The mancityfans.net football forum

mr_nool wrote:

ayrshireblue wrote:

Stones and Otamendi should have done better but Pukki was in an illegal position which is what VAR is meant to be looking at.
Do me a favour and let me know if this image is showing as I can see the other ones but obviously other people can't for some reason.

He's not in an illegal position if Ederson doesn't give him the time to get out of the box.
This is a non-issue and a grasping at straws.

I bet it would have been an issue if the goal was scored at the other end of the pitch.

gmercer1 wrote:

mr_nool wrote:

ayrshireblue wrote:

Stones and Otamendi should have done better but Pukki was in an illegal position which is what VAR is meant to be looking at.
Do me a favour and let me know if this image is showing as I can see the other ones but obviously other people can't for some reason.

He's not in an illegal position if Ederson doesn't give him the time to get out of the box.
This is a non-issue and a grasping at straws.

I bet it would have been an issue if the goal was scored at the other end of the pitch.

I bet there is no way to find out.

The whole VAR thing is a joke. They look at some things and ignore others.

Pukki had plenty of time to vacate the penalty area and it is his duty to do so not for the keeper to make sure he has. My point was that VAR should have disallowed the goal as he was in an illegal position when the ball became active. It's not clutching at straws, it's asking for the laws to be applied fairly across all 20 teams. Not too hard to understand.

ayrshireblue wrote:Pukki had plenty of time to vacate the penalty area and it is his duty to do so not for the keeper to make sure he has. My point was that VAR should have disallowed the goal as he was in an illegal position when the ball became active. It's not clutching at straws, it's asking for the laws to be applied fairly across all 20 teams. Not too hard to understand.

Doesn't really matter about Pukki being in the area . Pukki can do sod all about Ed wanting to play the ball quickly .

He was walking out of the area and by the time otto screwed up , because of the Stones cough up , he was way out of the box .

Take a look at that photo again . Zinc simply going forward , Rodri running by the otter and the Norwich player closing in on the otter , ready to pounce. The longer distance that Stones passed , right in front of the sticks too, was completely stupid . What we used to call a hospital pass . Bloody dangerous .

zuricity wrote:

ayrshireblue wrote:Pukki had plenty of time to vacate the penalty area and it is his duty to do so not for the keeper to make sure he has. My point was that VAR should have disallowed the goal as he was in an illegal position when the ball became active. It's not clutching at straws, it's asking for the laws to be applied fairly across all 20 teams. Not too hard to understand.

Doesn't really matter about Pukki being in the area . Pukki can do sod all about Ed wanting to play the ball quickly .

He was walking out of the area and by the time otto screwed up , because of the Stones cough up , he was way out of the box .

Take a look at that photo again . Zinc simply going forward , Rodri running by the otter and the Norwich player closing in on the otter , ready to pounce. The longer distance that Stones passed , right in front of the sticks too, was completely stupid . What we used to call a hospital pass . Bloody dangerous .

if you watch the whole build up to the 3rd goal, pukki keeps walking away from stones. only when otamongi gets tackled does he start moving towards the goal.
that goal was 150% our own fault.

sheblue wrote:The whole VAR thing is a joke. They look at some things and ignore others.

Yrs, they have a list of what they do and don't review, and encroaching on the ate a for goal kicks isn't on the list.

Nigels Tackle wrote:

zuricity wrote:

ayrshireblue wrote:Pukki had plenty of time to vacate the penalty area and it is his duty to do so not for the keeper to make sure he has. My point was that VAR should have disallowed the goal as he was in an illegal position when the ball became active. It's not clutching at straws, it's asking for the laws to be applied fairly across all 20 teams. Not too hard to understand.

Doesn't really matter about Pukki being in the area . Pukki can do sod all about Ed wanting to play the ball quickly .

He was walking out of the area and by the time otto screwed up , because of the Stones cough up , he was way out of the box .

Take a look at that photo again . Zinc simply going forward , Rodri running by the otter and the Norwich player closing in on the otter , ready to pounce. The longer distance that Stones passed , right in front of the sticks too, was completely stupid . What we used to call a hospital pass . Bloody dangerous .

if you watch the whole build up to the 3rd goal, pukki keeps walking away from stones. only when otamongi gets tackled does he start moving towards the goal.
that goal was 150% our own fault.

