Whilst I didn't think it was a pen, I can see where Rowls is coming from, and I'd like another look on MOTD. If the Ref had given it, chances are it wouldn't have been overturned, as any time a decision is debatable, it stays with the referees original decision, due to not being a clear and obvious error.

In most cases, including today, VAR is doing what it should, only overturning clear and obvious errors, the crucial part is the referees original decision. People just forget that part, especially pundits who make things worse as a result.

My problem is that under the law it is a clear error.

He is clearly tripped.

This is a clear and obvious error.

SurreyClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:13 pm

Whilst I didn't think it was a pen, I can see where Rowls is coming from, and I'd like another look on MOTD. If the Ref had given it, chances are it wouldn't have been overturned, as any time a decision is debatable, it stays with the referees original decision, due to not being a clear and obvious error.

In most cases, including today, VAR is doing what it should, only overturning clear and obvious errors, the crucial part is the referees original decision. People just forget that part, especially pundits who make things worse as a result.

The pundits just offer an opinion based on what there think, doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong as it’s an opinion & by that same token it doesn’t mean you need to agree or disagree, some people take far too much notice of what the pundits say when they shouldn’t the average bloke on the street you could equally pay as much notice to if you so wished to, I’d pay more notice to a knowledgeable claret in a pub talking about football than I would to Gary Neville but some people seem to hang on to every word he says as if he’s the next messiah.

Sometimes a good pundit will know an obscure rule you might not be aware of.

The best pundits offer tactical and psychological insight based on their playing days. The kind of thing you’d only know if you were a pro.

Then there’s 95% of the pundits out there.

Today, for example, Michael Owen was complaining about a decision to award a free kick our way for dangerous players owing to a high boot.

Three times he moaned about the decision.

He was apparently ignorant that the award was for a delayed offside call as he whinged about it. Three times.

Not a pen

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:55 pm

Sometimes a good pundit will know an obscure rule you might not be aware of.

The best pundits offer tactical and psychological insight based on their playing days. The kind of thing you’d only know if you were a pro.

Then there’s 95% of the pundits out there.

Today, for example, Michael Owen was complaining about a decision to award a free kick our way for dangerous players owing to a high boot.

Three times he moaned about the decision.

He was apparently ignorant that the award a delayed offside call as he whinged about it. Three times.

Even then that knowledge will be ambiguous & extremely debatable, we are living in a generation where people clearly don’t know the rules, it’s more than possible you could easily blag millions of people with making something up & millions of people would be none no wiser, some of the rules are discretional & open to myriad ways of interpretation.

Not a pen

Three pages for something that didnt happen wow!
Even Arsenal at there cheating best wouldn't have got one if it had been at the other end.

Yup.

It’s a clear penalty.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:51 pm

But the act of Saka putting his foot where he did didn’t cause the trip. In the same way that my staircase being where it always has been didn’t cause me to trip up it.

If Saka had put his foot where he wanted to put it (in front of Vyds)and Vyds had continued to run rather than shoot thus going over Saka’s leg would that then have been a foul?

You can’t reach from behind and plant your foot in front of where another player is moving his leg, it is clearly going to bring that player down whether he is running or shooting. If the defender moves his leg in between the ball and the striker without playing the ball and the striker goes over the leg it’s a foul.

I’m not surprised it wasn’t given but Saka tried to play the ball, missed and impeded Vyds, it’s as simple as that.

I think it’s great that they don’t give penalties for the likes of the Vydra and Pieters incidents but I doubt similar incidents will always end up the same.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:05 am

If Saka had put his foot where he wanted to put it (in front of Vyds)and Vyds had continued to run rather than shoot thus going over Saka’s leg would that then have been a foul?

You can’t reach from behind and plant your foot in front of where another player is moving his leg, it is clearly going to bring that player down whether he is running or shooting. If the defender moves his leg in between the ball and the striker without playing the ball and the striker goes over the leg it’s a foul.

I’m not surprised it wasn’t given but Saka tried to play the ball, missed and impeded Vyds, it’s as simple as that.

