VAR and Refs | General Discussion | Forest go into meltdown

NotChatGPT

Brownfinger
Joined
Jul 3, 2023
Messages
581
Hammondo said:
That is a rough one to call. I would say its more likely a dive than pen.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how it’s a rough one to call. You can barely spot Dalot touching him, but the Chelsea player keeps on running and then collapses to the ground. If he’d gone down instantly it would still be feck all of a contact but it would make more sense that they didn’t overturn it. They’re literally staring at Madueke just collapsing to the ground after taking further strides
 

BeforeKeanetherewasRobson

Full Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
22,197
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
Fitchett said:
Gillet gave one of the worst refereeing displays I have ever seen. He ranks alongside Michael Oliver and that Slovenian gangster from the Atletico Madrid match two seasons ago.
Click to expand...
The pens have been discussed a lot and will be a lot more yet. As should VARs role in not sending him to the screen.

But some of those tackles in the second half were definitely card worthy … I dont think I’m being biased, just looking at fouls and current rules.
 

Flying high

Full Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
1,741
I also never saw a replay of the possible foul on Hojlund, but it looked more of a contact than either of their pens.
 

Cpt Negative

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
3,290
Nothing will be made of the decisions as it never is when we don’t get one.

If we’d have got either of them penalties, they’d be done a broadcast interruption on sky sports news for a 2 hour special
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
15,955
2 man midfield said:
Said this at the time. It was never seen again.
Click to expand...
A lot of incidents tonight where our players were fouled were seemingly deliberately ignored by the producers. I mean surely Jackson's arm swing on Maguire and Enzo's elbow on Mainoo should've been showed again, especially the latter that caused a confrontation between Enzo and Casemiro?
 

Danny

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
219
Genuinely where did the 8 minutes come from? There was one goal and a few subs.
 

Heinzesight

Full Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
6,424
Location
Manchester
Flying high said:
I also never saw a replay of the possible foul on Hojlund, but it looked more of a contact than either of their pens.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s mad. Also, when Casemiro was going mad at the ref after Mainoo must’ve been clocked in the face, we don’t get one replay. Just like when the Brentford player on Saturday against us got a yellow and there was a relatively long VAR check with plenty of time for a replay…nothing.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
15,955
Cpt Negative said:
Nothing will be made of the decisions as it never is when we don’t get one.

If we’d have got either of them penalties, they’d be done a broadcast interruption on sky sports news for a 2 hour special
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Gillet will go home tonight, check the post-game coverage and be told he had a good game and didn't make any big errors, whereas anyone making a call going our way (Hooper v Wolves, Atwell v City for the Rashford/Bruno offside incident) will have two weeks of coverage laying out how incompetent he is.
 

Bogga

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
1,819
Location
Sweden
I didn't see the game, but I saw that it was 4 minutes added time (correct me if I've got the wrong info here). No subs in extra time... So why did we play so much extra time above those 4?

And don't get me started on any of those two "penalties"
 

eire-red

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
2,657
Snow said:
Given the way VAR was looking at it they thought so too but football rules are so much stricter than how the game is usually reffed that they couldn't overturn it.
Click to expand...
Chelsea probably don't get either of those pens at OT, VAR wouldn't have overturned either decision and the pundits would probably be saying "contact, but not enough".

It's incredibly frustrating, and these almost paradoxical situations are really taking away from the joy of being a football fan. That, and the absolute tripe we're forced to watch every game of course!
 

2 man midfield

Last Man Standing finalist 2021/22
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
46,077
Location
?
Bogga said:
I didn't see the game, but I saw that it was 4 minutes added time (correct me if I've got the wrong info here). No subs in extra time... So why did we play so much extra time above those 4?

And don't get me started on any of those two "penalties"
Click to expand...
It was 8 mins added. Wan Bissaka had a head injury but it wasn’t long he was down.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
15,955
Bogga said:
I didn't see the game, but I saw that it was 4 minutes added time (correct me if I've got the wrong info here). No subs in extra time... So why did we play so much extra time above those 4?

And don't get me started on any of those two "penalties"
Click to expand...
Added time was 8 minutes actually, but the game had absolutely zero incidents of note (apart from Chelsea being 3-2 down) deserving of that much stoppage time. AWB got a cut on his head which took a minute or two, one of our subs was made during half-time and there was no time-wasting indicated by the referee.
 

Alex99

Rehab's Pete Doherty
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
15,912
Bogga said:
I didn't see the game, but I saw that it was 4 minutes added time (correct me if I've got the wrong info here). No subs in extra time... So why did we play so much extra time above those 4?