I am certainly not disputing the fact that it was a city cock up. Stones needs a good bollocking for what he did . should have given it back to Ed . to wellie upto Sergio.

Conceding the goal was definitely the City defence's fault. But VAR is in place to look at reasons why the goal shouldn't stand and it SHOULD NOT stand according to Law 16 which clearly states -
"Law 16 - The goal kick

The ball is in play once the kick is taken; it can be played before leaving the penalty area
Opponents must remain outside the penalty area until the ball is kicked"

VAR should have looked at the goal and decided that there was an offence caused by Pukki not being out the area when the ball became active. They didn't do this and I'm asking why?

ayrshireblue wrote:Conceding the goal was definitely the City defence's fault. But VAR is in place to look at reasons why the goal shouldn't stand and it SHOULD NOT stand according to Law 16 which clearly states -
"Law 16 - The goal kick

The ball is in play once the kick is taken; it can be played before leaving the penalty area
Opponents must remain outside the penalty area until the ball is kicked"

VAR should have looked at the goal and decided that there was an offence caused by Pukki not being out the area when the ball became active. They didn't do this and I'm asking why?

Because the law is an Ass.

ayrshireblue wrote:Conceding the goal was definitely the City defence's fault. But VAR is in place to look at reasons why the goal shouldn't stand and it SHOULD NOT stand according to Law 16 which clearly states -
"Law 16 - The goal kick

The ball is in play once the kick is taken; it can be played before leaving the penalty area
Opponents must remain outside the penalty area until the ball is kicked"

VAR should have looked at the goal and decided that there was an offence caused by Pukki not being out the area when the ball became active. They didn't do this and I'm asking why?

VAR doesn't, and was never meant to, look at all types of violations before a goal, just certain things. Which things depends on which set of VAR standards. Its a bit half-arsed right now.

zuricity wrote:

Nigels Tackle wrote:

zuricity wrote:

ayrshireblue wrote:Pukki had plenty of time to vacate the penalty area and it is his duty to do so not for the keeper to make sure he has. My point was that VAR should have disallowed the goal as he was in an illegal position when the ball became active. It's not clutching at straws, it's asking for the laws to be applied fairly across all 20 teams. Not too hard to understand.

Doesn't really matter about Pukki being in the area . Pukki can do sod all about Ed wanting to play the ball quickly .

He was walking out of the area and by the time otto screwed up , because of the Stones cough up , he was way out of the box .

Take a look at that photo again . Zinc simply going forward , Rodri running by the otter and the Norwich player closing in on the otter , ready to pounce. The longer distance that Stones passed , right in front of the sticks too, was completely stupid . What we used to call a hospital pass . Bloody dangerous .

if you watch the whole build up to the 3rd goal, pukki keeps walking away from stones. only when otamongi gets tackled does he start moving towards the goal.
that goal was 150% our own fault.

I am certainly not disputing the fact that it was a city cock up. Stones needs a good bollocking for what he did . should have given it back to Ed . to wellie upto Sergio.

i know you get it... just trying to explain to ayrshire why it wasn’t a clear and obvious error for var to review.

Var is a bag of piss.

Dormund penalty and the keeper was well off his line before the ball was even struck.

So what is the rule ? does it depend on whose playing who before VAR intervenes?

Id like to know

thanks

carl_feedthegoat wrote:Dormund penalty and the keeper was well off his line before the ball was even struck.

So what is the rule ? does it depend on whose playing who before VAR intervenes?

Id like to know

thanks

Apparently VAR won't intervene unless it's a "blatant and clear violation", following the farce that saw penalties scrutinised to the nth degree in the Women's World Cup they decided to relax it, giving authority on it back to the ref on the pitch.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

carl_feedthegoat wrote:Dormund penalty and the keeper was well off his line before the ball was even struck.

So what is the rule ? does it depend on whose playing who before VAR intervenes?

Id like to know

thanks

Apparently VAR won't intervene unless it's a "blatant and clear violation", following the farce that saw penalties scrutinised to the nth degree in the Women's World Cup they decided to relax it, giving authority on it back to the ref on the pitch.

They're basically saying, the ref can still cheat and we'll say it wasn't blatant.

Mase wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

carl_feedthegoat wrote:Dormund penalty and the keeper was well off his line before the ball was even struck.

So what is the rule ? does it depend on whose playing who before VAR intervenes?

Id like to know

thanks

Apparently VAR won't intervene unless it's a "blatant and clear violation", following the farce that saw penalties scrutinised to the nth degree in the Women's World Cup they decided to relax it, giving authority on it back to the ref on the pitch.

They're basically saying, the ref can still cheat and we'll say it wasn't blatant.

Yep but to be fair I'd rather common sense was applied on this rather than that type of scrutiny. I don't see the issue with keepers being a foot or so off their line and if they want to stop encroaching in the box then put a line 21 yards out that they've to stay behind while pens are taken.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

Mase wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

carl_feedthegoat wrote:Dormund penalty and the keeper was well off his line before the ball was even struck.

So what is the rule ? does it depend on whose playing who before VAR intervenes?

Id like to know

thanks

Apparently VAR won't intervene unless it's a "blatant and clear violation", following the farce that saw penalties scrutinised to the nth degree in the Women's World Cup they decided to relax it, giving authority on it back to the ref on the pitch.

They're basically saying, the ref can still cheat and we'll say it wasn't blatant.

Yep but to be fair I'd rather common sense was applied on this rather than that type of scrutiny. I don't see the issue with keepers being a foot or so off their line and if they want to stop encroaching in the box then put a line 21 yards out that they've to stay behind while pens are taken.

The point about the Ter steven penalty save is that the referee specifically went up to the goal keeper to tell him to keep his feet on the line just before he moved two feet forwards before Neuer struck the ball. Why bother???

harveytravis wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

Mase wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

carl_feedthegoat wrote:Dormund penalty and the keeper was well off his line before the ball was even struck.

So what is the rule ? does it depend on whose playing who before VAR intervenes?

Id like to know

thanks

Apparently VAR won't intervene unless it's a "blatant and clear violation", following the farce that saw penalties scrutinised to the nth degree in the Women's World Cup they decided to relax it, giving authority on it back to the ref on the pitch.

They're basically saying, the ref can still cheat and we'll say it wasn't blatant.

Yep but to be fair I'd rather common sense was applied on this rather than that type of scrutiny. I don't see the issue with keepers being a foot or so off their line and if they want to stop encroaching in the box then put a line 21 yards out that they've to stay behind while pens are taken.

The point about the Ter steven penalty save is that the referee specifically went up to the goal keeper to tell him to keep his feet on the line just before he moved two feet forwards before Neuer struck the ball. Why bother???

Which of course contradicts what has been written justr above about penalties after the joke world cup in the summer. Further, respect to the idea of putting a line at 21 yards.... that's why there is a penalty area and a little D on the box . To stop encroachment , pretty much since day one.
Nail 'em up I say ( the Refs and VAR refs ) and sue them in court for loss of revenues and damages !

ayrshireblue wrote:Conceding the goal was definitely the City defence's fault. But VAR is in place to look at reasons why the goal shouldn't stand and it SHOULD NOT stand according to Law 16 which clearly states -
"Law 16 - The goal kick

The ball is in play once the kick is taken; it can be played before leaving the penalty area
Opponents must remain outside the penalty area until the ball is kicked"

VAR should have looked at the goal and decided that there was an offence caused by Pukki not being out the area when the ball became active. They didn't do this and I'm asking why?

It's all down to interpretation of the part in bold. I'd interpret 'remain' in this context to mean 'not re-enter once they have left', i.e. if a player is trying to leave the area when the kick is taken, they're not breaking the rule, as it is down to the goalkeeper (if they so wish) to give the player time to leave the area before they take the kick. Otherwise, it could be argued that the goalkeeper is playing contrary to the laws of the game by not allowing sufficient time for a player to leave the area.