to the touchline on the same side as the screen... can anyone confirm/deny?

[kick it off 1,948]

1 minute ago, Feedthewolf said:

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I can't remember exactly, I think it was in the middle third and quite near to the touchline on the same side as the screen... can anyone confirm/deny?

Pretty sure it was right in front of the dugouts

[JF 694]

Didn’t think it warranted a red myself. His eyes were on the ball towards the side of him at the point of contact. Would have been a very harsh red in my opinion 

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

12 minutes ago, JF said:

Didn’t think it warranted a red myself. His eyes were on the ball towards the side of him at the point of contact. Would have been a very harsh red in my opinion 

He kept his studs raised and his leg straight long after he'd completed the tackle. If you slide in with your studs showing, you're asking for trouble. Very glad that VAR took a lenient view of it, naturally!

[SwindonCanary 455]

It was Mike Dean on the VAR last night, two times he had to look at the screen, both he came in our favour 👍

But both times he took ages to make his mind up ! I felt sorry for Pukki he had to wait, and wait for the screen to say it was a pen.

[king canary 7,578]

We've won two obvious penalties in two games yet both needed 2 or 3 minutes extra checking which is just ridiculous. Rather than a quick 'any clear reason why it shouldn't be given?' it feels like the VAR officials are actively looking for reasons to overturn decisions.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

6 minutes ago, king canary said:

We've won two obvious penalties in two games yet both needed 2 or 3 minutes extra checking which is just ridiculous. Rather than a quick 'any clear reason why it shouldn't be given?' it feels like the VAR officials are actively looking for reasons to overturn decisions.

I completely agree with this. I get that they want to get the decisions 'right', but by their own rules, getting it right simply means proving that the on-field referee hasn't made a clear and obvious error. With the rules the way they are, I get why they had to prove Cantwell hadn't handled the ball in the build-up on Saturday (even though that rule is ridiculous).

However, last night should have gone something like this:

On-field decision: penalty.

Did the defender play the ball? No (this should be obvious on first viewing).

Does it look as if contact was made with Aarons? Unless the answer is 'absolutely not', we move on (again, should be obvious on first viewing).

Did Aarons start going down before the perceived contact was made? No.

"Stick with your decision, ref."

Should have taken 30 seconds max.

[king canary 7,578]

1 minute ago, Feedthewolf said:

I completely agree with this. I get that they want to get the decisions 'right', but by their own rules, getting it right simply means proving that the on-field referee hasn't made a clear and obvious error. With the rules the way they are, I get why they had to prove Cantwell hadn't handled the ball in the build-up on Saturday (even though that rule is ridiculous).

However, last night should have gone something like this:

On-field decision: penalty.

Did the defender play the ball? No (this should be obvious on first viewing).

Does it look as if contact was made with Aarons? Unless the answer is 'absolutely not', we move on (again, should be obvious on first viewing).

Did Aarons start going down before the perceived contact was made? No.

"Stick with your decision, ref."

Should have taken 30 seconds max.

Yep.

Also v Bournemouth we had a good minute of winding/rewinding the actual handball when you could see in real time he touched it. It should have been a 10-second look, move on to the next element.

[Well b back 3,190]

6 hours ago, king canary said:

We've won two obvious penalties in two games yet both needed 2 or 3 minutes extra checking which is just ridiculous. Rather than a quick 'any clear reason why it shouldn't be given?' it feels like the VAR officials are actively looking for reasons to overturn decisions.

Leicester and Vardy had a similar one at the weekend, which after 3 minutes of review was then missed by Vardy. This is putting ridiculous pressure on penalty takers. The clue for last nights was nobody on the Spurs side complained when it was given.

Before we scored last night why was the handball in the Spurs penalty area not reviewed ?. Players reaction said it clearly hit his hand which wasn’t by his side.

[king canary 7,578]

6 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Leicester and Vardy had a similar one at the weekend, which after 3 minutes of review was then missed by Vardy. This is putting ridiculous pressure on penalty takers. The clue for last nights was nobody on the Spurs side complained when it was given.

Before we scored last night why was the handball in the Spurs penalty area not reviewed ?. Players reaction said it clearly hit his hand which wasn’t by his side.

I think stuff like that is looked at while the game goes on- as far as I'm aware it definitely wasn't a pen so no need to stop the game.

[lake district canary 4,531]

15 minutes ago, Well b back said:

 Players reaction said it clearly hit his hand which wasn’t by his side.