And don't get me started on any of those two "penalties"
Click to expand...
It was 8 added on.
 

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
12,714
Bogga said:
I didn't see the game, but I saw that it was 4 minutes added time (correct me if I've got the wrong info here). No subs in extra time... So why did we play so much extra time above those 4?

And don't get me started on any of those two "penalties"
Click to expand...
he added 8, and nobody in the world can explain why
 

CoopersDream

Full Member
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
499
Mmm-Qatarian said:
Can anybody who thinks that the second penalty was correctly given explain to my why City's first goal at the Etihad against us wasn't disallowed for this and why Walker wasn't sent off for DOGSO?
Click to expand...
Because VAR isn't there to ensure that the 'correct' decision is made all time, they are there to ensure a clear and obvious mistake hasn't been made. Of which neither of those situations were. If the ref let it go, it likely wouldn't have been a penalty. Then it's always a question of how far back they should go and so. But basically because neither calls are clear and obvious mistakes, so they stand.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
33,451
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
eire-red said:
Chelsea probably don't get either of those pens at OT, VAR wouldn't have overturned either decision and the pundits would probably be saying "contact, but not enough".

It's incredibly frustrating, and these almost paradoxical situations are really taking away from the joy of being a football fan. That, and the absolute tripe we're forced to watch every game of course!
Click to expand...
Don't know how the FA can look at the game in it's current state and be fine with it. The fact that we're saying "oh it's not a foul but because the ref got it wrong and we have this tool that can fix it the rules say they aren't allowed to fix it".

The guidelines around VAR are paradoxical at times and don't even remotely combat a major problem in football that is diving.
 

Heinzesight

Full Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
6,424
Location
Manchester
Anustart89 said:
Added time was 8 minutes actually, but the game had absolutely zero incidents of note (apart from Chelsea being 3-2 down) deserving of that much stoppage time. AWB got a cut on his head which took a minute or two, one of our subs was made during half-time and there was no time-wasting indicated by the referee.
Click to expand...
I’ve not seen many games this season with less time wasting. It was just ball in play at all times, barely any stoppages yet this tit conjures up 8 bastard minutes. Would VAR have stepped in for either pen? Not a fecking chance. He couldn’t wait to whistle.
 

FootballHQ

Full Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
18,279
Supports
Aston Villa
First is pretty soft. Seems a knee on knee is enough for penalties these days even if there's no actually foot contact. Majority of those incidents used to be just waved away 10-15 years ago. It was very similar to Rashford v Nottingham Forest right at the start of the season.

Second one I thought there was enough as there's foot contact and then Dalot nudges him in desperation so not really sure why VAR were zooming in so much.

Neither were anything close to Calvert Lewin v Bournemouth on Saturday. For those who haven't seen it, he turns in the box, a Bournemouth player kicks him and VAR doesn't decide it's a high enough threshold to send the ref to the monitor as it should've done.

Players are certainly gaming the system now constantly going down and very often getting the penalty when in reality video backup should be restricting this.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
15,955
FootballHQ said:
First is pretty soft. Seems a knee on knee is enough for penalties these days even if there's no actually foot contact. Majority of those incidents used to be just waved away 10-15 years ago. It was very similar to Rashford v Nottingham Forest right at the start of the season.

Second one I thought there was enough as there's foot contact and then Dalot nudges him in desperation so not really sure why VAR were zooming in so much.

Neither were anything close to Calvert Lewin v Bournemouth on Saturday. For those who haven't seen it, he turns in the box, a Bournemouth player kicks him and VAR doesn't decide it's a high enough threshold to send the ref to the monitor as it should've done.

Players are certainly gaming the system now constantly going down and very often getting the penalty when in reality video backup should be restricting this.
Click to expand...
VAR zooming in on the feet (and ignoring the hand on the groin) has to be because ref has given foot-on-foot contact as the reason he gave the penalty, which VAR then has to confirm or disprove. Refs are required to explain why they gave the penalty, so Gillet must've had that contact as his explanation.

With regards to the last bit, diving has such a good risk/reward ratio for players, because even if the foul gets overturned we literally never see a ref go and book the diving player anyway.

When Mike Riley was head of the PGMOL a few years back he was giving it out about how they were going to be even more strict on judging whether the contact caused the reaction of the player or if the player has chosen to go down. They now have a tool to watch how the player reacts to the contact, and yet today's penalty and the Jota one against Newcastle somehow stand.

https://www.manutd.com/en/news/deta...-mike-riley-and-four-new-referees-for-2021-22

"The principles we established are the referee should look for contact and establish clear contact, then ask if that contact has a consequence, and then has the player used that contact to try to win a foul or win a penalty," Riley said. "It's not sufficient to say 'yes there's contact.'

