Graham Poll: Son's penalty goal should have stood

[ComfortablyNumb]

Challenges are a terrible idea.

There is nothing wrong with VAR, but there is a problem with the way it is currently implemented as demonstrated the other night. There is nothing wrong with reviewing every goal in the background. Players celebrate, that takes time. As long as the review is completed in 30 seconds to a minute to catch any 'clear and obvious' issues then it will work fine. Taking 2 mins + for a decision isn't helping.

It would also be beneficial if the crowd got to see what the video ref was reviewing and the TV was able to listen in on the decision making as they do in rugby. The hanging around not knowing what is going on is the frustrating thing for the players and fans and unfortunately a LOT of fans don't really know all the rules (despite what they may think) so are at a loss when it is reviewed / decisions are made.

They can make the VAR decisions an interesting part of the game and part of the entertainment, but as per usual football is trying to do things differently and being secretive about everything.

I agree. And this is what trials are for. It needs to be quicker, slicker and more entertaining. That’ll come with time.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

By permitting "feinting" during the run up and not at the end of it, that's exactly what they are.

Actually, that’s quite clear as a law. The problem is that feinting isn’t well defined. If stopping isn’t feinting, and I can’t see how it is feinting, then the Ref can still decide it’s unsportsmanlike behaviour.

 

[yiddopaul]

I imagine most Liverpool games will be 20 minutes longer.

 

[mightyspur]

The problem is, if every goal is reviewed then you won't get fans or teams celebrating, they'll just be hanging around waiting for the decision, by the time the decision is made the moment will be lost. I didn't see it before but I do now, I don't want VAR I'd rather have the mistakes, it's going to absolutely kill the atmosphere

People still celebrate when the linesman's flag goes up. Something going on in the background that 9/10 results in the goal standing isn't going to affect anything.

I agree the ref stood there with his hand to his ear after every goal will be tedious and could affect things, but that is why I would suggest it just happens automatically as the players celebrate. If an answer is given within 30 secs to 1 min, the fans will soon forget it's even occurring.

 

[Fowl!]

By permitting "feinting" during the run up and not at the end of it, that's exactly what they are.

Actually, that’s quite clear as a law. The problem is that feinting isn’t well defined. If stopping isn’t feinting, and I can’t see how it is feinting, then the Ref can still decide it’s unsportsmanlike behaviour.

This is spot on.

Unfortunately for Son he has scored penalties with this run up previously. The difference being the earlier referees viewed it as a legal feint.

The moral is and has been for a long time, do not have a stuttering run up. No excuses from hereonin.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Why bother with the linesman at all in that case? If what he says counts for nothing because it var is the decider why not just let var call offsides anyway? Did it go off for a throw in leading up to the goal or a goal kick? No need for a linesman just let var call it!
It's a can of worms.

Throws, free kicks and minor stuff are still better being called by refs and lino's.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

And they should just ban feints and pauses in penalty run ups completely and be done with it.

 

[Spurslove]

It should only be used where there is a contentious/disputed incident... Offside/Diving etc.

Except that ALL refereeing decisions are hotly disputed by the team on the receiving end, claiming all sorts of misdemeanours which they claim the ref has missed. VAR should only ever be used for goals and penalties.

I think I may have the answer to all the problems...

Firstly abandon the current stupid nonsense which bans the big screens from showing anything deemed 'controversial' which may start unrest in the crowd (what a crock of shit that is) and put on the big screen, exactly what the VAR ref is watching so everyone inside the stadium can see it too.

Secondly, make it 100% crystal clear that referees should ref the games as per usual, but only if something of a very serious nature has been missed which might invalidate a goal being scored or a penalty being given (or denied) should the VAR ref send a message to the match referee to go and check the pitch-side monitor (which everyone can see too).

Thirdly, let everyone inside the stadium hear the two way conversation between the match ref and the VAR ref just the same as they do in rugby. That way, there's no room for any ambiguity or confusion.

The entire process shouldn't take any longer than 30 seconds or so, maybe a minute max.

I only wish I could charge a fee for that.

 

[arthurgrimsdell]

Actually, that’s quite clear as a law. The problem is that feinting isn’t well defined. If stopping isn’t feinting, and I can’t see how it is feinting, then the Ref can still decide it’s unsportsmanlike behaviour.

