Video Assistant Referees (VAR)

[Mr Logic]

VAR to the rescue.

[Ginola]

Should have penalties for the fouls on David Silva and Kane

[BlackandWhite]

The term VARCE is applicable still.

 

A clear penalty and clear red card for the foul on Muto when he was through on goal all missed.

[Happinesstan]

I think it was Danny Murphy, on nbcsn, trying to explain why Var didn't give Kane a penalty. Painful.

[Stifler]

The ball was away from Kane before Lascelles went down, Kane was always struggling to get to it. I would have been pissed if it went against us, one of those where you would be claiming that somewhere along the lines you have been paid back for a wrong decision if it went for you.

[Ginola]

It was nowhere near away from him

[Happinesstan]

The ball was away from Kane before Lascelles went down, Kane was always struggling to get to it. I would have been kissed if it went against us, one of those where you would be claiming that somewhere along the lines you have been paid back for a wrong decision if it went for you.

 

Aye. But that wasn't how Murphy saw it. He was saying that the VAR guys thought it was a foul, but that was just their opinion, and couldn't overturn the decision because they knew where Dean was coming from.

 

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that was exactly what was going on. Like I said, Painful.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

If they are going to have VAR, the referee needs to be the one looking at the "clear and obvious error" on the screen. I strongly dislike the idea of a third party making the actual call other than the pseudo-scientific offsides decisions.

[Yorkie]

If they're determined to retain this margin for error, then I really don't understand its purpose in the first place.

 

My view of the Kane/Lascelles incident today is: Lascelles impeded Kane without managing to get a fair touch on the ball. It was clumsy and a little bit unfortunate (unlike, say, a late tackle where he's taken his shooting leg from under him), but the presence of an out-of-control defender has ultimately prevented an attacker from getting a clear shot at goal. Surely, given those circumstances, we're talking foul and penalty?

 

Assuming my view of the incident is correct, the referee therefore has missed an infringement. On what grounds is that infringement allowed to prevail, if VAR has been introduced to ensure that the correct decisions are made? What's the criteria there? Do the officials in the back-office have to completely contradict the existence and purpose of the technology by arbitrarily 'looking through the eyes of the referee' and finding a balance somewhere? How is that a fair system? It's like trying to be subjective for subjective's sake, even though you've got all the tools to be objective. It's inconsistent and - more concerningly - it smashes open the door for biased calls.

 

I just find the whole thing utterly flawed and a total fucking waste of everybody's time.

[Wullie]

If they're determined to retain this margin for error, then I really don't understand its purpose in the first place.

 

My view of the Kane/Lascelles incident today is: Lascelles impeded Kane without managing to get a fair touch on the ball. It was clumsy and a little bit unfortunate (unlike, say, a late tackle where he's taken his shooting leg from under him), but the presence of an out-of-control defender has ultimately prevented an attacker from getting a clear shot at goal. Surely, given those circumstances, we're talking foul and penalty?

 

Assuming my view of the incident is correct, the referee therefore has missed an infringement. On what grounds is that infringement allowed to prevail, if VAR has been introduced to ensure that the correct decisions are made? What's the criteria there? Do they completely contradict the existence and purpose of the technology by arbitrarily 'looking through the eyes of the referee' and finding a balance somewhere? How is that a fair system? It's like trying to be subjective for subjective's sake, even though you've got all the tools to be subjective. It's inconsistent and - more concerningly - it smashes open the door for biased calls.

 

I just find the whole thing utterly flawed and a total fucking waste of everybody's time.

 

They make themselves look totally ridiculous by holding different standards to different incidents. They've apparently been told to apply a very high bar to overturn a penalty decision, so Lascelles/Lerma/Lamela in the last two weekends are not considered enough of a howler to overturn. That would be all well and good, "clear and obvious" in action, if they weren't examining offsides to the nearest atom and don't get me started on handball.

[mrmojorisin75]

i thought it was the right call on the penalty, lascelles went over and brushed him but it was hardly a barge or anything...kane basically held his position rather than moving to the ball which he could have done in order to buy a penna

[Andy]

i thought it was the right call on the penalty, lascelles went over and brushed him but it was hardly a barge or anything...kane basically held his position rather than moving to the ball which he could have done in order to buy a penna

 

Kane leaned his body towards Lascelles. Was looking for the penalty IMO.

