A&H

VAR controversy - Simulation or trip?

one

one

RefChat Addict

VAR controversy in A- League.

1. Is this a trip or simulation?

2. Was the referee clearly wrong (and hence should a VAR review been used)?
 
The Referee Store
Ooh... Can I cop out and say both? :p

In real time I'd have gone with the referee there and given the foul. With the replays it just makes me doubt the decision either way.

Isn't VAR supposed to be used to check straight red offences anyway? But to answer the second question, no he was not clearly wrong imo. :)
 
For me this is where the need to better communicate the VAR process comes in and relay it to fans etc.

Real time I think it’s understandable for the referee to penalise a trip and therefore the difficulty in VAR overturning that is the replay has to be absolutely clear that the player has not been tripped (or that the GK hasn’t attempted to trip obviously). In that sense I can see why VAR has allowed the original decision to stand on awarding the free kick.

However, there’s obviously two elements to the review as the original sanction is clearly wrong and the right decision for VAR is to correct this clear error and ensure the DOGSO is punished accordingly.

Problem is, we’re having to piece this together without any official communication on it.
 
ASM said:
For me this is where the need to better communicate the VAR process comes in and relay it to fans etc.

Real time I think it’s understandable for the referee to penalise a trip and therefore the difficulty in VAR overturning that is the replay has to be absolutely clear that the player has not been tripped (or that the GK hasn’t attempted to trip obviously). In that sense I can see why VAR has allowed the original decision to stand on awarding the free kick.

However, there’s obviously two elements to the review as the original sanction is clearly wrong and the right decision for VAR is to correct this clear error and ensure the DOGSO is punished accordingly.

Problem is, we’re having to piece this together without any official communication on it.
Click to expand...
I think you will find that the original decision and sanction was a free kick for simulation (although delivered with a bit of confusion). And the argument is that neither the decision nor the sanction were clearly wrong.
 
I can see contact which rules out the simulation and I don't think that's a foul worthy of a yellow card either but clearly denying an opponent a goal scoring opportunity.
 
one said:
I think you will find that the original decision and sanction was a free kick for simulation (although delivered with a bit of confusion). And the argument is that neither the decision nor the sanction were clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

Ohh...

Well in that case... swap around what I said. :p I thought he gave the freekick for a foul on the keeper.
 
one said:
I think you will find that the original decision and sanction was a free kick for simulation (although delivered with a bit of confusion). And the argument is that neither the decision nor the sanction were clearly wrong.
Click to expand...
I think you need to rewatch the clip as the free kick and sanction is clearly awarded against the goalkeeper.
 
No simulation for me, if the keepers outstretched leg is not there then the attackers stride & foot puts him in for a goal, it was clear & obvious for me that the attackers studs come down onto the outstretched leg of the keeper genuine attempt to keep running & score just so happens that the keepers leg is in the way.

Interesting one to say the least, keeper was last man so a bit confused as to why the ref didn’t send him off in the first place not sure how he came to the conclusion of a yellow.
 
I'm not really sure what the attacker is supposed to do, he's running along and suddenly the keeper throws in his path. He doesn't have to avoid contact by trying to hurdle him.
 
RustyRef said:
I'm not really sure what the attacker is supposed to do, he's running along and suddenly the keeper throws in his path. He doesn't have to avoid contact by trying to hurdle him.
Click to expand...

Neither does he need to make sure of the contact and then fall over. He was perfectly able to avoid the leg, collect the ball and score the goal......

If I am going to be exceedingly generous then maybe I don't caution for simulation....but no way am I walking the GK there when the contact was avoidable and the attacker clearly went to ground only to try and get the GK sent off.

Referees need to stop refereeing to what Shearer and chums think should happen and use their own brains to make decisions for themselves.......scared sheep always looking over their shoulder, worried about upsetting their paymasters.
 
He tries to avoid contact hence he steps on the keepers leg if he wanted to dive he would have hit him with shin / ankle and made a meal of it.

The fact it wasnt in the area and 88th min the striker had little to gain from diving.
 
