Manchester City v Tottenham - 17th August 2019 - PL - Post match reaction | Page 2 | Vital Football

Manchester City v Tottenham - 17th August 2019 - PL - Post match reaction

What is becoming apparent is that “clear and obvious” is open to interpretation and will largely depend on whether the VAR official has the bottle to challenge the on field referee
 
All of this is taking the passion out of football for me. Not being able to celebrate a goal for fear of VAR overruling it over some infraction, real or imagined, is taking a toll. VAR and the refs are becoming the most important things, when they should only be ancillary to the players.
 
The reasons given to the MEN as to why the penalty was not awarded. Seems to me that they really don't answer the question at all. They are basically saying Oliver's decision not to award the penalty against Lamella was because....

"VAR will be used only for 'clear and obvious errors' or 'serious missed incidents' in four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity."

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...all-news/man-city-news-tottenham-var-16774415

Same old mantra but does not address whether Oliver made a "clear and obvious" error. He and the VAR official were probably the only ones who didn't think this was the case.
 
We ought to have been out of sight - poor finishing and poor defending cost us.

Presumably whether VAR is any good or not will depend on how much we appear to benefit from it and how much others (Liverpool) don't.

It's only been two games and I already hate it - and that won't change if we lose the CL final to an unnoticed handball resulting in a soft retaken penalty.
 
This excerpt from a comment on an MEN piece about the disallowed goal seems to hit the spot....

“It seems that we have referees that will refrain from making a decision because they have VAR to make decisions for them and the the VAR team who will not intervene when the referee has missed a clear and obvious penalty.”

This could be one of the major weaknesses in the system - where referees bottle a decision because they think VAR will bail them out but the VAR official isn’t strong enough to challenge their colleague and tell them “I think you got that wrong”
 
This excerpt from a comment on an MEN piece about the disallowed goal seems to hit the spot....

“It seems that we have referees that will refrain from making a decision because they have VAR to make decisions for them and the the VAR team who will not intervene when the referee has missed a clear and obvious penalty.”

This could be one of the major weaknesses in the system - where referees bottle a decision because they think VAR will bail them out but the VAR official isn’t strong enough to challenge their colleague and tell them “I think you got that wrong”

To add to that, a VAR team that are often less experienced than the onfield referee so will be reluctant to undermine them.

These aren't just teething problems, this needs major reconstructive surgery.
 
I think we are getting closer to the nub of the issue here regarding the non-award of the penalty when Rodri was being manhandled.

"VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified.
The referee will explain their decision to the VAR, and what they have seen.
If the evidence provided by the broadcast footage does not accord with what the referee believes they have seen, then the VAR can recommend an overturn." (my underlining & emphasis added)​

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297392

To my reading what this is saying is that unless the video footage differs from what the on-field referee BELIEVES they have seen, then the VAR will not overturn.

In other words, it was all down to how Oliver described what he saw.......it does not mention whether the VAR would independently have drawn anything to his attention and asked for his view. If they didn't and simply failed to say anything then the decision was purely Oliver's alone. They would have had to have said "We think there was a penalty offence there - holding on a City player" and Oliver MUST have said, "Yes I saw it - just a coming together, not a penalty for me"(my words). Because if he didn't then either the VAR failed to interpret that grappling as an offence (they would be in a minority) or Oliver didn't see it, and if not, why didn't he stop play and ask to consult the pitchside monitor?

What happened on Saturday stinks.

This just reinforces for me the need to have the audio between the officials available because this reeks of potential for misuse.
_________________________________

I am searching for stats on the use of VAR - number of VAR referrals, number of changed decisions, by match, by club etc

.....strangely they do not seem to exist.

It may be too early but I think that is silly. Stats exist for everything else, crosses, passes, shots etc WTF not on how many times VAR intervenes in a game. It will be very interesting to see just how many times the system is used on a match by match, club by club basis....
 
Any City fan who was arrested for the violence outside the ground should be banned for life by the Club, it disgraces the Club

Fans who just want to watch a football match including visiting fans, who should not be subject to any forms of violence no matter what the circumstances and to use an excuse that they felt that they were subject to an unfair rule had nothing to do with the opposing fans.

I am pleased to say the GMP have arrested two so far (a lot better than the Merseyside Cowboy outfit) who made not one single arrest when the City bus was attacked.

This should be nipped in the bud and strongest possible message by the Club to these idiots should be The Club will tolerate no such behaviour.
 
I think we are getting closer to the nub of the issue here regarding the non-award of the penalty when Rodri was being manhandled.

"VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified.
The referee will explain their decision to the VAR, and what they have seen.
If the evidence provided by the broadcast footage does not accord with what the referee believes they have seen, then the VAR can recommend an overturn." (my underlining & emphasis added)​

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297392

To my reading what this is saying is that unless the video footage differs from what the on-field referee BELIEVES they have seen, then the VAR will not overturn.

In other words, it was all down to how Oliver described what he saw.......it does not mention whether the VAR would independently have drawn anything to his attention and asked for his view. If they didn't and simply failed to say anything then the decision was purely Oliver's alone. They would have had to have said "We think there was a penalty offence there - holding on a City player" and Oliver MUST have said, "Yes I saw it - just a coming together, not a penalty for me"(my words). Because if he didn't then either the VAR failed to interpret that grappling as an offence (they would be in a minority) or Oliver didn't see it, and if not, why didn't he stop play and ask to consult the pitchside monitor?

