VAR pen not given 93rd min

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


SE1Blade said:
Hits defenders hand as he dives in front of Mcatee’s shot, which was on target. Looked a pen to me. Not even discussed on MOTD.

Thoughts? Bearing in mind Egan v Man City I thought it may have been given.
Click to expand...
A lot depends on the mindset of the VAR referee. Some of them are anxious to make their mark and disallow goals, like Darren England for Burnley v Forest. For both their allowed goal and our disallowed goal, he looked at it from all angles in hopes of seeing it brush an arm. He couldn't find one for them but he found one for us.

Your VAR man today, by the sound of it, was anxious to prove the ref right. Hence the penalty not given on 93 wouldn't be overturned and nor would the penalty given later, if there was any excuse at all for saying the ref might have been right.
 
SE1Blade said:
Hits defenders hand as he dives in front of Mcatee’s shot, which was on target. Looked a pen to me. Not even discussed on MOTD.

Thoughts? Bearing in mind Egan v Man City I thought it may have been given.
Click to expand...

Was a stonewall penalty in my opinion.

Player threw himself in front of the ball to block the shot.. it ricocheted of his chest and onto his arm which was raised away from his body and in the air.
 
It bounced off his foot and onto his hand so I wouldn’t say it’s handball.
 
jono_t2000 said:
Was a stonewall penalty in my opinion.

Player threw himself in front of the ball to block the shot.. it ricocheted of his chest and onto his arm which was raised away from his body and in the air.
Click to expand...

Have you seen this back since the game?

There were two handball VAR checks and those around me on the Kop had no idea what they were even for.
 
The replays shown on the telly at the time only showed one angle repeatedly. I don’t know if other angles were available, but the one shown seemed to indicate the hand was making his body bigger and blocked the shot. I was amazed it wasn’t given.
 
There’s seems to be no agreement or understanding of what the VAR is for to me. Some managers and supporters seem to want him to referee the game: so the ref on the pitch makes initial decisions, but then the one with the video actually checks everything and decides if he thinks it’s a penalty or whatever based on watching the videos - so really he’s the one reffing the game.
Is that what the VAR is meant to do?

Or is he just there to check blatant mistakes (rather than misjudgements) e.g. “No, it hasn’t actually hit his hand - it’s hit his chest”; “No he hasn’t touched him actually - no contact at all, he’s just fallen over”; “No, he’s not even in the box” etc.
Is that what the VAR is for?

If it’s the latter, then the guy on the pitch is actually reffing the game, and any decision where two different people after the match are still debating (“We’ll I think it was a penalty” - “No, I don’t think it was”) should just be waved aside by the VAR leaving it up to whatever the ref on the pitch decided.

Until everyone is clear on what the VAR is meant to do, nobody is going to be happy with the job he’s doing.
 
Newcastles goal today was hilarious, as VAR tried to disallow it for three different reasons, ball out, push in the back and offside. Eventually, they were forced to give a goal against one of the megastore clubs.
 
100% part time blade said:
There’s seems to be no agreement or understanding of what the VAR is for to me. Some managers and supporters seem to want him to referee the game: so the ref on the pitch makes initial decisions, but then the one with the video actually checks everything and decides if he thinks it’s a penalty or whatever based on watching the videos - so really he’s the one reffing the game.
Is that what the VAR is meant to do?

Or is he just there to check blatant mistakes (rather than misjudgements) e.g. “No, it hasn’t actually hit his hand - it’s hit his chest”; “No he hasn’t touched him actually - no contact at all, he’s just fallen over”; “No, he’s not even in the box” etc.
Is that what the VAR is for?

If it’s the latter, then the guy on the pitch is actually reffing the game, and any decision where two different people after the match are still debating (“We’ll I think it was a penalty” - “No, I don’t think it was”) should just be waved aside by the VAR leaving it up to whatever the ref on the pitch decided.

Until everyone is clear on what the VAR is meant to do, nobody is going to be happy with the job he’s doing.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, and it should definitely be the latter. VAR should be there to correct the absolute howlers and nothing more. The biggest mistake they made was to not incorporate some form of umpire’s call whereby the onfield decision remained unless it was wrong by a certain degree (granted that’s easier in cricket).
 