Men in Black said:
He tries to avoid contact hence he steps on the keepers leg if he wanted to dive he would have hit him with shin / ankle and made a meal of it.

The fact it wasnt in the area and 88th min the striker had little to gain from diving.
Click to expand...

It's trained behaviour. They are endoctrinated to go down at every opportunity, to make sure that there is contact........just as much sheep as the officials that fall for it.
 
Padfoot said:
It's trained behaviour. They are endoctrinated to go down at every opportunity, to make sure that there is contact........just as much sheep as the officials that fall for it.
Click to expand...

You see players simulating on a daily basis you see players booked for it regularly, never once have I seen a player booked for simulating having stood on the opposing players leg with the sole of his foot.

For me he’s trying to avoid the leg, the keeper hasn’t tripped him but he’s made an Attempt to play the ball & left a leg out in the process, the ref got it right in real time my only question is why he didn’t show the keeper a straight red in real time.
 
This whole VAR is a joke anyway to be honest, Goal line technology fantastic should have had it years ago but VAR is a no no for me totally gonna take away refs and Lino’s confidence if you ask me, what’s the point of having an onfield referee, might Aswell get my nan in the middle do away with the laws of the game as long as you can point your arm in the right direction & leave the rest up to the video ref to order you about the pitch every time there’s a tight call.

If you as a ref or Lino have your original decision overturned on second viewing then what does that do to your mindset and confidence for the rest of the game, if a goal goes in the fans will give a half hearted cheer because they don’t know if it’ll be given or not.

I could go on all day about VAR but I’m going to bed, save it for another time.
 
ASM said:
I think you need to rewatch the clip as the free kick and sanction is clearly awarded against the goalkeeper.
Click to expand...
You could be right but for me it looks like he is confused (or at least changes his mind, he also took the red out with yellow). He momentarily shows the yellow to the keeper then bring it down, jesters no and then points to the striker.


Contact does not necessarily rule out simulation. For me although the keeper contributes to the very small amount of contact, it is instigated by the striker. He took a short step and moved his foot downward towards the keepers foot to make sure of it. What I can see as the point of contact is the striker's studs on top of the keeper's shin/calf.

1520211976477.png
1520212058043.png

The silly thing is, he could have stayed on his foot, slotted in the goal and win the game 2-1 instead of ending up with 1 all draw. I think the diving instinct automatically took over :)
 
Some of you guys with the simulation calls on here on unreal. Go sprint at full speed and then step or clip something that you weren't expecting to and see if you can stay on your feet. I bet if we filmed it in slow motion, it would look like a dive.

This is clearly a foul and a red for DOGSO.
 
RobOda said:
Isn't VAR supposed to be used to check straight red offences anyway?
Click to expand...
Well yes, but it's supposed to be used to look all offences and if they meet the criteria laid down AND constitute a 'clear error' they can be reviewed with a view to being changed. Included in the category of incidents eligible for review are straight red cards (and not, for instance second yellows) but it still must "only be used to correct clear errors."

They're not supposed to just look at all red cards or potential red cards and then go to a review if they think they might be able to find some grounds to change the referee's decision - they should only be reviewed if there's evidence a clear error has occurred.

This is one of the main areas where I think VAR is falling down - referees and VAR's seem to be going straight to a full review every time there's a goal, penalty, potential red card etc, whether there's evidence of a clear error or not. For me, the Tottenham vs Rochdale game was a classic example of this - it seemed as though every major incident was going to a full review, despite the protocol saying that's not what's supposed to happen.

Here's a paragraph taken straight from the VAR protocol summary:

The aim of the experiment is NOT to achieve 100% accuracy for all decisions as there is no desire to destroy the essential flow and emotions of football which result from the game’s almost non-stop action and the general absence of lengthy stoppages.
Click to expand...

I would say that this is exactly what is happening - too many lengthy stoppages and a serious erosion if not destruction of the "essential flow and emotions of football."

If the requirement to meet the principles of the paragraph above is the measure of VAR's success, I would have to say that from what I've seen of it, it is a notable failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top