The official, though undoubtedly misunderstood or derided, 24/25 VAR thread

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

If a penalty was given for every foul before and during a corner, there would be one every time.

It can't be given if it's before the corner is taken. That's why players usually try to do the pushing/pulling etc before the ball is in play.
And they won't be given every time for long, because players, stupid as they often are, will soon learn that they can't do it any more.
 

INCIDENT: Should Southampton have been awarded a penalty for Jordan Ayew holding Paul Onuachu?

GRAPHIC

DERMOT SAYS: "I thought it was a penalty. If you hold a player's shirt for five steps, which he does, that's sustained. They were of the opinion the goalkeeper would have got the ball anyhow."

STEPHEN WARNOCK SAYS: "I thought it was a penalty. You only have to look at other instances, like (James) Tarkowski, you know he's never getting the ball but he's bringing him down."

SUE SMITH SAYS: "You can't hold a player's shirt for that long. It's bound to impact his ability to get the ball."
 

INCIDENT: Should Southampton have been awarded a penalty for Jordan Ayew holding Paul Onuachu?

GRAPHIC

DERMOT SAYS: "I thought it was a penalty. If you hold a player's shirt for five steps, which he does, that's sustained. They were of the opinion the goalkeeper would have got the ball anyhow."

STEPHEN WARNOCK SAYS: "I thought it was a penalty. You only have to look at other instances, like (James) Tarkowski, you know he's never getting the ball but he's bringing him down."

SUE SMITH SAYS: "You can't hold a player's shirt for that long. It's bound to impact his ability to get the ball."

No wonder people get confused when supposedly informed people talk such bullshit.

The point of this thread is to hopefully improve our collective knowledge.
 
It can't be given if it's before the corner is taken. That's why players usually try to do the pushing/pulling etc before the ball is in play.
And they won't be given every time for long, because players, stupid as they often are, will soon learn that they can't do it any more.
I’d like to bring the attention to your honour of the Leicester v Derby game, many moons ago.
Before the corner kick was taken for us, their keeper fouled Robbie Savage.
Ref gave us a penalty.
 
From the laws of the game:
Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.


And...
. Holding an opponent
Referees are reminded to make an early intervention and to deal firmly with
holding offences, especially inside the penalty area at corner kicks and free
kicks. To deal with these situations:
• the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball
is in play
• caution the player if the holding continues before the ball is in play
• award a direct free kick or penalty kick and caution the player if it
happens once the ball is in play



The definition of holding:
Holding offence
A holding offence occurs only when a player’s contact with an opponent’s body
or equipment impedes the opponent’s movement


No mention of it having to be "sustained".

The refs are just making up their own rules.
 
As a former referee, albeit in a different sport, the less "judgement"/subjective calls that have to be made make it a far easier job to do. There should be no grey areas.
 
As a former referee, albeit in a different sport, the less "judgement"/subjective calls that have to be made make it a far easier job to do. There should be no grey areas.
Spot on.

This one isn't subjective at all. It's clearly a foul. I honestly can't believe anyone is trying to argue anything else.
 
And for that we are all happy.

But he was still wrong.
When I took my refereeing course, I was told that a referee may make a bad decision, but they never make a wrong decision. Obviously VAR didn’t exist then, though.
 
Interesting discussion last night on Sky with Howard Webb about that Ndidi challenge and the view, on reflection, that he should have been sent off.

Incident: Leicester City's Wilfred Ndidi is chasing Chelsea's Cole Palmer and dives in, proceeding to catch him on the back of his legs.

What the match officials did: Referee Andy Madley awards a foul from Ndidi, to whom he shows a yellow card, believing there to be not enough intensity to merit a sending-off. The VAR checks for serious foul play and says most of the contact is on Palmer's heel and isn't sufficient for the decision to be overturned.

Owen: "Caicedo [not being a red card], I can accept that. [With Ndidi] I'm very, very surprised he's not been given a red card."

