Post Match Leicester 2 Fleetwood 0

[City Fan]

The way I read the VAR situation is that it only reverses a decision if it is 'clearly and demonstrably' (I think was the expression) wrong. It's not simply a matter of judgement by the VAR ref. I can see a difference even if that, in application, it means its scope is quite limited.

For Iheanacho's 2nd, it's application is clear and was perfectly demonstrated. With the Iborra 'penalty or not' decision, it's not a clear cut call, it's a matter of judgement and in application VAR's role is not to disagree with the ref's judgment but correct a decision if it is demonstrably wrong.

Absolutely spot on - that’s what it’s there for.

If we had reviews for every instance like the Iborra penalty appeal, each match would be completely stop start and it would be a disaster.

I would like to bet some refs would have thought that the Iborra penalty shout was a penalty and others wouldn’t.

 

[Miles Away]

Slimani set up Nacho for the first beautifully and earlier played a good ball behind Nacho should have done more with.

He also carved out a chance which he admittedly scuffed at.

Look I’m not saying he was brilliant and I’m also not sure we have a system for him...but he was far from appalling.

Nacho was really lively. He’s always been an excellent finisher but I was happy to see his movement, especially as a 9.

Notably, Puel seems to have find a way to get more out of Gray, Mahrez, Nacho and even Albrighton. The players are working for him.

Four clean sheets in a row...

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Slimani does not seem to suit our style of quick fast passing.

He was also dead grumpy when subbed which is poor attitude.

Most of the game we seemed to be playing 2-6-2 with Fuchs and Amartey camped out in the Fleetwood half.

I would still give Fuchs the nod over Chilwell. IMO Fuchs is the better defender and he does have that long throw.

Benny does not seem to be the 'bombscare' he was over the last two years, with too many fouls being made around our penalty area.

Silva is going to be amazing and Iborra is like having a Morgan or Huth halfway up the pitch to give a real physical presence in midfield.

 

[Billyjof]

Benny does not seem to be the 'bombscare' he was over the last two years, with too many fouls being made around our penalty area.

May I remind you this was League 1 opposition, what are you saying about his level?

Other than hitting row Z with a wayward shot late on, he appeared to really be enjoying himself. Those two take downs on the chest from high goal kicks were sublime.

 

[cambiassoo]

The way I read the VAR situation is that it only reverses a decision if it is 'clearly and demonstrably' (I think was the expression) wrong. It's not simply a matter of judgement by the VAR ref. I can see a difference even if that, in application, it means its scope is quite limited.

For Iheanacho's 2nd, it's application is clear and was perfectly demonstrated. With the Iborra 'penalty or not' decision, it's not a clear cut call, it's a matter of judgement and in application VAR's role is not to disagree with the ref's judgment but correct a decision if it is demonstrably wrong.

From where I was I had been annoyed that the penalty wasn't given, but guess it wasn't 'clear cut' enough for VAR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pork pie fox]

Hmmmmm. I’m in Tignes and we were snowed off the mountain today. As a result, I’ve been on a 12 hour drinking bender and watched it on TV. I can confidently say that we won and I’m looking forward to the next round.

Anything more in depth is beyond me, as the toffee rum we were drinking has knocked me sideways. Happy days peoples.

 

[Blaarev]

Absolutely spot on - that’s what it’s there for.

If we had reviews for every instance like the Iborra penalty appeal, each match would be completely stop start and it would be a disaster.

I would like to bet some refs would have thought that the Iborra penalty shout was a penalty and others wouldn’t.

They had a review for the Iborra penalty appeal, didn’t they? At least Moss was «on the phone» for a short while before letting the decision of not giving a penalty stand.

 

[popillius]

Absolutely spot on - that’s what it’s there for.

If we had reviews for every instance like the Iborra penalty appeal, each match would be completely stop start and it would be a disaster.

I would like to bet some refs would have thought that the Iborra penalty shout was a penalty and others wouldn’t.

There was a review for the penalty- that's the point. They got the review wrong. There was 'clear evidence' that a penalty should have been awarded as is stipulated by the rules but the decision was not reversed. The system of a VAR review worked, the man at the screen is where it fell down.

 

[Brown Nose]

I only watched the second half but all three decisions I saw from the VAR were spot on. The ball did just go out of play. It wasn't an offside for the goal. And it wasn't a 'clear' penalty either.

Along with most players and officials, I don't want to see physical contact in penalty areas banned. There will always be some moderate holding, grabbing because of the proximity to each other. No way was the contact on Iborra sufficient for a penalty and the VAR agreed with Moss very easily and quickly.

Aside from the obvious issue of not hearing the conversation between the ref and the VAR, on TV and in the stadium, which surely has to come, I thought it was all very effective.

