West Ham v Arsenal
- Thread starter lincs22
- Start date
Definite foul on raya for me, said it as soon as I saw the replay. Need to look at the impact all the alleged fouls would have had. Raya isn't impeded - he catches the ball and rice's foul has no impact. Similarly the other grappling for me doesn't affect any of the players ability to play the balled based on what has/hasn't been given this season
This reads like - "A foul is only a foul when having a direct impact on the game".
This could be the latest in a long list of crazy and poorly worded amendments by IFAB. Perhaps it could be a directive for next season. (rice's foul has no impact).
Certainly would save us all a a lot of time arguing about and discussing such incidents.
Iain
iaindw1
the Forrest one v Chelsea had no impact. he was not getting to it. cross was over hit.This reads like - "A foul is only a foul when having a direct impact on the game".
This could be the latest in a long list of crazy and poorly worded amendments by IFAB. Perhaps it could be a directive for next season. (rice's foul has no impact).
Certainly would save us all a a lot of time arguing about and discussing such incidents.
Issue is, if we had no VAR and that goal was given, Arsenal would be furious and their be pundits out there saying referees need help, how can they see what's going on with all the carnage.
I don't find it surprising one iota that the reaction seems to be yes it's probably a foul but where is the consistency instead of praising VAR on intervening on what would be a goal that should not be given. I'm sick of people going on about consistency, we will never get perfection, never have and never will.
Agree, and I keep coming back to the fact that people wanted VAR to correct mistakes, and I dare say this incident would have been classed as such a mistake pre-VAR had the goal been allowed.
For me it is a very clear foul, and if Chris Kavanagh has said to VAR that he didn't see the arm across Raya's chest / neck and / or his shirt being pulled it feels that a VAR intervention was inevitable
The whole object of the fouls was to stop attackers getting to where the ball was dropping - of course there's no impact if they're wrestled to the ground instead!
This was just covered on Mic'd up, and the audio played out pretty much as I thought it would. Chris Kavanagh immediately says he didn't see a foul and there was no indication an AR had. Darren England on VAR pretty much said he thought it was a foul straight away, then seemed to talk himself in and out of it over the next few minutes, before deciding it should be a review. They also had to check the other potential fouls which took time. None of them were deemed impactful because the potentially fouled players wouldn't have got to the ball to challenge for it and / or they happened at the same time as the foul on Raya.
Once Kavanagh looked at it at the screen he said it was a foul straight away, but England wanted to also make sure he was OK with the other potential fouls not being an issue, which he was, so the goal was disallowed. Given he clearly didn't see it real time, and said foul straight away on watching the replay, that does feel like it falls into the clear and obvious error category. The potential issue is that VAR sent him when they weren't really sure it was a C&O error, so almost a case of the right outcome being reached through the wrong procedure.
Webb was OK with it and was keen to point out that they have been consistent that holding of a keeper, as opposed just bodily contact, is always penalised and they'd told the clubs this before the season started.
Once Kavanagh looked at it at the screen he said it was a foul straight away, but England wanted to also make sure he was OK with the other potential fouls not being an issue, which he was, so the goal was disallowed. Given he clearly didn't see it real time, and said foul straight away on watching the replay, that does feel like it falls into the clear and obvious error category. The potential issue is that VAR sent him when they weren't really sure it was a C&O error, so almost a case of the right outcome being reached through the wrong procedure.
Webb was OK with it and was keen to point out that they have been consistent that holding of a keeper, as opposed just bodily contact, is always penalised and they'd told the clubs this before the season started.
The thing that stands out for me is the referee says nothing(so clearly didn't see it) yet he was static in the same spot, maybe it's just me but could his positioning could be better? Could this be a consequence we got VAR in the background so the term "lazy refereeing" comes into the media terms?
However this is why we do have VAR because the referee has missed a clear impact foul and I think the actions of Trossard are minimal at best imo. The rice holding comes after the initial foul and is probably not enough to bring the player down imo.
However this is why we do have VAR because the referee has missed a clear impact foul and I think the actions of Trossard are minimal at best imo. The rice holding comes after the initial foul and is probably not enough to bring the player down imo.
Doesn't really matter where he stood there unless he has x-ray vision, he can't see through players' bodies. The only way he would have a chance of seeing that would be to be close to the goal line where referees used to stand, and there is no way they will do that now.
Is that because they need to be well placed to see any vital incidents in the case of a breakaway and nothing vital ever happens close to the goal?
A breakaway is one reason, plus the fact that the AR is positioned behind (usually) the corner flag/goal line so would be duplication of the same position, albeit the AR is further away. Also, from being positioned in front of the penalty area this enables the Referee to move if required & provides a panoramic view of all those positioned in front of him/her. In other words there is a better chance of identifying penal offences from where they are positioned in the modern game than on the goal-line.
A number of factors. Being caught out having to run through a lot of traffic if there is a break away is one of them, but the key thing is viewing angle. On the edge of the area you can move around to get a better view, by the goal line you are limited as you obviously can't move in front of the goal, and unless you are 6'7 tall you'd have no chance of seeing anything if the corner is played deep to the far post as you'd be looking through a sea of bodies.
Admittedly with potentially claret and blue tinted spectacles, the check on other potential fouls was at best cursory, with Kavanagh shown just one view (despite numerous other potential offences by Arsenal players) and even then very briefly. It is also the goalkeeper who initiates the contact as Todibo is being held off him by Arsenal defender, and Pablo is being manhandled by Trossard - who has his arms round him - whilst backing into Raya.
This seems pretty clear, especially on behalf of the AVAR. You can almost hear that he's thinking "it's probably a foul, but there are about five West Ham players being fouled so should we really be referring this?" This feels like classic re-refereeing, as opposed to dealing with the howler/blatant miss that VAR was supposed to deal with, but that's the world we live in now.
Just thinking practically, given what was/is potentially at stake at both ends of the table, I find it inconceivable that Webb wouldn't have defended whatever was decided by VAR or the referee. Simply no way he could come out and say "they were wrong" when one point dropped for West Ham and two points gained by Arsenal might have a profound impact on the winner and relegation.
I don’t think HW could/would defend the indefensible, but in this case, the words that came from him were a fair reflection of what occurred & the advice provided at the start of the season. Some may be saying they have incidences when the outcomes were different & therefore inconsistent, but i doubt they are the same - perhaps slightly similar at best, but not the same, unless I am just mistaken.
The only thing I strongly disagree with there is that is was Raya who in any way initiated contact, that just simply did not happen.
Apologies Rusty - he initiated the contact with Todibo prior to Pablo backing into/being pushed into him (by Trossard).