I imagine they want it clearly away from the players. If the screen was around the goal, they'd probably all crowd around it.
There's also the risk the ball could hit the screen if it were behind the goal.
Printable View
I imagine they want it clearly away from the players. If the screen was around the goal, they'd probably all crowd around it.
There's also the risk the ball could hit the screen if it were behind the goal.
UEFA's current plan to use VAR, from the final qualifying round on, from next season for CPL, then season after for Europa League: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2018...var-from-2019/
Hmm. How's that going to affect LoI clubs? Who's going to supply the extra camera angles, or will refs be looking at a replay a la MNS?
VAR confirmed for CPL 19/20 and Euro 2020: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2018...m-next-season/
I presume 2020 will be the first time it will be used in Ireland? Unless LOI clubs advance far enough in Europe.
Confirmed for EPL from next season: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2018...e-next-season/
I think it's fair to say the debate, in terms of "Should it be implemented?", is essentially over, and it's now "How do we make it better?"
UEFA bump up VAR implementation, it will now start from the knock-out stages of this year's CPL and Europa League: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2018...ar-technology/
Interesting.
There must be some rules in terms of minimum number and quality of cameras. Is the onus on the home team to supply them?
Pochettino has become the media's favourite anti-VAR commenter, but makes a strange claim here I think (aside from "Literally nobody likes VAR!", which is becoming a repeated thing from some media sources): https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2019...o-wary-of-var/
Did a load of fans leave that Spurs/Rochdale game at half-time? A quick Google search didn't find any reference to that. And if they did was it not because of the awful weather that night, not VAR?
The incident in the first leg of Chelsea/Spurs was strange all the same.
Hate VAR ;)
I suppose that's because they usually make the right decision. Your fans told everyone exactly what they thought of VAR after the incident, but you had no case. The wrong decision given on the field was put right on the spot.
It's the first question. This is a tool to help referees, and get injustices corrected there and then. It's not a challenge system for players.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
VAR is not going away, it is the future of match officiating, it's going to become the norm soon. It's been introduced to the European Cup next week. Therefore referees will not be standing on the goal line anymore.
In those days, there would have been nothing to question. If you won the ball, that's all you needed to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Ultimately the only thing that matters is whether it counts or not, so if it takes an extra 30 seconds to confirm the goal is legit, fine. The decisive goal in that tournament was offside, even under the old rules. I wish we had VAR around then to correct the mistake. So we would still be on course to get the point we needed to get out of the group, and I wouldn't be talking about the injustice 30+ years later.
I thought the VAR-influenced penalty to Man United was crazy.
I'm not against VAR at all, but that's the kind of incident it shouldn't be involved in. BT had 3 ex-Man United players analysing, and none thought should be a penalty.
Obvious contact, the arm is out a bit. It could be argued that if he has a mind to turn his back he should have a mind to put his arms closer to his body, and since he does turn can it be considered an "unexpected ball"? God knows the ref had long enough to consider.
I've probably said it here before but handball could do with some serious work in the laws, particularly the definition of "deliberate". My first description of what the defender did tonight would not be "deliberate". Maybe a bit careless, not mindful enough.
VAR also gave a late penalty to Porto in the other tie tonight, not quite as contentious. The sooner some kind of challenge system comes in to take the use of VAR out of the ref's purview (so this "clear and obvious" thing can be put to bed) the better.
According to BT commentator, the issue was whether the referee felt he had used his arms to 'make his body bigger' (I think that was the term used). I suppose the idea is that by having your arms extended a bit away from your body, you are blocking a bigger area. But given the way the defender leaped and twisted through the air, I think having his arms where they were is completely natural.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
But maybe the issue is that I, and many others, just don't know what the latest interpretations/guidelines are for handball. There was an ex-ref on, explaining how the referee would have reached the decision he did, and I agreed, possibly for the first time in my life, with something Michael Owen said - if that is a penalty according to the rules, then we need to be looking at the rules again.
I think the WC taught us that the referees are now giving those kind of ones on review. There were much harsher ones awarded during that competition I think. The handball rule in relation to scoring a goal is about to become unambiguous.
Dalot's shot was probably off-target last night, but let's pretend it was flying into the top corner. The handball, accidental or not, would constitute a material advantage for the defender. If an advantage cannot be gained from handball when scoring a goal, why should it be any different when defending one?Quote:
1. Accidental handball goal won't stand
Goals scored which have hit a player's hand, deliberate or not, will no longer stand.
Gallagher said of the change: "It will be significant as we will no longer see a goal scored hitting the arm.
"80 per cent of the handballs that referees give are not deliberate, but because a player gains a material advantage. Taking the word deliberate out will eradicate that."
Some ambiguity remains and Gallagher added: "We will still have the problem of asking 'has he made himself bigger, has he put his arms in an unnatural position?'
"There will still be the arm close to the body that will hit the arm and the referee will deny a penalty."
Gary Lineker seems to be of the opinion that they should just penalise handball in all circumstances, remove all debate.
On the flipside, PSG manager Thomas Tuchel was much more open to the idea that it was a penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
They don't make 'em like him anymore!Quote:
No, I think it’s difficult. I think there are reasons why you can give this penalty. When he goes to VAR we know he has reasons. With a handball decision, you have soft facts but not hard facts. The shot is wide, and then suddenly it’s a penalty.
Okay. I am a big supporter of VAR, and I remain a big supporter of VAR. When Dalot took a shot, I saw the ball flying straight from his foot and it goes way over the bar. I was surprised to see it was a corner because I hadn’t seen that, then he goes to the VAR, so I knew he was going to give it because he had evidence.
There are too many points in whether we punish it – the distance from the player, does he move his arm. It’s 50-50. Some say no when others say yes, that’s the difficulty with handball. But we played on the thin line for 60 mins knowing this could happen.