 

[TommyK]

I only watched the second half but all three decisions I saw from the VAR were spot on. The ball did just go out of play. It wasn't an offside for the goal. And it wasn't a 'clear' penalty either.

Along with most players and officials, I don't want to see physical contact in penalty areas banned. There will always be some moderate holding, grabbing because of the proximity to each other. No way was the contact on Iborra sufficient for a penalty and the VAR agreed with Moss very easily and quickly.

Aside from the obvious issue of not hearing the conversation between the ref and the VAR, on TV and in the stadium, which surely has to come, I thought it was all very effective.

Spot on I thought the same.

 

[tedfoxxx]

I didn’t like it but then we got a goal because of it so now I think it’s boss.

 

[Rock Fox]

As many have said here, 1st half was tedious, but if being kind, you could say Leicester bossing posssession and were being patient in the build up. Thought Jakupovic's save was the highlight and when Iheanacho scored I thought he was a actually a bit lucky to squeeze it through the goalie's legs rather than a brilliant finish. Second half huge improvement with some decent football from the whole team. Good 2nd goal from Iheanacho. Onwards and upwards.

 

[City Fan]

There was a review for the penalty- that's the point. They got the review wrong. There was 'clear evidence' that a penalty should have been awarded as is stipulated by the rules but the decision was not reversed. The system of a VAR review worked, the man at the screen is where it fell down.

I stand corrected that there was a review. But it wasn’t a clear penalty - it was one that falls in the “seen them given” category.

I bet if you ask 20 Premier League referees if that was a penalty, it wouldn’t be unanimous. If you ask 20 Premier League referees about the offside, it would be.

 

[bloo]

With VAR, I think the nuance is important. It only decides when it can, where there is something clearly wrong. Is the ball out? Is the player in an offside position? Where it can freeze play, show lovely blue lines and decide on that basis. If it can't answer that single question yes or no, because it is not clear, then there is no decision and the ref's judgement stands - whatever that judgement may be.

The nuance is that it is not deciding something as such, it is answering a single question. Where the decision hinges, if you like, on the answer.

Was Iborra held? It can't say, not categorically, so the ref's decision stands. To my way of thinking, VAR will not remove differing views and opinions on a decision, the debates will remain. VAR is simply a tool to assist the referee and, hopefully, means errors of fact are avoided.

Tbh, I rather liked then tension introduced by it.

 

[popillius]

I do understand what people are saying but for me, VAR should take out the doubt. 'In the rules of the game...' should be the preceeding phrase to any question such as, 'is that a penalty kick?' Last night, in the rules of the game, there was a foul on Iborra in the box. It's a penalty. VAR should make it that simple.

I still think, overall, it did a pretty good job yesterday however.

 

[popillius]

I only watched the second half but all three decisions I saw from the VAR were spot on. The ball did just go out of play. It wasn't an offside for the goal. And it wasn't a 'clear' penalty either.

Along with most players and officials, I don't want to see physical contact in penalty areas banned. There will always be some moderate holding, grabbing because of the proximity to each other. No way was the contact on Iborra sufficient for a penalty and the VAR agreed with Moss very easily and quickly.

Aside from the obvious issue of not hearing the conversation between the ref and the VAR, on TV and in the stadium, which surely has to come, I thought it was all very effective.

I agree that it should not become a non contact sport and I agree that players will occassionally put the hands on one another however proximity has nothing to do with holding. Bumping into each other, tripping over unintentionally, shoulder to shoulder contact, all of these things are to do with proximity. Putting both of your arms around an attacker to stop him moving towards the ball is not; that is a foul.

 

[David Gwilliam]

I can understand Homer's complaint that VAR took five minutes. It certainly felt like that. However, it was really about a minute and justice was served.

The heart sank on learning that Jon Moss was the referee. I wondered which Leicester player would be sent off. In fact he had an excellent game and used VAR well. Well done Mr Moss.

 

[SJN-Fox]

I saw the penalty incident several times on the tv replay and still can't make up my mind, I've seen them given, I've seen them not given, so in that particular case I think VAR got it right. The rules state ... It can only be implemented for a clear and obvious error. I don't think that this particular incident fulfilled those requirements.

 

[City Fan]

I saw the penalty incident several times on the tv replay and still can't make up my mind, I've seen them given, I've seen them not given, so in that particular case I think VAR got it right. The rules state ... It can only be implemented for a clear and obvious error. I don't think that this particular incident fulfilled those requirements.

Exactly - it’s to aid the referee in case they make a blindingly obvious error which is black and white. It’s not to replace the referee - which I like because there will still be debates down the pub!

 

[Volpone]

Silva grew nicely into the game, but still needs a bucketload of game time imo until he's ready for Premier League football

I don't see why. Iborra didn't.