SWE - KOR
- Thread starter cwyeary
- Start date
I am a big fan of VAR but I fail to see how that penalty is a clear and obvious error? Ref was in a great position, emphatic no given. Right decision reached and is exactly how VAR should be used but I don’t think it’s clear and obvious? The fact the ref has to view the same angle in slow mo multiple times surely confirms this?
Clearly missed that the touch was from the Swedish player and not the Korean making the tackle I guess?
Anyway, right decision in the end but I don't know wtf was going on because ITV were showing weird videos of everything except what the referee was reviewing. =/
The touch is so marginal though that it took me replays to see who got it first, surely that isn’t clear and obvious?
Surely the review should come through during a natural break in play rather than stopping another attack? VAR being used as a comfort blanket perhaps - would ref have called it had it not been in place but wants the system to back him up?
Surely the review should come through during a natural break in play rather than stopping another attack? VAR being used as a comfort blanket perhaps - would ref have called it had it not been in place but wants the system to back him up?
Penalty count keeps ticking up with VAR reviewing every incident
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I think this is a good VAR decision but it serves to highlight the inconsistency in application. The Pavon trip was far more obvious than this and not reviewed. Gutted for my Argy boys I met on the plane on their way to the match last week.
Are there really referees who can look at this and say it's not 110% a penalty kick? If this isn't a clear and obvious error then nothing is.
The referee thought the Korean player touched the ball. I did too at first. It's a fast game and the human referee missed it. But the replays show that the Korean player missed the ball and made a nasty tackle. This has to be a penalty kick.
The referee thought the Korean player touched the ball. I did too at first. It's a fast game and the human referee missed it. But the replays show that the Korean player missed the ball and made a nasty tackle. This has to be a penalty kick.
VAR is sure to cause a higher penalty count. Thinking about my own decisions last season, of those penalties I gave, there was only one which I didn't feel great about, yet there were half a dozen I turned down which may have been given on review. The problem with Penalty Kicks, is the punishment doesn't always match the crime, so this natural consequence of VAR can't be a good thing. I say this; having had a decent bet on the Swedes
"Clear and Obvious" aside, that's an easy PK decision to give on replay, so I've got no problem with VAR getting involved with this incident in isolation. I just struggle to see why that is any more obvious than certain other decisions that haven't been VAR-d.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
I just in, only watched the pk incident on BBC catch up and honest, first glance, am like why on earth VAR, its as clear as day
Sorry for me, no VAR needed or should be called on, I think that's a straight forward call for any ref (even one without a stapled on FIFA badge)
Sorry for me, no VAR needed or should be called on, I think that's a straight forward call for any ref (even one without a stapled on FIFA badge)
Rock solid penalty. I agree; and concede that VAR exists because of this level of incompetence.
Yampy
RefChat Addict
Then the South Korea goal would be disallowed and the play brought back for the penalty. That's already happened with VAR.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Probably referring to the following incident in Holland.
"Nine minutes into the second half Vitesse midfielder Karim El Ahmadi was tripped in the box but referee Danny Makkelie waved away the clear penalty.
Less than a minute later Feyenoord went up the other end of the pitch and scored to take a 2-0 lead.
However, Makkelie then asked for clarification from the video assistant referee over Vitesse’s penalty appeal and Feyenoord’s goal.
Two minutes and 25 seconds after the foul was made the goal was disallowed and Vitesse were awarded the spot kick."
Dutch Super Cup VAR controversy
"Nine minutes into the second half Vitesse midfielder Karim El Ahmadi was tripped in the box but referee Danny Makkelie waved away the clear penalty.
Less than a minute later Feyenoord went up the other end of the pitch and scored to take a 2-0 lead.
However, Makkelie then asked for clarification from the video assistant referee over Vitesse’s penalty appeal and Feyenoord’s goal.
Two minutes and 25 seconds after the foul was made the goal was disallowed and Vitesse were awarded the spot kick."
Dutch Super Cup VAR controversy
one
RefChat Addict
Very easy decision having a look at it from the opposite viewing angle to that the referee and in slow motion. I disagree that it would have been straight forward form the referee's angle, in real time speed and only one look at it.
I thought this was a pk in real time. It was a very quick play and TV had a 90 degree different angle than the cr. Look at the video above. Cr had position most of us would have had. Cr had a much tougher angle to identify this than we did or var did as he had players bodies obscuring. Calling it incompetence is a bit extreme. Pretty certain he has officiated longer and at much higher levels than any of us, Big Cat. It is a pk all day. I am not a huge var fan but some of the VAR catches such as this and the FRA pk have me coming around. This one is a plus for VAR in my opinion
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
My first view was one look, same angle as ref, from left to right
Are we saying without var, this would not have been given? If so, incompetence is the correct word here
Are we saying without var, this would not have been given? If so, incompetence is the correct word here