VAR in RUS NZL
- Thread starter santa sangria
- Start date
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Correct call for me, if a defender makes that challenge 30 yards out I would be raving about it being a great tackle
Yes there is momentum after the keeper plays ball which makes contact with the strikers legs but that's the whole nature of a contact sport
Yes there is momentum after the keeper plays ball which makes contact with the strikers legs but that's the whole nature of a contact sport
i had to re-watch it after my post as i didnt see any contact originally...and looking closely for it now, i still cant
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
You cant see the goalkeeper making contact with his legs on the striker after the ball is away? The right knee of goalkeeper makes contact with the striker?
if its not been given, its nothing to do with it being a dive, its because the VAR or whoever has decided its simply a fair tackle end of
And for the 1% its worth, I agree !
if its not been given, its nothing to do with it being a dive, its because the VAR or whoever has decided its simply a fair tackle end of
And for the 1% its worth, I agree !
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Last replay of it.....keepers right knee makes contact (natural momentuem) with the strikers inside left of right of foot. If you cant see this contact then I am not sure you know the definition of contact.
no no, contact with the ball! i see the contact on the attacker...just thought you were on about contact with the ball!
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Last replay again....striker gets a touch to ball and keeper then gets touch to ball after this.
Glad we agree that there was physical contact though!!
Glad we agree that there was physical contact though!!
yeah, cant be argued there was contact with the striker!
i'm still not sure on the ball though!
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
FWiW for me I cannot fathom why the VAR is not giving pen here. The attacker plays the ball (even though one angle is misleading the other angles clearly show it is the attacker that kicks it) and the GK wipes him out when his knee makes contact with his standing foot.
In real time, I can't see how you could give a pen but either decision would be acceptable. But the VAR has to give a pen here.
This and the Chile offside have me very much on the fence on the VAR right now... I am sitting uncomfortably (and not just because I nearly used "contacts" as a verb).
In real time, I can't see how you could give a pen but either decision would be acceptable. But the VAR has to give a pen here.
This and the Chile offside have me very much on the fence on the VAR right now... I am sitting uncomfortably (and not just because I nearly used "contacts" as a verb).
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
If anything, the ball clips the goalkeepers uppermost stud. It changes direction for me, just
No way human can call it real time, it takes numerous views and even then, am not the God of Officiating, so it just might be there is no definite answer.
No pen for me. No dive. A fair tackle.
No way human can call it real time, it takes numerous views and even then, am not the God of Officiating, so it just might be there is no definite answer.
No pen for me. No dive. A fair tackle.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
14:52 the ball scrapes the goalkeepers boot/stud, a tackle.
what happens on the "follow through" after the keeper (for me) gets a pubic hair to the ball, is natural accepted contact in a contact sport.
what happens on the "follow through" after the keeper (for me) gets a pubic hair to the ball, is natural accepted contact in a contact sport.
Any player pulling out of a tackle in this tournament is now called a Con Fed Chicken! 
....
....
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Hang on... attacker plays the ball, then you say GK plays the ball, then contact... and you say no foul?
Or are you not seeing the player play the ball... ?
Genuine interest.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Just because there is contact does not make it a foul !
Striker gets touch to ball, then defender/goalie makes a touch (tackle/challenge) on the ball......
then natural movement/speed means 2 players will actually touch each other.
that's not criteria for a foul
(and no, am not saying every tackle where the ball is played makes everything ok)
Striker gets touch to ball, then defender/goalie makes a touch (tackle/challenge) on the ball......
then natural movement/speed means 2 players will actually touch each other.
that's not criteria for a foul
(and no, am not saying every tackle where the ball is played makes everything ok)
one
RefChat Addict
The biggest issue for me there is the striker's movement is away from the keeper. The keepers movement is towards the striker.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
That's football though? The goalkeeper moving away from the striker is not gonna help his chances of a save/tackle/block! Of course he is going to move to the striker!
And the same in reverse, of course the striker is going to try "round" the keeper or avoid him, the option of freezing and handing the ball to the goalkeeper would not make him too popular with team mates?
be a very different game if the defenders decided from now on not to make movements to attackers!!
one
RefChat Addict
Hmmm... using that argument, 90% of the penalties given for penalties committed by goalkeepers when being "rounded" should not have been given
I'm not sold on this one.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Hmmm... using that argument, 90% of the penalties given for penalties committed by goalkeepers when being "rounded" should not have been given
Extreme much.
My point was generally in the game, defenders will move TO the ball/opponent, whereas, strikers will try to take ball AWAY from the defenders, so, the idea that the keepers movement was towards the striker, is, well, its just football.
And am sure 10 refs will have 7 different takes on this incident, my contribution is, I don't see it as a foul. Striker touches ball, goalie (just) touches ball (at this point am deeming it to be "a tackle") then the keeper does indeed make contact with the striker, contact yes, a foul? not for me.