Webb: "I’d prefer a red card in this situation for a few reasons. This is a tackle from behind by Ndidi. The contact is on a pretty vulnerable part of Cole Palmer's anatomy, by the Achilles. The actual contact initially is with the instep as opposed to with the studs. He comes in and doesn't really have a great chance of winning the ball.

"He makes contact higher on the leg and then slides down. The most forceful contact, where the studs really come in, is on the heel. But still there's a lot of force. There’s contact before that on the Achilles. And when you factor all of those things in: the way he comes into the tackle, the mode of contact where it makes contact, this is much more aligned with serious foul play that endangers Cole Palmer's safety.

"Now the VAR looked at that. The referee's call was a yellow card for a reckless tackle. The VAR felt that because that contact came down quite quickly on to the heel, on to the boot, it didn't go past the threshold for being a 'clear and obvious error' and 'check-completed' the yellow card.

"We've looked at this collectively, among the officials, talked about this, and we would prefer this to be dealt with with a red card. We have to protect player safety. That contact stays on the legs for quite some time, by the way, unlike what we saw with Caicedo when it came off very quickly. So different part of the body, different type of contact, different level of danger to the opponent.

"In this case, Coach Palmer thankfully wasn't seriously injured. But these sorts of tackles need to be dealt with through a red card.

Owen: "Absolutely. Because you see the force. Both feet are off the ground. And obviously the first contact was on the Achilles tendon. So that, to me as an ex-footballer, that is a damaging tackle as opposed to the first one."
 
Interesting discussion last night on Sky with Howard Webb about that Ndidi challenge and the view, on reflection, that he should have been sent off.

Incident: Leicester City's Wilfred Ndidi is chasing Chelsea's Cole Palmer and dives in, proceeding to catch him on the back of his legs.

What the match officials did: Referee Andy Madley awards a foul from Ndidi, to whom he shows a yellow card, believing there to be not enough intensity to merit a sending-off. The VAR checks for serious foul play and says most of the contact is on Palmer's heel and isn't sufficient for the decision to be overturned.

Owen: "Caicedo [not being a red card], I can accept that. [With Ndidi] I'm very, very surprised he's not been given a red card."

Webb: "I’d prefer a red card in this situation for a few reasons. This is a tackle from behind by Ndidi. The contact is on a pretty vulnerable part of Cole Palmer's anatomy, by the Achilles. The actual contact initially is with the instep as opposed to with the studs. He comes in and doesn't really have a great chance of winning the ball.

"He makes contact higher on the leg and then slides down. The most forceful contact, where the studs really come in, is on the heel. But still there's a lot of force. There’s contact before that on the Achilles. And when you factor all of those things in: the way he comes into the tackle, the mode of contact where it makes contact, this is much more aligned with serious foul play that endangers Cole Palmer's safety.

"Now the VAR looked at that. The referee's call was a yellow card for a reckless tackle. The VAR felt that because that contact came down quite quickly on to the heel, on to the boot, it didn't go past the threshold for being a 'clear and obvious error' and 'check-completed' the yellow card.

"We've looked at this collectively, among the officials, talked about this, and we would prefer this to be dealt with with a red card. We have to protect player safety. That contact stays on the legs for quite some time, by the way, unlike what we saw with Caicedo when it came off very quickly. So different part of the body, different type of contact, different level of danger to the opponent.

"In this case, Coach Palmer thankfully wasn't seriously injured. But these sorts of tackles need to be dealt with through a red card.

Owen: "Absolutely. Because you see the force. Both feet are off the ground. And obviously the first contact was on the Achilles tendon. So that, to me as an ex-footballer, that is a damaging tackle as opposed to the first one."
Is that Michael Owen or a different Owen?
 
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1435
2Chelsea1531
3Arsenal1529
4Manchester C  1527
5Nottm F1525
6Aston Villa1525
7Brighton1524
8Bournemouth1524
9Brentford1523
10Fulham1523
11Tottenham 1520
12Newcastle1520
13Manchester U1519
14West Ham1518
15Everton1414
16Leicester1514
17Palace1513
18Ipswich159
19Wolves159
20Southampton155

Latest posts

Back
Top