I disagree.

OED: Feint - "A sham attack or blow etc. to divert attention or fool an enemy".

Clearly, the sham attack has to stop before the real attack goes ahead, unless more than one person is involved in progressing the situation.

OED: "Sham" - Imposture, pretence.

How anyone can preclude stopping from that defeats me. To feint to go one way then change direction without stopping going in the original direction I'd suggest is impossible. When a boxer feints to hit an opponent with his left and then hits him with his right he tends not to follow through with the original left otherwise it wasn't a feint in the first place. He stops his left, and for that matter usually has both feet planted at that time. A penalty taker in a football match invariably uses his feet to take the kick, (which is why it's called a "Penalty Kick") and so I'd suggest that the feint involves the feet stopping in some way.

Law 5 states: Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match.

Note that states "enforce" not "interpret".

Law 14 states

"feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting

in the run-up is permitted); the referee cautions the kicker"

There is no mention of stopping during the run up. If it is not mentioned then I'd assert that is allowable. Incidentally there is not any mention in the Laws of "ungentlemanly conduct" as far as I have been able to ascertain, so I'd suggest that "get out of jail free card" isn't available for referees either.​

The only way that Son could have been said to have finished his run up when he stopped is if he had 5 metre extendible legs which suddenly shot out to kick the ball after he had stopped.

In my view the definitions are precise and the Law is precise. The only thing that isn't precise is some referees' understanding, or more to the point application, of the Law. The fact that some ex-referees have publicly called out the referee in this case as wrong, I'd suggest adds to that view.
But others may disagree, and they may well know more about the Laws of The Game than I do.

 

[Tit&Ham]

Keep goal line technology and skip the rest. Experts, refs etc have differensiert views on every situation Even in slow mo - so its not getting any better.


Also - Its part of football to be mad at referee decicions, and sometimes glad...

If they Get the same tech for offsides AS they do for goal line, then fine.

 

[JollyHappy]

Surely the pen should have been retaken because of the player incursions. A couple of players were only a few yards behind Son as he took the pen. Shouldn't that have taken precedence over him taking the kick as it happened first.

Bearing in mind the ref was so strict about Rochdale players coming into the box as we took our goal kicks, it's ridiculous that he ignored all of this for the pen!

 

[fortworthspur]

the way it was applied Wednesday was excruciating, and I think they still got the wrong decisions on some of the reviews.

 

[Dillspur]

People still celebrate when the linesman's flag goes up. Something going on in the background that 9/10 results in the goal standing isn't going to affect anything.

I agree the ref stood there with his hand to his ear after every goal will be tedious and could affect things, but that is why I would suggest it just happens automatically as the players celebrate. If an answer is given within 30 secs to 1 min, the fans will soon forget it's even occurring.

I get what you're saying, but you're not expecting the flag to be raised every time a goal goes in. Right now with VAR every goal is checked and everyone will know this, I could see a goal scored no one cheering waiting a minute then a muted reaction. It could even affect the atmosphere in the billed up to a goal, because ultimately you're never going to know the goal will stand until it's reviewed

 

[Dannyspur]

And they should just ban feints and pauses in penalty run ups completely and be done with it.

What about Harry's fast little steps getting nowhere run up?

 

[hutchiniho]

Should be used as back up when requested by the referee
or when suggested by a linesman to the ref.if on field situation requires clarification.
Otherwise it completely undermines the authority of the ref and linesmen
as it did on Wednesday and leaves them as slaves to the machine.
Got it wrong over Son's penalty.between them.
'Feinting' during the run-up is specifically permitted.

History repeated itself as farce rather than tragedy fortunately.

Referee reduced to a quivering jelly
trying to mark out free kick limits with white spray on snow.

For my two peneths worth.

I feel that the referee should just ref his own game as if VAR is not present.

Then, if the ‘clear and obvious’ mistake is picked up by the 6th(?) official then that should be communicated. And for me, that is just on match altering matter of fact incidents. Such as the hand ball goals, clear offsides errors.

It should definitely not be used as a fall back, I’m not sure have I got this right tool.