No. If you stand somewhere on a football pitch and an opposition player runs into you, you have not committed a foul. In the same way that if a player puts his foot somewhere and an opposition player kicks it or runs into it, it’s not a foul.

Vydra tripped over Saka. Saka didn’t trip Vydra. That’s why it wasn’t a foul. Saka didn’t illegally impede Vydra, he had every right to put his foot between Vydra’s foot and the ball, in the same way a player has every right to position themselves between an opposition player and the ball when shielding it. If Tarks is shielding the ball whilst it rolls out of play and Aubameyang runs into his back should a FK be awarded to Arsenal?

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:21 am

Saka didn’t illegally impede Vydra, he had every right to put his foot between Vydra’s foot and the ball

If somebody is running onto a ball with the defender behind him and the defender puts his leg in between the ball and the striker, making no contact with the ball it is not a foul?? That is the very definition of a trip, the defender doesn’t have to be waving his foot in the air, he can plant it between the striker and the ball, it is still a foul.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:21 am

No. If you stand somewhere on a football pitch and an opposition player runs into you, you have not committed a foul. In the same way that if a player puts his foot somewhere and an opposition player kicks it or runs into it, it’s not a foul.

Vydra tripped over Saka. Saka didn’t trip Vydra. That’s why it wasn’t a foul. Saka didn’t illegally impede Vydra, he had every right to put his foot between Vydra’s foot and the ball, in the same way a player has every right to position themselves between an opposition player and the ball when shielding it. If Tarks is shielding the ball whilst it rolls out of play and Aubameyang runs into his back should a FK be awarded to Arsenal?

Actually I think it should be classed as obstruction and should be a free kick - I hate it when players do that especially when you consider the small gust of wind that usually drops them to the floor, bad example.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:21 am

If Tarks is shielding the ball whilst it rolls out of play and Aubameyang runs into his back should a FK be awarded to Arsenal?

The reason that a free kick isn’t given in those circumstances is because Tarks is in control of the ball. If Aubameyang was in control of the ball and tarks stuck a leg in between him and the ball it would be a foul.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:58 am

If somebody is running onto a ball with the defender behind him and the defender puts his leg in between the ball and the striker, making no contact with the ball it is not a foul?? That is the very definition of a trip, the defender doesn’t have to be waving his foot in the air, he can plant it between the striker and the ball, it is still a foul.

No, it isn’t a foul, which is why a penalty wasn’t awarded. And it isn’t the very definition of a trip.

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:01 am

Actually I think it should be classed as obstruction and should be a free kick - I hate it when players do that especially when you consider the small gust of wind that usually drops them to the floor, bad example.

It’s irrelevant whether you think it should be classed as obstruction though because you don’t make the laws.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:02 am

It’s irrelevant whether you think it should be classed as obstruction though because you don’t make the laws.

Absolutely. And it’s irrelevant that you don’t think it’s a trip because it was

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:01 am

The reason that a free kick isn’t given in those circumstances is because Tarks is in control of the ball. If Aubameyang was in control of the ball and tarks stuck a leg in between him and the ball it would be a foul.

How would Tarks be in control of the ball if he’s shielding it out of play? He wouldn’t have touched the ball. You can’t just make rules up about being in control of the ball to suit your narrative. Unless you can point me to the law that defines that the person who last touched the ball to be the one in control of it?

Very clumsy to say the least & I honestly can’t be sure because it’s a such a tight call, to properly assess I’d need to freeze frame the point where vydra appears to be shaping to shoot & whether vydra makes contact with saka or it’s the other way around. I can easily see both sides on why it wasn’t awarded & why it could have been awarded. Some you’ll get & some you won’t it’s 1 of them.

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:04 am

Absolutely. And it’s irrelevant that you don’t think it’s a trip because it was

But I’m not trying to rewrite the laws. Kicking someone and falling over is not being tripped.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:04 am

How would Tarks be in control of the ball if he’s shielding it out of play? He wouldn’t have touched the ball. You can’t just make rules up about being in control of the ball to suit your narrative. Unless you can point me to the law that defines that the person who last touched the ball to be the one in control of it?