I wouldn't be a fan of a new rule on any handball, accidental or not, automatically causing a penalty to be awarded (or a goal to be ruled out). Although it would be consistent in the way you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
But I think that most people who follow football actually have a fairly similar view on what 'should be' a penalty. Using a hypothetical, if a player takes a shot and it smacks off the hand of the defender who is 2 yards away and has his hands down by his sides, 'should' that be a penalty? I don't think so, and am not in favour of law changes that would make it one.
Neymar was rather less gracious. I wonder if he'll be cited for his social media posts, certainly managers have been done for less.
I see a lot of people saying "It was going wide anyway", but does that really matter? And the "distance from the player", as Tuchel mentions, I think that only applies for "unexpected ball", and this wasn't an unexpected ball.
I wouldn't be in favor of that myself. There are legitimate instances of unexpected ball, and of players trying to move their arms out of the way only to be hit. Those shouldn't be infringements.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
I agree there probably has to be some leeway.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
"How can it be handball when it hits his back?", he said, before the expletives. Not much credibility on the subject after that!Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
The word "silhouette" is now part of instructions to refs: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47471380
The word "deliberate" meanwhile, seems to have basically no meaning anymore.
I think we are going to see 'natural position' defined as having the arms very close to the sides at all times, and anything else considered unnatural and therefore part of an attempt to increase the blocking space of the ball.
Completely agree NFB and I could see the game deteriorating to a point where we’d have forwards in the box intentionally trying to flick the ball up against some defenders arm.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
UEFA backs up the official: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47495707
Dermot Gallagher's view is bizarre I think.
The defender jumps to block the shot. How on earth can that be interpreted as trying to get out of the way of the ball?Quote:
I didn't think it was a penalty. I would be pretty annoyed if I was a defender and that was given against me.
If you look at it, it's struck the defender on the arm, there's no doubt about that but his arm is so close to his body, he's turning away, I don't think he had any intention whatsoever of doing anything but getting out the way of the ball.
For me, I'm very surprised it was given.
I don't know why he was so surprised to see it given either. On the evidence of the WC, it was pretty obvious those kind of ones are being given - rightly or wrongly.
What bothers me about it is that there seems to be this idea that a player's arm is either 'naturally' positioned or else it is 'away from the body' - one or the other.
But there is a huge overlap in those two things. Where the arm naturally goes is often away from the body. It would be completely unnatural for Kimpembe to have run, jumped, and twisted the way he did while having his arms close to his sides - they are naturally used for extra leverage.
We have all seen penalty claims when a player cuts the ball back from near the endline, and the ball hits the trailing arm of the defender making a sliding tackle to block the cross. That is the most natural position for a defender's arm to be in when making that kind of tackle, and it's well away from the body and making the blocking area bigger.
So I think it's too simplistic to say that 'natural' means 'not away from the body', because it often does. Maybe there will be something about a duty of care to keep the arms close to the body when a shot is expected, or something like that....just stay away from the word 'natural'.
Prescient post.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Is your view on it changing in light of how it's being used (as opposed to how it could be used)?
No, I don't think so. I'm still generally in favour of it. I always knew that it would cause problems when it came to subjective decisions. My issue in this case is with the guidelines for handball, not with VAR itself. All VAR does is shine a light on the laws of the game, and in many cases, highlight how much or how little the fan (or supposed expert) knows about the laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
And it causes the laws to be examined more forensically than before.
What do you mean by 'how it could be used'?
Just want to allow for differentiation between how it could be used ("clear" cases) and the actuality of it, where some of the cases are far from clear cut
But maybe, as you suggest, it's our understanding of the game that's wrong.
And that should have been the end of the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
Instead, it raged on. I just needed one replay to decide that it was a clear-cut handball offence. That has been given in many VAR games in the past, and many in the future. Since the year dot, you can't handle the ball in the box, and if the ref doesn't spot it nowadays, the VAR will.
Yup: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47672436Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
I don't know if this is the first case of a player being cited for criticising VAR, but certainly it's the most high profile.
Banned for three European games: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/48071175Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
I thought VAR had been banned there for a sec!
This doesn't really have anything to do with VAR as such; a tirade like that deserves a ban
Quite right, I note it here because I think it might be the first punishment for criticising VAR specifically. I think.
I have a question about VAR and offside that I'm wondering about while watching the Australia Italy WWC game. A couple of times, there has been a pretty clear offside, but they let play go on until that attack is over. I understand this, good to let things pan out, then if there is a goal you go back and check VAR for offside.
What I don't get is that when the attack comes to nothing, the referee blows up for offside pretty much immediately, without any apparent check of VAR at all.
If it is so clearly offside that the ref/lino can give it without VAR once the attack ends, why can they not do it before that?
Interesting VAR controversy at the end of Argentina/Scotland, not so much with the system and the decisions it led to (an injury time penalty, then retaken for the keeper being off the line) but for the ref seemingly not adding on the time at the end of the match. She played maybe five minutes when there could have been eight easy. What a weird decision to make.
Have been watching a bit of the Women's World Cup, and the VAR has been an absolute disaster. Even just now, England have scored against Sweden, and about 90 seconds later, the game is called back for a review, and the goal is ruled out for a fairly marginal decision. It just ruins the whole emotion of the game that way. Far from the first time it's happened either.
The WWC has shown a lot of VAR problems. It's clear that VAR still has to improve if it's there to stay.
I would suggest something like a "clear and obvious" rule. If the refs are still not sure after say 3 replays or 30 seconds of deliberation, the original decision should stand.
Maybe "clear and obvious" is something you can spot at normal speed?
I agree that a lot of what's being picked up is not clear and obvious. England's disallowed goal in the semis for example - I think it was offside, but it was very marginal, and far from "clear and obvious"