Ref watch on Sky

[Big Vinny K]

So we’re all agreed then it wasn’t a fowl on Trafford

Absolute chicken sh-it.

[South West Claret.]

Absolute chicken sh-it.

[ottclaret]

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact

IFAB Law 12 (above) is what Jordan should have been looking at.

I don't know where he is getting this 'simultaneously' guff from - I've looked at IFAB 'Laws of the Game' and 'VAR Protocols' and I can't find it.

[Roosterbooster]

It's the PGMOL guidance on challenges on goalkeepers

(1) Contact is an acceptable part of football
(2) Attacking players are permitted to compete for space and competitive advantage by being positioned close to a goalkeeper
(3) Where both attacker and goalkeepers are involved in simultaneous and/or similar actions, play should be allowed to continue

But this doesn't mean it isn’t a foul here. The actions certainly weren't similar. The movement was simultaneous. Sure. But I dont think this guidance is intended to be used in this situation. It just doesn't read like that. I think it's for when both attacker and goalkeeper are challenging for the ball. Adebayo wasn't. If you apply this guidance to this situation, then it makes boxplay an absolute free for all. I think Simon Jordan (and others) have incorrectly applied this guidance here

[Jakubclaret]

It's the PGMOL guidance on challenges on goalkeepers

(1) Contact is an acceptable part of football
(2) Attacking players are permitted to compete for space and competitive advantage by being positioned close to a goalkeeper
(3) Where both attacker and goalkeepers are involved in simultaneous and/or similar actions, play should be allowed to continue

But this doesn't mean it isn’t a foul here. The actions certainly weren't similar. The movement was simultaneous. Sure. But I dont think this guidance is intended to be used in this situation. It just doesn't read like that. I think it's for when both attacker and goalkeeper are challenging for the ball. Adebayo wasn't. If you apply this guidance to this situation, then it makes boxplay an absolute free for all. I think Simon Jordan (and others) have incorrectly applied this guidance here

In fairness you are that way out I’m pretty sure around the time you said you was fuming at the decision. I honestly think it wouldn’t matter whatever rules or facts were presented you’d still find reasons to dismiss them. You are adamant it was a foul & nothing will change that & equally from the other side the people who think it wasn’t a foul will maintain that same stance. You are left with a futile discussion which will just go around in circles with both viewpoints entrenched & that’s why at this point it’s wise for me to not continue further.

[Big Vinny K]

It was not simultaneous though.
One player was moving towards the ball and eyes on the ball.
The other player moving deliberately away from the ball and eyes on a player which he then instigated contact to impede him.

If both players were heading towards the ball and looking at the ball then that’s simultaneous.
In that case if they collide then it’s hard to argue that it’s not accidental or which player instigated any contact. If that would have been the case you cannot really be that surprised if a goal is given.

But very clearly that is not what happened

[Roosterbooster]

Simultaneous just means happening at the same time. People can simultaneously run in opposite directions

In the case of people colliding when they are both heading towards the ball, if an act is careless, then this is punishable by way of a direct free kick. But you are absolutely right that determining which player was responsible is extremely difficult. This is where the above guidance clearly makes sense. But to apply this guidance to the Adebayo scenario doesn't make sense, because literally applying this guidance would negate the actual rules. It's saying that you can deliberately impede a goalkeeper by running directly into them and clattering them. Obviously that cannot be the case, and therefore the only logical conclusion is that this guidance is not applicable in this situation. Despite what Jakubclaret tries to argue, this isn't picking and choosing an interpretation to fit an agenda, it's just a logical assessment of the available information

[Big Vinny K]

If a ball is crossed into a crowded area then there will ge several players moving simultaneously I guess so I’m assuming the law is more about the similar aspect - ie both moving towards the ball at the same time in a similar direction / movement.
When you think about it the “simultaneous” is erroneous and a bit surplus to requirements in that rule !

[dsr]

The "simultaneous" bit must mean that two players are doing the same thing at the same time - eg. going for the ball. Obviously it can't mean that the collision between the two players happens at the same time, because if player A blocks player B it's bound to be at the same time as player B runs into player A!

[Big Vinny K]

The "simultaneous" bit must mean that two players are doing the same thing at the same time - eg. going for the ball. Obviously it can't mean that the collision between the two players happens at the same time, because if player A blocks player B it's bound to be at the same time as player B runs into player A!

Yep that’s what I was interpreting it as initially which is why I thought one player running towards the ball and one taking a step in the other direction away from the ball was not simultaneous.

But in summary it’s a foul !!

[beddie]

So the referee sees it as a “coming together” but not an obvious foul, unless VAR tell him otherwise it’s a goal. I cannot under any circumstances believe that VAR think it’s not a foul.

[dsr]

So the referee sees it as a “coming together” but not an obvious foul, unless VAR tell him otherwise it’s a goal. I cannot under any circumstances believe that VAR think it’s not a foul.

At present, the point of VAR in the penalty area is to support the referee. Basically, they will only overturn it if it's a "clear and obvious" error, and by "clear and obvious" I think the standard of proof is that no man on earth could believe it to be the right decision. And if the ref believes it to be the right decision, then by definition it isn't a clear and obvious error.

[Rileybobs]

At present, the point of VAR in the penalty area is to support the referee. Basically, they will only overturn it if it's a "clear and obvious" error, and by "clear and obvious" I think the standard of proof is that no man on earth could believe it to be the right decision. And if the ref believes it to be the right decision, then by definition it isn't a clear and obvious error.

‘Clear and Obvious’ is just another layer of ambiguity in an ambiguous set of laws and guidance.

Obviously VAR shouldn’t exist, but seeing as it does, it should be used much more simply and effectively. On borderline decisions, the VAR should be able to review an incident whilst having sight of the actual wording of the relevant law. If the images show that the referee has made their decision in line with the written laws then their decision stands, if they haven’t then the decision is overturned. In their report the VAR should be able to point out exactly which part of the law has been broken or not.

It’s clear in the Trafford incident for example, that if the VAR was viewing the actual wording of the law whilst reviewing the footage the goal would have been disallowed. As it is, we have some invisible bar called ‘clear and obvious’ and we have incidents being interpreted based on things that aren’t even relevant to the laws of the game. It’s all so ambiguous, wishy washy and frustrating for viewers. Like you say, it’s basically being used as an instrument for someone to validate a referee’s decision, whether it’s incorrect or not.

[CombatClaret]

The media pulled apart every refereeing decision for a decade because it drove engagement, filled 606, gave pundits something to debate, and filled air time.
Then they spent another few years calling for VAR and more technology because that drove engagement, filled 606, gave pundits something to debate, and filled air time.
And now they have VAR and they are even happier because now they have Refs AND VAR to pull apart, drive engagement, fill 606, give pundits something to debate, and fill air time.

VAR is the Brexit of sport, it was a false promise to make things better when it never could, and only ends up furthering the careers of a chosen few.

[dougcollins]

Sheff Utd penalty, anybody?

[Silkyskills1]

A foul on the goalkeeper. We have to remember, though that the game is being shown for the armchair fan and decisions like that serve to intensify the jeopardy for his/ her entertainment.
I still recall what Richie Benaud said many, many years ago about a time where cricket would not require paying customers. How right he was.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Bumping this for a tirade by Chris Wilder about our old friend Tony Harrington, suggesting bias against teams near the bottom.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68172818

Of course, he is right.

[Kilson810]

Bumping this for a tirade by Chris Wilder about our old friend Tony Harrington, suggesting bias against teams near the bottom.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68172818

Of course, he is right.

Strange how he didn't complain when they got two ridiculous decisions in the west ham game.