I thought that if a shot was on target it didn't matter if it was accidental or not. Has that changed? Because the shot looked on target to me.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I thought that if a shot was on target it didn't matter if it was accidental or not. Has that changed? Because the shot looked on target to me.

If we're talking about the ball hitting the defenders elbow, which was clearly tucked within his body silhouette, then to give penalty for that would have been an absolute travesty.

[East Rider 548]

6 hours ago, king canary said:

We've won two obvious penalties in two games yet both needed 2 or 3 minutes extra checking which is just ridiculous. Rather than a quick 'any clear reason why it shouldn't be given?' it feels like the VAR officials are actively looking for reasons to overturn decisions.

Totally understand the sentiment here and if I was more of a cynic I would have a big issue with it. let us just hope the Bournemouth type of penalty we won (as obvious a penalty as a puppy is guilty beside a pile of ****) occurs at Liverpool. VAR may then get properly reviewed and who knows. 

[Surfer 1,547]

16 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

He kept his studs raised and his leg straight long after he'd completed the tackle. If you slide in with your studs showing, you're asking for trouble. Very glad that VAR took a lenient view of it, naturally!

I was also very surprised they took a lenient view of that. Careless, tired yes to both. Intentional? Perhaps not, but Godfrey's was not obviously intentional either. 

[Surfer 1,547]

5 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

If we're talking about the ball hitting the defenders elbow, which was clearly tucked within his body silhouette, then to give penalty for that would have been an absolute travesty.

Yeah that was never a penalty. 

[king canary 7,578]

2 minutes ago, East Rider said:

Totally understand the sentiment here and if I was more of a cynic I would have a big issue with it. let us just hope the Bournemouth type of penalty we won (as obvious a penalty as a puppy is guilty beside a pile of ****) occurs at Liverpool. VAR may then get properly reviewed and who knows. 

To be clear I'm not claiming it is anti-Norwich bias driving this. I just think the VAR officials are somewhat over-eager to change a decision. If a penalty is given it should be the remit to check if there is an obvious reason it shouldn't be- not to spend 90 seconds checking if there has been a questionable handball in the build-up.

[East Rider 548]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

To be clear I'm not claiming it is anti-Norwich bias driving this. I just think the VAR officials are somewhat over-eager to change a decision. If a penalty is given it should be the remit to check if there is an obvious reason it shouldn't be- not to spend 90 seconds checking if there has been a questionable handball in the build-up.

I see.

 I wonder (with a mischievous smile) though if (whilst holding the power in your hands) deliberating for ever over a simple decision that may affect a small club like ours is as damaging to an individual (let's call him a VAR referee who wishes to be known as accurate pro active and 'fair') as it may be if a big high profile team was involved?

I'll stop now as even I know very clearly VAR is not the reason we are where we are.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

4 minutes ago, East Rider said:

I see.

 I wonder (with a mischievous smile) though if (whilst holding the power in your hands) deliberating for ever over a simple decision that may affect a small club like ours is as damaging to an individual (let's call him a VAR referee who wishes to be known as accurate pro active and 'fair') as it may be if a big high profile team was involved?

I'll stop now as even I know very clearly VAR is not the reason we are where we are.

Can't it have contributed to where we are without it being the main reason? 

[East Rider 548]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

Can't it have contributed to where we are without it being the main reason? 

Yes it probably has, to a lesser degree.

Just off the top of my head, Tottenham and Palace both at home would have been 4 extra points without VAR. Man utd would have been a point as well probably. 

However it would be wrong to point the finger at VAR for our shortcomings. We have been in enough winning or promising positions in games and yet have failed to capitalise time and time again.

The blame / fault / responsibility for our woe is multi faceted and some have been eloquently and often bluntly expressed on here.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

We are probably only talking small margins, 5 or 6 more points then we'd be where most expected, hoped, we'd be with an eye on a 17th finishing  position. Which was often eloquently and bluntly expressed to be success on here in the summer.

I haven't written that off, especially now I've been convinced these things even up over a season. Buckle up together..

[kick it off 1,948]

5 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

If we're talking about the ball hitting the defenders elbow, which was clearly tucked within his body silhouette, then to give penalty for that would have been an absolute travesty.

Much like giving a penalty against Cantwell against Man United? When he jumped with his back turned and the ball was fired at him point blank when he literally couldn't even see where it was?

Either they're both penalties or neither are.

Irrelevant of the fact they missed them, Man United were given two penalties that game by VAR that were never pens in a million years. There have been similar incidents for us that haven't resulted in penalties. 

 

[The Real Buh 3,423]

Who will sue first is the question