[ToonArmy1892]

i thought it was the right call on the penalty, lascelles went over and brushed him but it was hardly a barge or anything...kane basically held his position rather than moving to the ball which he could have done in order to buy a penna

 

Kane leaned his body towards Lascelles. Was looking for the penalty IMO.

[mrmojorisin75]

i thought it was the right call on the penalty, lascelles went over and brushed him but it was hardly a barge or anything...kane basically held his position rather than moving to the ball which he could have done in order to buy a penna

 

Kane leaned his body towards Lascelles. Was looking for the penalty IMO.

 

precisely, the ball was there but he stopped moving toward it and looked for lascelles instead

 

correct call

[triggs]

I think if Kane didn't put his body towards Lascelles he would have stayed up and got a shot away and it was also accidental so don't think it was a pen

[Rompe]

Lascelles was nowhere near the ball and quite clearly impeded Kane. Whether or not Kane was looking for it is a different discussion. Should've been a penalty, but we got lucky today.

[Andy]

Lascelles was nowhere near the ball and quite clearly impeded Kane. Whether or not Kane was looking for it is a different discussion. Should've been a penalty, but we got lucky today.

 

Wouldn't say it's a different discussion since it's almost definitely the reason it wasn't given IMO. Many penalties are denied on the basis of "he was looking for it".

[Rompe]

Lascelles was nowhere near the ball and quite clearly impeded Kane. Whether or not Kane was looking for it is a different discussion. Should've been a penalty, but we got lucky today.

 

Wouldn't say it's a different discussion since it's almost definitely the reason it wasn't given IMO. Many penalties are denied on the basis of "he was looking for it".

 

But a foul is a foul, wouldn't you agree? Whether the player is looking for it should be irrelevant as long as he is in fact fouled. Kane was looking for it, but he was hindered by Lascelles who didn't try to play the ball. In my eyes that's a penalty.

[Andy]

Well it depends, if the striker goes out of his way to make contact it can't always be a penalty or they'd all just ignore the ball and look for the defender's leg at every opportunity. And saying Lascelles didn't try to play the ball is a bit harsh since he fell over and injured himself, it's not like it was a reckless lunge.

[ToonArmy1892]

Surprised the Dean didn't give it like.

[BlackandWhite]

At the end of the day Laccelles has fallen over and taken Kane down with him in the penalty box. Injury or no injury, looking for it or not, it is a pen. The laws don’t legislate for players looking for pens unless they’ve deliberately looked to cheat I.e. dived.

 

I can see why VAR didn’t give it now if we’re having this much of a debate about it. And that is one of the reasons why football is rife with refereeing controversy. Different referees have different opinion, see things differently, etc. Controversy in decision will always be a part of football and if there is one thing VAR has done it has certainly proved that.

[madras]

Thought it was a pen at the time but theres one particular angle where it looks like Kane leans in and because Lascelles isnt there, because hes already fallen, it makes Kane go down and then he seems to deliberately put his leg over Lascalles to make it more likea foul than it was.

[Yorkie]

If a defender prevents a striker from taking a shot by making a controlled, well-timed challenge (definitively taking the ball before the man) - it's a fair challenge.

 

If a defender prevents a striker from taking a shot by maneouvering his body in front of his opponent (being in control of the ball but without necessarily touching it) - it's a fair challenge.

 

If a defender prevents a striker from taking a shot by literally diving headfirst in front of his opponent, not being in control of the ball, not touching the ball, whilst impeding the striker's ability to shoot - it's a foul.

 

If Lascelles doesn't do what he did, Kane has an opportunity to take a clean shot; but Lascelles prevents that from happening. Kane might lean into him slightly but it doesn't mean the infringement hasn't occurred. If you're a striker, I think you're probably within your right to highlight the infringement by playing into it somewhat.

[madras]

But does Lascallles prevent Kane from doing that or does Kane lose balance because hes expecting to have to lean off the defender so leans in and theres no one there. I think that's what VAR saw, made to look worse by his putting his leg over to make it look worse than it was.

[Ginola]

The defender was out of control and impeded the striker so it's a foul imo. The Man City one was worse anyway, no idea how that wasn't given