100% part time blade said:
There’s seems to be no agreement or understanding of what the VAR is for to me. Some managers and supporters seem to want him to referee the game: so the ref on the pitch makes initial decisions, but then the one with the video actually checks everything and decides if he thinks it’s a penalty or whatever based on watching the videos - so really he’s the one reffing the game.
Is that what the VAR is meant to do?

Or is he just there to check blatant mistakes (rather than misjudgements) e.g. “No, it hasn’t actually hit his hand - it’s hit his chest”; “No he hasn’t touched him actually - no contact at all, he’s just fallen over”; “No, he’s not even in the box” etc.
Is that what the VAR is for?

If it’s the latter, then the guy on the pitch is actually reffing the game, and any decision where two different people after the match are still debating (“We’ll I think it was a penalty” - “No, I don’t think it was”) should just be waved aside by the VAR leaving it up to whatever the ref on the pitch decided.

Until everyone is clear on what the VAR is meant to do, nobody is going to be happy with the job he’s doing.
Click to expand...

It’s been made very clear by the authorities - it’s there to correct clear and obvious errors. The only exception is off-side, which is black and white, so the ‘clear and obvious’ bit doesn’t apply.

In this match there were several decisions which were borderline, but I’m not sure you could say any of them were clear and obvious errors, so they weren’t overturned.

If the Baldock penalty hadn’t been given by the ref on the field, VAR wouldn’t have overturned his decision. It was a borderline foul, in which neither decision would be considered a clear and obvious error. The same applies to the handball a few minutes earlier.

I’d get rid of VAR tomorrow, but I don’t think there’s any question what it’s supposed to be doing.
 
WorkingtonBlade said:
It’s been made very clear by the authorities - it’s there to correct clear and obvious errors. The only exception is off-side, which is black and white, so the ‘clear and obvious’ bit doesn’t apply.

In this match there were several decisions which were borderline, but I’m not sure you could say any of them were clear and obvious errors, so they weren’t overturned.

If the Baldock penalty hadn’t been given by the ref on the field, VAR wouldn’t have overturned his decision. It was a borderline foul, in which neither decision would be considered a clear and obvious error. The same applies to the handball a few minutes earlier.

I’d get rid of VAR tomorrow, but I don’t think there’s any question what it’s supposed to be doing.
Click to expand...
That's definitely what they've consistently said, it's just to correct "clear and obvious" errors. However, the application of it has been the total opposite of what they've said - it's been used for the tiniest errors and for refs to cover for each other.

There's maybe evidence from this weekend's games (including ours) that they're starting to use it a little more for what it's intended to do.

I'd still scrap it immediately though.
 
WorkingtonBlade said:
It’s been made very clear by the authorities - it’s there to correct clear and obvious errors. The only exception is off-side, which is black and white, so the ‘clear and obvious’ bit doesn’t apply.

In this match there were several decisions which were borderline, but I’m not sure you could say any of them were clear and obvious errors, so they weren’t overturned.

If the Baldock penalty hadn’t been given by the ref on the field, VAR wouldn’t have overturned his decision. It was a borderline foul, in which neither decision would be considered a clear and obvious error. The same applies to the handball a few minutes earlier.

I’d get rid of VAR tomorrow, but I don’t think there’s any question what it’s supposed to be doing.
Click to expand...
The ref also had the best view in the ground and gave the pen without any hesitancy. If VAR felt it was a clear and obvious mistake they would have asked him to look at it again on the monitor. But they did'nt.
 

jono_t2000 said:
Was a stonewall penalty in my opinion.

Player threw himself in front of the ball to block the shot.. it ricocheted of his chest and onto his arm which was raised away from his body and in the air.
Click to expand...
Aye
Only problem with that ‘analysis’ / interpretation is “ it ricocheted of(f) his chest and onto his arm
 
I thought the rule was if it deflected off another part of your body onto your arm then it wasn't handball. In which case that's why it wasn't given.
 