Seriously? I give up! You’re wrong, accept it and move on

Goodnight x

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:55 pm

Today, for example, Michael Owen was complaining about a decision to award a free kick our way for dangerous players owing to a high boot.

Three times he moaned about the decision.

He was apparently ignorant that the award was for a delayed offside call as he whinged about it. Three times.

It’s this style of punditry why I refuse to of £25 a month for BT Sports.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:05 am

If Saka had put his foot where he wanted to put it (in front of Vyds)and Vyds had continued to run rather than shoot thus going over Saka’s leg would that then have been a foul?

You can’t reach from behind and plant your foot in front of where another player is moving his leg, it is clearly going to bring that player down whether he is running or shooting. If the defender moves his leg in between the ball and the striker without playing the ball and the striker goes over the leg it’s a foul.

I’m not surprised it wasn’t given but Saka tried to play the ball, missed and impeded Vyds, it’s as simple as that.

This is the exact definition of a foul, it is also exactly what happened. It was a foul all day long.

Penalty for me - saka’s trying to stop vydra shooting doesn’t get the ball and there is clear ‘pundit contact’.
If it had been at the other end there would have been a scream and an immediate penalty given which var wouldn’t have overturned.
However I am cheered up by the fact we have had a substantial bid for Pieters from the LA Lakers.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:50 pm

Stairs don't move.

If I trip up the -static- staris then I have tripped up the stair. This would be my fault.

If the stairs ever magically move of their own accord then the stairs will have tripped me. This would be the stairs' fault.

It’s not magic it’s an escalator

It looked like a penalty first time round. With camera scrutiny I am convinced Saka clipped Vydras heal thereby preventing his shot at goal. So - I would have given a penalty.
Just a quick thought the movement between Wood and Vydra was excellent , it was like Kindon and Coates at their best.

Claretrew wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:06 pm

Not a pen

But it was a foul. A free kick would have been given anywhere else on the pitch and nobody would have complained. Another 'strange' interpretation of rules.

Out of interest, the people who think this was a pen, did you think the one Wolves got against us (last year?) was one too then?

Similar incidents.

I don't think either were pens.

United have just got a penalty for something very similar... perhaps slightly more contact but in a less threatening scenario..

Conroy92 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:19 pm

Out of interest, the people who think this was a pen, did you think the one Wolves got against us (last year?) was one too then?

Similar incidents.

I don't think either were pens.

I think about two thirds of penalties given this year, shouldn't be. But if they are going to apply the rule that says that if a defender tries to play the ball, misses the ball, touches the forward, and the forward falls over - and that is what they do generally - then that default rule should have applied here as well. Let's not pretend that penalties are given for trips. Penalties are given for "there is contact and the player was entitled to go down".

Conroy92 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:19 pm

Out of interest, the people who think this was a pen, did you think the one Wolves got against us (last year?) was one too then?

Similar incidents.

I don't think either were pens.

Yes, it was given.

Yesterday it was not. Consistency is all most fans want.

The Wolves one wasnt all that similar, Jiminez was trying to get a foul, he left his leg in a very unorthodox position to innvite contact. He wasnt in control of the ball either.
Vydra was running onto strike a ball he was in control off and was impeded from doing so, albeit not from the most robust of challenges.

It
Should
Have
Been
A
Penalty

I know the laws don't take this into account, but for me Vydra's was more worthy of a penalty because it was related to a goal threat. With Pieters, it just bounced up and hit him on the arm when there was no immediate likelihood of a shot on goal. If that had been given it would have been a 'free goal' without the attacking team having to create an opportunity. The number of penalties given has gone up dramatically in the last twenty years or so, and to my mind it detracts from the competition, as many of these are gained either by cheating or by bits of good fortune.

Just for those who thought it wasn't a penalty against Vydra - watch the penalty Spuds have conceded tonight against Everton.

It's exactly the same kind of foul.

wasn't a foul he kicked the ground and fell over