Their 1st goal was simply poor, Diouf perhaps could have reacted quicker, their 2nd, again Diouf was hopeless, that was such a needless penalty to give away and a game changer, but he's young and raw, hopefully he'll learn....He's certainly good going forward.... Their 3rd, AWB did little to show he cared, but for me Mads again should have done better... Mads, I know others might disagree but simply doesn't put any confidence out there, his distribution is probably a bit better than Areola, but for me, if we stay in the PL, we need a new # 1.... The woodwork, ref & VAR certainly did us no favours yesterday, but we got a point against Man City, so COYI, why not against Arsenal a week today... For tonight, it'll be, come on you Villians......
West Ham should have been given two spot-kicks in their 3-0 loss at Brentford - though one of the decisions was not considered to have reached the VAR threshold.
Keane Lewis-Potter held Tomas Soucek "in a clear non-footballing action which impacted the West Ham player's movement" and the panel unanimously felt the VAR Tony Harrington should have stepped in.
It was also felt referee Craig Pawson should have pointed to the spot in the 77th minute when Yehor Yarmolyuk slipped and brought down Pablo inside the area.
The thing that I think is most crazy about though, though, is that the panel agreed that Yarmolyuk fouled Pablo, but didn't agree that it should have been sent to VAR. I don't understand it at all
The thing that I think is most crazy about though, though, is that the panel agreed that Yarmolyuk fouled Pablo, but didn't agree that it should have been sent to VAR. I don't understand it at all
I understand what they mean, they're saying that on balance it's probably a penalty but that it doesn't meet the supposedly high bar needed for intervention.
The fact that they are having a summit to 'reset' VAR so that it is used only for 'clear and obvious' indicates that while this criterion may be what the rules say, not all leagues are applying it.
Unless I've misunderstood the article "clear and obvious" is what UEFA wants, the problem is other leagues use VAR too often and they want them to be more like the Premier League with fewer interventions
Comments
Yesterday nothing went for us.....
Their 1st goal was simply poor, Diouf perhaps could have reacted quicker, their 2nd, again Diouf was hopeless, that was such a needless penalty to give away and a game changer, but he's young and raw, hopefully he'll learn....He's certainly good going forward....
Their 3rd, AWB did little to show he cared, but for me Mads again should have done better...
Mads, I know others might disagree but simply doesn't put any confidence out there, his distribution is probably a bit better than Areola, but for me, if we stay in the PL, we need a new # 1....
The woodwork, ref & VAR certainly did us no favours yesterday, but we got a point against Man City, so COYI, why not against Arsenal a week today...
For tonight, it'll be, come on you Villians......
This article about VAR failings includes this passage:
I assumed that VAR was the same in all competitions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cly6993wn64o
Figures released last month showed the Bundesliga and La Liga come next at 0.38 interventions per game, with Serie A at 0.44 and Ligue 1 at 0.47.
In the Champions League, interventions are at a rate of 0.45 per game."
But that doesn't say VARs in other leagues use different criteria, just that our VARs are less likely to intervene (tell the ref to go to the monitor)
According to IFAB website it's "clear and obvious" and they set the rules for all of football worldwide
https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/
UEFA's website also uses "clear and obvious" for VAR in the Champions League
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/VAR/02/59/09/51/2590951_DOWNLOAD.pdf
I don't think its just the Premier League
...how bad must it be in other leagues???