Still not sure why 100m sprint tracking cameras haven’t been introduced yet as a side note.

 

[FreddieYid]

It does feel incredibly harsh to award a free kick the other way for fieinting in a run up to a penalty. Ordering a retake I understand.

It’s the same as when Wilshite purposely kicked a free kick against an opponent before they’d had the chance to move away from the ball, purposely trying to get them booked for not retreating. He ended up getting a yellow card, but the free kick was was re taken and not awarded the other way.

 

[whitesocks]

...

Law 5 states: Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match.

Note that states "enforce" not "interpret".
...

but all laws are open to interpretation - that's why we have millions of lawyers.

Plus unsporting behaviour is an offence.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

I disagree.

OED: Feint - "A sham attack or blow etc. to divert attention or fool an enemy".

Clearly, the sham attack has to stop before the real attack goes ahead, unless more than one person is involved in progressing the situation.

OED: "Sham" - Imposture, pretence.

How anyone can preclude stopping from that defeats me. To feint to go one way then change direction without stopping going in the original direction I'd suggest is impossible. When a boxer feints to hit an opponent with his left and then hits him with his right he tends not to follow through with the original left otherwise it wasn't a feint in the first place. He stops his left, and for that matter usually has both feet planted at that time. A penalty taker in a football match invariably uses his feet to take the kick, (which is why it's called a "Penalty Kick") and so I'd suggest that the feint involves the feet stopping in some way.

Law 5 states: Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match.

Note that states "enforce" not "interpret".

Law 14 states

"feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting

in the run-up is permitted); the referee cautions the kicker"

There is no mention of stopping during the run up. If it is not mentioned then I'd assert that is allowable. Incidentally there is not any mention in the Laws of "ungentlemanly conduct" as far as I have been able to ascertain, so I'd suggest that "get out of jail free card" isn't available for referees either.​

The only way that Son could have been said to have finished his run up when he stopped is if he had 5 metre extendible legs which suddenly shot out to kick the ball after he had stopped.

In my view the definitions are precise and the Law is precise. The only thing that isn't precise is some referees' understanding, or more to the point application, of the Law. The fact that some ex-referees have publicly called out the referee in this case as wrong, I'd suggest adds to that view.
But others may disagree, and they may well know more about the Laws of The Game than I do.

You disagree, then go on to reprise my comment, albeit using many more words.

 

[Spurs 1961]

Cheers for posting, basically said what I had said in an earlier post... smart guy that Mr.Poll, seriously though in full agreement with him on these points:

All football fans recall the CLEAR AND OBVIOUS errors they want rectified like the Diego Maradona 'Hand of God' and France's winner after Thierry Henry's handball against Ireland. Those could have been corrected in seconds.

But reviewing every goal is ruining the joy of scoring — which is too high a price to pay.

If VAR had not been in operation the first goal would have stood and the penalty would not have been awarded.

Borderline decisions should not be reviewed as football is not an exact science and watching Paul Tierney, an excellent referee, seem to dither and delay routine decisions proved how unsettling it is.

I suspect the officials are now worried that because they have the technology the onus on them is not to miss anything. In cricket they now review every dismissal in case the bowler has marginally overstepped and bowled a no ball. All fine in cricket where at the fall of a wicket there is a natural break of a couple of minutes though I do find it annoying in limited over games. Football though is a flowing game, a game of passion and not only unlike cricket but all American sports which have time outs and stop for mass changes of players. Even rugby has pauses in the flow of the game for scrums, line outs.

So I am not sure right now whether I like VAR or not. It seems as though it is, tight now, hit an miss. VAR is currently no more reliable than the referee and maybe worse. Besides you can't easily slag off someone sitting miles away watching video monitors like you can the ref!

 

[longtimespur]

It seemed to me that the ref was not controlling the match IE: the VAR was.
By that I mean the ref seemed not to be able to make the important decisions and waited for the 5th official to use VAR to make them for him.
If that is the case then there should be some sort of penalty given to him. He is the man who should make all the decisions and only after should the VAR interfere if he thinks it's incorrect.
That was my interpretation of how VAR is supposed to work not for the ref to ask whether it was A or B and expect the VAR to give the answer.