Newcastle penalty: what’s var for?

[Ex Footy Legs]

I’m just clueless when it comes to VAR, how they can’t just see the Newcastle player has dived is beyond me. It should’ve took 5secs to tell the referee no penalty and yellow card for simulation
I mean WTF is going on ?

 

[Paulroddam7]

Penalty for me

 

[changingman]

Was it given on the pitch? I'm amazed VAR even looked at it to be honest, looked stonewall to me.

If it was given on the pitch, it certainly wasn't a "clear and obvious" error. They really do themselves zero favours by reviewing absolutely every decision.

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

This ^^^ is an absolutely perfect example of why VAR does not, can not and will never ever ever work.

 

[Nano]

VAR is being blamed for incompetent refereeing again. VAR isn't the problem. It has provided multiple angles, everyone can see it is a blatant dive. All the information is there to make the correct decision but the incompetent officials have made the wrong decision.

 

[Ex Footy Legs]

Was it given on the pitch? I'm amazed VAR even looked at it to be honest, looked stonewall to me.

If it was given on the pitch, it certainly wasn't a "clear and obvious" error. They really do themselves zero favours by reviewing absolutely every decision.

Omg. You people are utterly clueless about football

 

[Ex Footy Legs]

This ^^^ is an absolutely perfect example of why VAR does not, can not and will never ever ever work.

It’s the officials looking at it who are scared or incompetent to highlight obvious errors
What is the game coming to that this can’t be quickly figured out once it is looked at again….jeez

 

[changingman]

Omg. You people are utterly clueless about football

You people?! Care to elaborate....

 

[Priv]

100% a dive the defender pulled out of the challenge.Another example of why an ex player should be in the VAR room to offer advice.

 

[Tryasize10]

There were two other incidents that I'm confused over. Lascelles had both arms around a wolves player as the ball is played in, nothing given not even a review from what I could gather. Then a few mins later a wolves defender clearly pulls Wilson's shirt as he tries to jump for a header at a corner. I thought var was there to look at things the ref obviously missed?

 

[asredastheycome]

Never a penalty in a million years.

 

[Mr Sheppey]

VAR is there just for people to think there won’t be mistakes, but in reality it is no different to a referee on the pitch.

 

[Ex Footy Legs]

You people?! Care to elaborate....

Yeah, I can, var is there to access whether it was a foul and inform the referee.
Both sky pundits admitted that he didn’t touch him and it was clear he didn’t touch him watching the replays so how anyone sane can conclude it’s a penalty is, by definition, a fool and clueless.

 

[Ex Footy Legs]

There were two other incidents that I'm confused over. Lascelles had both arms around a wolves player as the ball is played in, nothing given not even a review from what I could gather. Then a few mins later a wolves defender clearly pulls Wilson's shirt as he tries to jump for a header at a corner. I thought var was there to look at things the ref obviously missed?

Totally agree. Especially lascalles with both arms around the wolves forward, I mean, WTF, he basically trapped him as the forward had control of the ball

 

[S7DiscoDown]

Never a pen. Yet it's once again not VARs 'fault'. It's still the human incompetence watching it.

The worst part is they can view it several times. Yet still get it wrong. Simply no excuses for it not to be right after this amount of time. It's no longer new.

 

[Chris_Boro]

It completely depends on what the ref said to VAR.

VAR, should operate in isolation. If they come to a different conclusion to the onfield decision, the ref goes to the monitor. Simple.

What we have now are grey areas in the rules made worse by the incompetence and weakness of officials.

 

[changingman]

Yeah, I can, var is there to access whether it was a foul and inform the referee.
Both sky pundits admitted that he didn’t touch him and it was clear he didn’t touch him watching the replays so how anyone sane can conclude it’s a penalty is, by definition, a fool and clueless.

Firstly, the referee assesses if it's a foul, VAR reviews if a clear and obvious error has been made. I wouldn't know what the pundits said as the sound was off (I was watching it in the background).

That said, there's a couple of angles online and unless there's another angle I haven't seen it's not conclusive from either that zero contact has been made. Whether Schar dived or not is moot, providing there is contact.

There's probably an argument that could be made that Schar has run into the wolves player, and I agree, had the Wolves player not made any motion at all to clear the ball, it's not a pen, but the fact he swipes at the ball, means you can understand why someone might suggest contact has been initiated.

 

[ForssAwakens]

Omg. You people are utterly clueless about football

Irony alert

 

[Paulroddam7]

I think he caught his foot. Probably goes down too easily but it’s still a foul. Schar doesn’t have to take the whack for it to be a foul either. If someone is wildly swinging towards you, you’re going to try and avoid being kicked. The fact he tries to pull out late doesn’t change that.

Hardly the worst decision in the world, is it?

 

[FishofContemplation]

Yeah, I can, var is there to access whether it was a foul and inform the referee.
Both sky pundits admitted that he didn’t touch him and it was clear he didn’t touch him watching the replays so how anyone sane can conclude it’s a penalty is, by definition, a fool and clueless.

That might be what VAR ought to be there for but it’s not what it is there for under the current operating rules. It is there to access whether it is clearly and obviously not a foul and inform the referee. That’s the problem for me. It’s an extra layer of subjectivity on what is already a subjective decision (basically, whether the challenge is careless enough). More room for confusion, and a get out clause if they don’t want to contradict their mate on the field.

All of the sports that have introduced technology have essentially concluded that you have to use it without qualification*. You use the technology because it’s better otherwise you wouldn’t use it at all. So when the technology disagrees with the field official, you go with the technology. The extra layer that “clear and obvious” provides is the big mistake here.

* - I suppose the umpire’s call feature in cricket is a glaring exception to this, but that maybe reflects cricket’s strong tradition of giving the benefit of the doubt to the batter. There is no real benefit of the doubt tradition to one side or the other in football.