But what is a foul is largely subjective so what one person thinks is a foul someone else will reasonably think otherwise with neither of them being definitively right. VAR is implemented to stay out of those disagreements and focus on things where a ref may have made a wrong decision because they saw the incident incorrectly. In this context that means if the ref saw grappling and thought it was just a normal battle and not a foul then VAR is not to get involved in that even if the person operating VAR would have given if they were the ref.
Buy beyond that, I think the bigger issue is a tiny % of refs would give a pen for that without the forward throwing himself on the floor because reffing has some really dumb default ideas
tere are subjective fouls, cant disagree, but what we saw on Ekitike was not SubjectiveâŚ
i however, understand the reasoningâŚ
Ekitike doesnt go down, therefore wasnt impeded enough to pass some thresholdy thingo, ergo VAR doesnt get involved to overturn the refs initial decision.
so we come to a conclusion.
meanwhile im left watching the replay of a Leeds defender with his hands all over Ekitike in the boxâŚi mean, i think even Martin Skrtel would have boned up a bit watching that
The Ekitike incident shows whatâs broken in the game. If he goes down Iâm quite sure a pen is given, he doesnât and itâs seen as not enough. This then encourages players to go down as they know they wonât get a decision if they donât. Negative feedback loop that football is unlikely ever to come out of.
yep, and it really is quite easily - not solved- but at least countered, using the tech that is VARâŚ
all VAR has to do is start to give ones like the Ekitike one and players will then have a level of comfort to keep playing through the moment, knowing the decision can still be made after the phase.
it wont SOLVE the issue of initiating contact and emphasising the fouls, but it sure as hell would give players that make the decision to keep going and force the play a bit more comfort knowing it still CAN get reviewed.
If we accept that by managing to pass the ball shows hes not been impeded enough to pass some kind of threshold, then we are resigned to the obvious.
Not sure if its a discussion anymore.
We were cheated out of a penalty. And the excuse is that our player tried to play on.
Its so fucking obvious now.
Corruption.
Everyone tying themselves in knots to explain why it wasnât given. It wasnât given because Kavanagh is a fucking cheat who cost us a PL title a few years back.
Darren England as VAR. Weâve been here before.
The problem with the Ekitike decision is that the ref saw the incident incorrectly, and VAR in that instance should have called him to the monitor. Thatâs what the installation of technology is supposed to do? Correct incorrect decisions.
They change the narrative when it suits. I understand your point, but in a clear cut incorrect decision, there has to be input.
Fuck them, if it needs exaggeration and drama to get a pen, then letâs do it by all means. At this stage, I donât care one jolt what will be written in the media.
I dont really care about what is written/said about us. Iâm just talking about the general incoherence of this sort of issue is viewed âwithin the gameâ, which is the biggest obstacle to changing how these sorts of issues are officiated.
Are you talking about the Ekitike non penalty as an issue where incoherence exists?
Because if thats the case, then we may as well forget about any standards of officiating.
But Jim, I saw my friend rubbing his tummy with one hand and patting his head with the other at the same time. I thought no one was able to do that? If he can do that why did no one tell us it was possible? They need to tell us that it isnt a rule that you cannot.
You can throw all the technology you want at it, but youâll never get a more accurate decision that one gained from looking at the line drawn on the pitch by an old lad with a lawnmower.