"I think partly we got into that frame of mind by the forensic analysis that went on in the VAR world. Contact on its own is only part of what the referee should look for. Consider consequence and the motivation of the player as well."
 

Xtal

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 23, 2023
Messages
18
Hey pals, regardless of varying opinions here, this loss must not be pinned on refereeing. The full fault goes to the manager, Mr. Erik Ten Hag. Me God, that man is clueless and colourless. Out of his depth.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,206
If dalot just threw his arms out and accidentally knocks the ball out for a corner they couldn't have given a pen because he was falling to the ground.
 

eire-red

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
2,657
Snow said:
Don't know how the FA can look at the game in it's current state and be fine with it. The fact that we're saying "oh it's not a foul but because the ref got it wrong and we have this tool that can fix it the rules say they aren't allowed to fix it".

The guidelines around VAR are paradoxical at times and don't even remotely combat a major problem in football that is diving.
Click to expand...
Yeah.. no fan wants to see either of those fouls given against their team. Similarly, the other set of fans will think it's a pen.

It's frustrating because you literally have someone reviewing the footage at slow motion, zooming in on freeze-frames and actively looking for contact to not overturn such a questionable decision.

Then we hear at the start of every season that refs are clamping down on soft fouls and minimal contact tackles being free-kicks, and you watch a game literally be decided on those tonight.

It has been this way forever, but now that VAR is there it makes it harder to take. That's the crux of it really. The "I can see why the ref gave it" just doesn't have the legs it used to anymore.
 

NotChatGPT

Brownfinger
Joined
Jul 3, 2023
Messages
581
Anustart89 said:
VAR zooming in on the feet (and ignoring the hand on the groin) has to be because ref has given foot-on-foot contact as the reason he gave the penalty, which VAR then has to confirm or disprove. Refs are required to explain why they gave the penalty, so Gillet must've had that contact as his explanation.

With regards to the last bit, diving has such a good risk/reward ratio for players, because even if the foul gets overturned we literally never see a ref go and book the diving player anyway.
Click to expand...
It’s a contact sport.

If the contact is so minimal that you keep on running and suddenly collapse to the ground without any sign you’ve lost your balance due to the initial contact, then it’s fairly telling it shouldn’t be a penalty
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
33,451
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
FootballHQ said:
First is pretty soft. Seems a knee on knee is enough for penalties these days even if there's no actually foot contact. Majority of those incidents used to be just waved away 10-15 years ago. It was very similar to Rashford v Nottingham Forest right at the start of the season.

Second one I thought there was enough as there's foot contact and then Dalot nudges him in desperation so not really sure why VAR were zooming in so much.

Neither were anything close to Calvert Lewin v Bournemouth on Saturday. For those who haven't seen it, he turns in the box, a Bournemouth player kicks him and VAR doesn't decide it's a high enough threshold to send the ref to the monitor as it should've done.

Players are certainly gaming the system now constantly going down and very often getting the penalty when in reality video backup should be restricting this.
Click to expand...
Diving is rewarded in football and very, very rarely punished. Every game now has a random number of alloted time added so diving isn't even punishable that way anymore. If you're a young footballer you should be practicing diving. If you aren't you are limiting yourself.
 

Flying high

Full Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
1,741
Heinzesight said:
I’ve not seen many games this season with less time wasting. It was just ball in play at all times, barely any stoppages yet this tit conjures up 8 bastard minutes. Would VAR have stepped in for either pen? Not a fecking chance. He couldn’t wait to whistle.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. 8 minutes is a clear sign that corruption or bias decided the amount of time to add.
 

FootballHQ

Full Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
18,279
Supports
Aston Villa
SER19 said:
he added 8, and nobody in the world can explain why
Click to expand...
I've noticed refs seem to be adding 2 minutes when teams make double subs (even if players are leaving the pitch quickly and it is taking less than a minute).

Six was about right as they add a minute for a goal now and AWB was down for over a minute getting treated so with the subs it was nearer that than eight.
 

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
12,714
Keep arguing all you want about the penalties, the real question is how he gave BOTH without missing a heartbeat, but judged hojlund not to be fouled at emirates. It's cheating, plain and simple cheating.
 

Alex99

Rehab's Pete Doherty
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
15,912
SER19 said:
Keep arguing all you want about the penalties, the real question is how he gave BOTH without missing a heartbeat, but judged hojlund not to be fouled at emirates. It's cheating, plain and simple cheating.
Click to expand...
Was it the same ref? Christ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.