100% part time blade said:
There’s seems to be no agreement or understanding of what the VAR is for to me. Some managers and supporters seem to want him to referee the game: so the ref on the pitch makes initial decisions, but then the one with the video actually checks everything and decides if he thinks it’s a penalty or whatever based on watching the videos - so really he’s the one reffing the game.
Is that what the VAR is meant to do?

Or is he just there to check blatant mistakes (rather than misjudgements) e.g. “No, it hasn’t actually hit his hand - it’s hit his chest”; “No he hasn’t touched him actually - no contact at all, he’s just fallen over”; “No, he’s not even in the box” etc.
Is that what the VAR is for?

If it’s the latter, then the guy on the pitch is actually reffing the game, and any decision where two different people after the match are still debating (“We’ll I think it was a penalty” - “No, I don’t think it was”) should just be waved aside by the VAR leaving it up to whatever the ref on the pitch decided.

Until everyone is clear on what the VAR is meant to do, nobody is going to be happy with the job he’s doing.
Click to expand...
The trouble with VAR is when a goal is scored they look for any reason too disallow that goal, but they don't seem too apply that reasoning the other way round. by that i mean how can they give the chance of a goal like yesterday in the fact it hit his hand but the Ref didn't give it so we won't get involved, but if the same thing happened in the build up to a goal they would have alerted the ref who would have disallowed the goal.
 
100% part time blade said:
There’s seems to be no agreement or understanding of what the VAR is for to me. Some managers and supporters seem to want him to referee the game: so the ref on the pitch makes initial decisions, but then the one with the video actually checks everything and decides if he thinks it’s a penalty or whatever based on watching the videos - so really he’s the one reffing the game.
Is that what the VAR is meant to do?

Or is he just there to check blatant mistakes (rather than misjudgements) e.g. “No, it hasn’t actually hit his hand - it’s hit his chest”; “No he hasn’t touched him actually - no contact at all, he’s just fallen over”; “No, he’s not even in the box” etc.
Is that what the VAR is for?

If it’s the latter, then the guy on the pitch is actually reffing the game, and any decision where two different people after the match are still debating (“We’ll I think it was a penalty” - “No, I don’t think it was”) should just be waved aside by the VAR leaving it up to whatever the ref on the pitch decided.

Until everyone is clear on what the VAR is meant to do, nobody is going to be happy with the job he’s doing.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t it also to be used to check for straight red cards for ‘dangerous play’, when was the last time that was used ?
 
cooperblade said:
That's definitely what they've consistently said, it's just to correct "clear and obvious" errors. However, the application of it has been the total opposite of what they've said - it's been used for the tiniest errors and for refs to cover for each other.

There's maybe evidence from this weekend's games (including ours) that they're starting to use it a little more for what it's intended to do.

I'd still scrap it immediately though.
Click to expand...
Yes , they always said the 'clear and obvious' thing. A obvious mistake can be spotted in a couple of seconds on video. If it's taking minutes, it obviously isn't clear and obvious.
It's shit. Use it for howlers, or not at all.
 
Thought the referee had a great game yesterday apart from helping players up(one for each side) leaving himself open to criticism from the ref haters.
 
Bladesthorpe said:
Thought the referee had a great game yesterday apart from helping players up(one for each side) leaving himself open to criticism from the ref haters.
Click to expand...
How funny it is that opinions can be so polar opposite. I thought he had a terrible game from start to finish. He missed so many incidents/fouls and appeared to guess on several occasions when he did blow for things. Fortunately for us, he was in the right place at the right time to see the minimal contact on George Baldock for the penalty 🤠
 
Still not seen this back anywhere. Anyone know of any footage online?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Deadbat
United 2 Chelsea 2 - report
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
bakeblade
B
BladeByChoice
15 Points by Boxing Day
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
UddersBlade
U
Deadbat
United 1 Brentford 0 - report
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
joe casey
joe casey
Deadbat
Wolves 1 United 0 - report
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
diplomat
diplomat
Deadbat
Luton 1 United 3 - report
Replies
29
Views
3K
blade too long
blade too long

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom