Too many penalties?

Bevan
First Team Squad
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post picture 2440

Anyone else think there are too many penalties in the World Cup?

Seems like about one every game on average, with many games decided by a penalty.

Perhaps some yellow cards for simulation might cut down on that?

threatD
WeeNix
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

Its not simulation. Defenders in general have completely failed to adapt. Can think of any penalties that were given that were clearly not penalties that werent over turned (Neymar), whereas there are numerous examples of penalties that should have been given by VAR that werent.

happydays
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

Plenty of obvious penalties not been given either, eg Kane v Tunisia and Mitrovic v Switzerland, but lots of other similar ones been ignored as well

2ndBest
Moderator
Appiah without the pace
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post 1620805 10152445803254239 1114551251 n

threatD wrote:

Its not simulation. Defenders in general have completely failed to adapt. Can think of any penalties that were given that were clearly not penalties that werent over turned (Neymar), whereas there are numerous examples of penalties that should have been given by VAR that werent.

The two in the Saudi game were very questionable. As was the handball in the Portugal game.  

el grapadura
Moderator
Woof Woof
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post picture 1609

2ndBest wrote:

threatD wrote:

Its not simulation. Defenders in general have completely failed to adapt. Can think of any penalties that were given that were clearly not penalties that werent over turned (Neymar), whereas there are numerous examples of penalties that should have been given by VAR that werent.

The two in the Saudi game were very questionable. As was the handball in the Portugal game.  

The Portugal one was very similar to the pen that Aussie got against Denmark, which was borderline outrageous.

ClubOranje
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

If they are going to give penalties for some of these "hand ball" decisions they need to change the laws of the game. No way do some of these constitute "a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm"

For the rest, if defenders want to hold people, then they need to be prepared to concede penalties. Holding an opponent is an offense punishable by a direct free kick (penalty if in the area). 

bennie99
WeeNix
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default
They set the bar by awarding that pen to France against Aus when they could easily have let it go. With the standard they set on reversing pens, i.e not a just an absolute howler, they've had to do the same with every other decision.
bling blang blah
Tegal
Moderator
Head Sleuth
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post 6a831056 9031 45d7 8d6d 949589ae360d

Just don’t let VAR rule on penalties. Sorted. 

Allegedly

Tegal
Moderator
Head Sleuth
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post 6a831056 9031 45d7 8d6d 949589ae360d

el grapadura wrote:

2ndBest wrote:

threatD wrote:

Its not simulation. Defenders in general have completely failed to adapt. Can think of any penalties that were given that were clearly not penalties that werent over turned (Neymar), whereas there are numerous examples of penalties that should have been given by VAR that werent.

The two in the Saudi game were very questionable. As was the handball in the Portugal game.  

The Portugal one was very similar to the pen that Aussie got against Denmark, which was borderline outrageous.

Just saw the Portugal penalty. Absolutely ridiculous. 

Allegedly

austin11
Trialist
FilledEmptyEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

As of Sunday there were already more penalties than in the whole of  the last World Cup. There was another four on Monday.....

VAR is definitely changing the face of the game. 

Its great reading the European football bogs......everyone is talking endlessly about VAR. Which is very funny because we were told that VAR was meant to eliminate refereeing controversy....and now it is the number one topic of conversation.

As we know from a whole season of VAR in the A-League VAR is...to be kind, is still a work in progress.

In this WC VAR has been hugely irregular. There have some really important fouls in the box that VAR has not even referred. Some that come to mind are Boutang taking out Berg in the German vs Sweden game, the Serbian striker being gang tackled. A clear trip in Argentinas first game, Kane being wrestled in the Tunisian game. There have been plenty of others......non of them got referred by VAR.

I'll bet you i the knock out phase there is going to be a shiite storm over VAR is some very very big games. 

sthn.jeff
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post brick wall

If VAR is to stay, as seems likely, my view is that any incidents should be viewed only at actual speed, Super Slow mo, frame by frame just distorts things far too much

aitkenmike
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 1277

Tegal wrote:

Just don’t let VAR [snip] . Sorted. 

aitkenmike
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 1277

threatD wrote:

Its not simulation. Defenders in general have completely failed to adapt. Can think of any penalties that were given that were clearly not penalties that werent over turned (Neymar), whereas there are numerous examples of penalties that should have been given by VAR that werent.

Taking out the stupid handball penalties and I agree.  I don't think you can blame simulation for the number we have seen.

aitkenmike
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 1277

austin11 wrote:

I'll bet you i the knock out phase there is going to be a shiite storm over VAR is some very very big games. 

I really hope that there is a massive VAR controversy that overshadows the final.  I'm willing to sacrifice this WC final if it means that VAR gets the boot for the future.

Fitzy
Starting XI
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post 561027 10150702280021730 499430583 n

sthn.jeff wrote:

If VAR is to stay, as seems likely, my view is that any incidents should be viewed only at actual speed, Super Slow mo, frame by frame just distorts things far too much

This is crazy, why would you introduce video technology and then not use it? I think a better approach would be to ensure there is a more consistent understanding of what constitutes a clear and obvious error. That could include consideration of how the 'foul' would have looked in person at full speed. If it's a 50-50 call and it wouldn't have looked dodgy at full speed, then it's not a clear and obvious error. But to introduce a new technology and then not use it to it's full potential seems like the worst of both worlds.

Oska
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post paul ifill o

It depends what you're looking for.  Slow motion is very useful for determining off-sides or whether the ball has made contact with a player, but does distort assessments of whether tackles are fouls or handballs were intentional. 

You know we belong together...

Walsall Boy
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

I have a different viewpoint.

One of the hassles of modern sport is that the referee has one set of eyes (plus help from his assistants) and only sees things in real speed from one angle. I remember when playing (1980s) being right next to the referee as a defender in a crowded 18 yard box when an opponent went to deck and his mates being incensed when the ref did not give a penalty. The ref had the same view as me and there was no way it looked like a penalty (30 years later trying to be objective). Yet talking to our subs bench after the game, who were all doing the usual stretch session behind the goal at the time, all said to a man that it was a clear penalty and the tackler confirmed it by saying nothing when we quizzed him after.

Yet when we watch on TV we have the benefit of 20 plus cameras, most of which are elevated and covering every possible angle, to make the decision. After the event and with the advantage of knowing what we are looking for. We all cry foul when we see something that the ref has not seen (or vice versa) and wonder what blind school he graduated from. Those of us that have played should know better. I think of in particular the penalty that Matt Conger gave in the Nigeria v Iceland game after consulting the VAR. I suspect it was just an angle thing because while there was a clear trip and a penalty was very justified, the contact was minimal and would have been easily missed especially if by sheer bad luck another player got in the referees way just at the critical moment.

What I favour is scrapping VAR for penalties etc and using another official on the goal line like they have been doing in the Champions and Europa Leagues. In Conger's incident, I reckon another set of eyes on the opposite angle would have picked that trip up. The same applies for hand ball. Another angle and opinion. More importantly, seeing it normal speed.

I would retain the VAR though for foul play incidents. There was a lot of criticism in 2006 over the Zidene head butt. No football fan could ever say that the red card was not justified. What was in question was how did the referee find out when it was apparent he had not seen it? Rumour (and I stress rumour) at the time was the 4th official had seen it on a TV monitor on the side line and tipped off the nearest Assistant Referee. That was against the rules even if morally the correct decision was reached.

Hand ball is a very difficult area for referees. We all know the law says that it has to be deliberate but the definition of deliberate is very subjective. I got penalised once for hand ball when a very poor first touch from me from a lofted pass saw the ball bounce up from my thigh onto my forearm. The referee gave a free kick against me that was perfectly correct and I knew it and accepted it. After the game though I got chatting to the ref in the club bar and tried to convince him that while I agreed I had handled the ball there was no intent to do so on my part so was therefore not deliberate. I might add here that the ball in being passed to me had travelled 20 yards and there was not another player, friend or foe, within 10 yards of me. He told me that referees look at it by saying was the contact with the arm avoidable by the player? If yes, free kick or penalty, if not, play on. He further added that if you take the dictionary definition of deliberate (done consciously and intentionally) a referee will get a card out if that was the case. Yellow if no potential goal involved and red if it denied a goal. What the law actually needs therefore is the wording of the law changed from deliberate to avoidable. It would not change how we play and referee the game. But it would help is understand the rulings.

ClubOranje
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

Walsall Boy, fully agree with your handball assessment here. Change the wording in the LOTG

martinb
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post default

Walsall Boy wrote:

I have a different viewpoint.

One of the hassles of modern sport is that the referee has one set of eyes (plus help from his assistants) and only sees things in real speed from one angle. I remember when playing (1980s) being right next to the referee as a defender in a crowded 18 yard box when an opponent went to deck and his mates being incensed when the ref did not give a penalty. The ref had the same view as me and there was no way it looked like a penalty (30 years later trying to be objective). Yet talking to our subs bench after the game, who were all doing the usual stretch session behind the goal at the time, all said to a man that it was a clear penalty and the tackler confirmed it by saying nothing when we quizzed him after.

Yet when we watch on TV we have the benefit of 20 plus cameras, most of which are elevated and covering every possible angle, to make the decision. After the event and with the advantage of knowing what we are looking for. We all cry foul when we see something that the ref has not seen (or vice versa) and wonder what blind school he graduated from. Those of us that have played should know better. I think of in particular the penalty that Matt Conger gave in the Nigeria v Iceland game after consulting the VAR. I suspect it was just an angle thing because while there was a clear trip and a penalty was very justified, the contact was minimal and would have been easily missed especially if by sheer bad luck another player got in the referees way just at the critical moment.

What I favour is scrapping VAR for penalties etc and using another official on the goal line like they have been doing in the Champions and Europa Leagues. In Conger's incident, I reckon another set of eyes on the opposite angle would have picked that trip up. The same applies for hand ball. Another angle and opinion. More importantly, seeing it normal speed.

I would retain the VAR though for foul play incidents. There was a lot of criticism in 2006 over the Zidene head butt. No football fan could ever say that the red card was not justified. What was in question was how did the referee find out when it was apparent he had not seen it? Rumour (and I stress rumour) at the time was the 4th official had seen it on a TV monitor on the side line and tipped off the nearest Assistant Referee. That was against the rules even if morally the correct decision was reached.

Hand ball is a very difficult area for referees. We all know the law says that it has to be deliberate but the definition of deliberate is very subjective. I got penalised once for hand ball when a very poor first touch from me from a lofted pass saw the ball bounce up from my thigh onto my forearm. The referee gave a free kick against me that was perfectly correct and I knew it and accepted it. After the game though I got chatting to the ref in the club bar and tried to convince him that while I agreed I had handled the ball there was no intent to do so on my part so was therefore not deliberate. I might add here that the ball in being passed to me had travelled 20 yards and there was not another player, friend or foe, within 10 yards of me. He told me that referees look at it by saying was the contact with the arm avoidable by the player? If yes, free kick or penalty, if not, play on. He further added that if you take the dictionary definition of deliberate (done consciously and intentionally) a referee will get a card out if that was the case. Yellow if no potential goal involved and red if it denied a goal. What the law actually needs therefore is the wording of the law changed from deliberate to avoidable. It would not change how we play and referee the game. But it would help is understand the rulings.

Great post 

pacy

Post New Reply

Please Login or Create an account to post a reply.