What happened on Saturday stinks.

This just reinforces for me the need to have the audio between the officials available because this reeks of potential for misuse.
_________________________________

I am searching for stats on the use of VAR - number of VAR referrals, number of changed decisions, by match, by club etc

.....strangely they do not seem to exist.

It may be too early but I think that is silly. Stats exist for everything else, crosses, passes, shots etc WTF not on how many times VAR intervenes in a game. It will be very interesting to see just how many times the system is used on a match by match, club by club basis....


'The law is a Ass' - Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens 1839, and nothing changes
 
Rather than reply to any particular point made above, all I can point out in this is the situation that was probably referred to in any of the West Ham threads either MDT or PMR.....

Dean didn't look as he was going to award us the penalty at West Ham at first.
I remember thinking as he half turned away following the contact on Mahrez....

'He's not going to give it....'
 
Rather than reply to any particular point made above, all I can point out in this is the situation that was probably referred to in any of the West Ham threads either MDT or PMR.....

Dean didn't look as he was going to award us the penalty at West Ham at first.
I remember thinking as he half turned away following the contact on Mahrez....

'He's not going to give it....'

Yep, noted that at the time myself.
 
I would love to hear an explanation from a referee as to why the grappling of Rodri was not worthy of a penalty.
 
I would love to hear an explanation from a referee as to why the grappling of Rodri was not worthy of a penalty.

Indeed.
The only thing I can think of is that initially it was seen as six of one, and half a dozen of the other, before it degenerated into a semi head lock.
 
I would love to hear an explanation from a referee as to why the grappling of Rodri was not worthy of a penalty.

If Oliver thinks it is not a penalty, then VAR should have pointed it out as a clear and obvious error and here is where it is at fault VAR did not think it was a penalty, probably the only two people in the world except Spurs, Liverpool and JoMU fans that thought it was and I suspect even some of them did as well
 
If Oliver thinks it is not a penalty, then VAR should have pointed it out as a clear and obvious error and here is where it is at fault VAR did not think it was a penalty, probably the only two people in the world except Spurs, Liverpool and JoMU fans that thought it was and I suspect even some of them did as well

But Spuds, dippers and rags would never admit it but would expect a penalty if Kane, Salad it Rashnaldo were dragged to the ground in a similar fashion.
 
Indeed.
The only thing I can think of is that initially it was seen as six of one, and half a dozen of the other, before it degenerated into a semi head lock.

Thing is I can't see where (or why) Rodri would want or need to grab hold of Lamela in that position.

I think if you used a clip of that incident in a referee's training seminar 98 out 100 would say it was a foul & therefore a penalty. The only two dissenting opinions would be Michael Oliver and Graham Scott.

Honestly I got tired of feeling hard done by a whole ago once Pep's brand of football was shown to be delivering such sumptuous football. Those feelings are bubbling back the surface again as, unless we have some VAR controversy free games, I begin to think this has become just another tool to screw us over.
 
Thing is I can't see where (or why) Rodri would want or need to grab hold of Lamela in that position.

I think if you used a clip of that incident in a referee's training seminar 98 out 100 would say it was a foul & therefore a penalty. The only two dissenting opinions would be Michael Oliver and Graham Scott.

Honestly I got tired of feeling hard done by a whole ago once Pep's brand of football was shown to be delivering such sumptuous football. Those feelings are bubbling back the surface again as, unless we have some VAR controversy free games, I begin to think this has become just another tool to screw us over.

There was a bit of jostling between Rodri and Lamela before the kick was taken, nothing in it but when Rodri stole a march on Lamela following this Lamela grabbed him around the neck.

I recall thinking when the announcement of VAR coming in was made that Chris Smalling's career is over as every set piece that comes into the Utd box you'll see him swinging out of someone, turns out I was wrong, this type of thing is apparently ok:shrug:
 
There was a bit of jostling between Rodri and Lamela before the kick was taken, nothing in it but when Rodri stole a march on Lamela following this Lamela grabbed him around the neck.

I recall thinking when the announcement of VAR coming in was made that Chris Smalling's career is over as every set piece that comes into the Utd box you'll see him swinging out of someone, turns out I was wrong, this type of thing is apparently ok:shrug:

Seems so.......until it's Laporte on an opponent. Then we'll see it being given - possibly with VAR telling the on field ref. The new technology now opens the door for us to get screwed more often because if one ref doesn't see fit to do so, another one can get involved.

Still fresh in my mind is the penalty awarded to Stoke in the first game of the season a while back when Sterling blocked Ryan Shawcross at a corner.... supposedly the start of a new era with officials stamping out the grappling at set pieces. Strangely I don't recall any other team get penalised for the remainder of that season certainly not Smalling who has made it his trademark.
 
^ Which seemed to be a square up for the earlier City penalty in the game for what looked a much clearer offence by.......Mike Dean.

Look at this.....


That fails to consider whether Rodri was being pushed/shoved.....either way he was being impeded.

Also, I would like them to explain then, since when has having an arm around the top of an opponent's body been a legitimate and acceptable marking technique?