Not really because assuming the same team scores (as has a penalty review) in that period of time, they'll give the goal and not bother with the PK review.... Another VAR flaw... Two bites of the cherry... We see this quite oftenVAR is effectively rewinding the game to the point where the penalty offence was committed. You should in theory play whatever remaining time there is that you would have played after the penalty, so unless the handball would have resulted in a game-extending penalty if given live, then I don't see any reason why it should be different because the invalid decision led to the game ending?
I'm lost for words. Eric Dier is caught on camera and audio arguing with the referee at full time saying that Kane cannot be offside as the ball was played backwards, Danny Makellie rightly laughs him off. And now in the studio Rio Ferdinand is saying that no footballer understands that it can still be offside if the ball is played backwards. These are people paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a week and they don't know a basic law, it is absolutely ridiculous.
I never particularly like the "two bites of the cherry" argument, but I think it's especially irrelevant here.Not really because assuming the same team scores (as has a penalty review) in that period of time, they'll give the goal and not bother with the PK review.... Another VAR flaw... Two bites of the cherry... We see this quite often
Seen it lots of times where a team has come close to scoring in the period of play whilst a PK is being checked and ultimately reviewed and PK awarded. Hence. two bites at the cherry. Anyway, it's not anti-VAR angerI never particularly like the "two bites of the cherry" argument, but I think it's especially irrelevant here.
It's hard to construct a rebuttal that doesn't simply boil down to: so what? Team should have had a 90% chance of a goal followed by 30 seconds more of play before FT. In the time it's taken to establish that, they've scored and the game has then ended - I'm fine with that. And if they don't score, we go back to the game state as-is when the penalty decision was missed, give the penalty and then play the 30 seconds.
Either of those outcomes is perfectly fine with me, I don't really understand the problem (outside of default levels of anti-VAR anger)?
The side of the ball, as the ball would be closer to the goal line than the player.Now that we are using technology to detect offside by very small margins this question becomes relevant:
Which part of the ball is used to draw the line? Is it the side of the ball nearest the goal, or the point of contact?
I think it would be a much bigger VAR flaw if you were to rule out a subsequent goal by the same attacking team because VAR was going back for an earlier penalty.Not really because assuming the same team scores (as has a penalty review) in that period of time, they'll give the goal and not bother with the PK review.... Another VAR flaw... Two bites of the cherry... We see this quite often
I think that's debatable. Once the Genie's out the bottle though, lots of unintended consequences of VAR have revealed themselvesI think it would be a much bigger VAR flaw if you were to rule out a subsequent goal by the same attacking team because VAR was going back for an earlier penalty.
But that's the point - it's not another period of play. It's the same period of play again because the first was effectively wiped out by the VAR decision.I think that's debatable. Once the Genie's out the bottle though, lots of unintended consequences of VAR have revealed themselves
It's pantomime stuff when the players have to come back to the FOP after the final whistle. Can't have another period of play if the PK rebounds!
But it wouldn't be if the same team scored in that period of play whilst the check took placeBut that's the point - it's not another period of play. It's the same period of play again because the first was effectively wiped out by the VAR decision.
To repeat myself - so what?But it wouldn't be if the same team scored in that period of play whilst the check took place
The absolute whiplash I just got spotting your tweet saying this just now haha!Do players really need to know all the laws. Do we know all the laws at our work places. That’s why we have H&S depts, it’s their job to know. So a player not knowing I have no problem with but interviewer would have been told why it was disallowed and he simply could have told the player. Player now understands. Simple
And I won't repeat myself. We'll move onTo repeat myself - so what?
The offended-against team has benefited - that's literally the point of the laws, the point of advantage and the point of VAR. I don't see why there's any problem here?
There's a difference between knowing a law and understanding a law. This is an example of a player who doesn't understand itDo players really need to know all the laws. Do we know all the laws at our work places. That’s why we have H&S depts, it’s their job to know. So a player not knowing I have no problem with but interviewer would have been told why it was disallowed and he simply could have told the player. Player now understands. Simple
In the first few pages of 'The Art of Refereeing', the Author talks about an unhealthy relationship between Referees and players (the wider football community). We're too keen to mock their lack of understanding of the Laws. It's the same in many disciplines and sports. All footballers want, is for us to show up and give the game a sense of fairness and promote the enjoyment as best we can. I don't blame them for not picking the book up. Besides, most Referees couldn't articulate the offside Law, so why should players be able to do so. Indeed, most Referees struggle with the book full-stop cos it's a jumbled mess of a pamphlet. Perhaps if the book was re-written from scratch (or two books re-written from scratch) by people who are competent at doing so, it would be more accessible and much easier to interpret by Refs and players alikeThe absolute whiplash I just got spotting your tweet saying this just now haha!
Think @JamesL has made it fairly clear why it's not quite right though
I agree that play should have finished once the penalty was saved, as the offence took place a second before the full-time whistle, so if awarded then the penalty would have been in time extended for that purpose.I think that's debatable. Once the Genie's out the bottle though, lots of unintended consequences of VAR have revealed themselves
It's pantomime stuff when the players have to come back to the FOP after the final whistle. Can't have another period of play if the PK rebounds!
Definitely agree with this. I've spent some time in the sin bin for calling a referee smug as a player, nothing infuriates me more than an arrogant referee.In the first few pages of 'The Art of Refereeing', the Author talks about an unhealthy relationship between Referees and players (the wider football community). We're too keen to mock their lack of understanding of the Laws. It's the same in many disciplines and sports. All footballers want, is for us to show up and give the game a sense of fairness and promote the enjoyment as best we can. I don't blame them for not picking the book up. Besides, most Referees couldn't articulate the offside Law, so why should players be able to do so. Indeed, most Referees struggle with the book full-stop cos it's a jumbled mess of a pamphlet. Perhaps if the book was re-written from scratch (or two books re-written from scratch) by people who are competent at doing so, it would be more accessible and much easier to interpret by Refs and players alike
In a nutshell and having seen it from both sides, both players (and the wider footy community) and R's are guilty 'us & them' attitude
Masochistic tendencies are vital to referee in this climate!In the first few pages of 'The Art of Refereeing', the Author talks about an unhealthy relationship between Referees and players (the wider football community). We're too keen to mock their lack of understanding of the Laws. It's the same in many disciplines and sports. All footballers want, is for us to show up and give the game a sense of fairness and promote the enjoyment as best we can. I don't blame them for not picking the book up. Besides, most Referees couldn't articulate the offside Law, so why should players be able to do so. Indeed, most Referees struggle with the book full-stop cos it's a jumbled mess of a pamphlet. Perhaps if the book was re-written from scratch (or two books re-written from scratch) by people who are competent at doing so, it would be more accessible and much easier to interpret by Refs and players alike
In a nutshell and having seen it from both sides, both players (and the wider footy community) and R's are guilty 'us & them' attitude
If you are a defender paid millions of pounds a year it is criminal that you don't know the law that you will encounter several times in every single game. The heating industry has a governing body, but a boiler engineer isn't going to get away with saying he didn't know about a regulation shortly after he's blown a house up. Don't try to defend the indefensibleDo players really need to know all the laws. Do we know all the laws at our work places. That’s why we have H&S depts, it’s their job to know. So a player not knowing I have no problem with but interviewer would have been told why it was disallowed and he simply could have told the player. Player now understands. Simple