FA employee responsible for implementation of VAR should be sacked
The FA employee responsible for the implementation of VAR should be sacked
The FA employee should be sacked after the VAR farce in the Tottenham vs Rochdale game |
The VAR system was an absolute farce last night in the Tottenham Hotspur verses Rochdale FA Cup tie and that is done to the FA employee responsible for implementing it.
I find it utterly incredible that the rulers of our game don't seem to have taken notice of other sports who use a video replay system.
The shambolic use of it last night, to not only get the wrong decisions, but take so long in doing so is totally unacceptable and, quite frankly, with proper management, should never have happened in the first place.
Look at rugby. The system isn't used unless the referee asks for it, that's the first thing. often, the referee will ask to look at a specific element in the build up to a try. Again here you are still ensuring the referee has control, you are not taking his authority away, as happened last night.
Cricket overuses replays now, giving teams too many chances to question an umpires (referees) decision and for the wrong reasons. Teams now do it as a tactic, not because they genuinely believe an incorrect decision has been made. In cricket you should have to state why you want a decision reviewed and only that aspect should then be reviewed.
The players have to make a clear signal, a 'T' to cal, for a review, a message on the screen informs the crowd and then everyone views it. The decision stays with the on-field umpire unless there is CLEAR evidence of a mistake, otherwise you uphold the authority of the umpire, even if his decision is borderline.
For instance, for a replay, more than half the ball has to be hitting a stump, or would have hit a stump using prediction software, for a decision to change. If less that half of the ball would have hit then, even though the umpire is technically wrong, his decision still stands,as with possible errors it is deemed not clear cut.
Look at the first goal last night. The Rochdale player had Llorente's shirt, he aimed a kick at Llorente and dived to the floor. You can not give a decision against Llorente for holding, if the other guy is doing so too. There is no clear foul by either player, it is six of one and half a dozen of another. There was no foul by either anyway, otherwise you are going to have to stop the game every five seconds for a foul.
The referee is rugby will often talk to the replay referee, but the crowd can hear what he says. There is no reason a referee can not watch a replay on a big screen and make the decision himself or in conjunction with a replay referee. BUT, and this is important, the on-field referee MUST have the last say on all decisions. otherwise you take away his authority.
VAR is to enhance refereeing, not take decisions away from an on-field umpire and give control of the game to a referee watching a screen.
All of this should have been discussed and agreed at management level before it was implemented and then the referees trained in it's use, clearly they have not had sufficient training, if any.
The lessons of other sports have not been heeded and they have tried to keep secrecy between the officials, obviously because officials make so many wrong decisions that they don't want to undermine them, yet that's exactly what the VAR did last night.
Whoever is in charge of the implementation of VAR at the FA should be sacked, as they are incompetent. Any half decent manager in the business world could have put a better system into place with this technology.
It demonstrates once again how so out of touch the FA actually are, it's an old boys network, a job for life, Gordon Taylor for instance should have been sacked. You can't tell players not to gamble and penalise them when they do if one of your own is running up huge gambling debts. It shoves two fingers up to the fans.
With VAR, the FA have once again shown they are clueless and couldn't care less about fans.
COYS
Further Reading
9 comments
Penalty...
"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues
holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."...page 101 FIFA 'Laws of the Game'.
The taking of the penalty, and this is where I'm confused...
Page 112 FIFA 'Laws of the Game'
2.
Offences and sanctions
Once the referee has signalled for a penalty kick to be taken, the kick
must be taken. If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:
•
feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting in the run-up is permitted); the referee cautions the kicker
Sonny had not completed his run-up and how else would he 'feint' other than by the stop/start which apparently is 'ungentlemanly conduct', whatever that means.
I…
https://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com/2018/3/1/17065670/tottenham-hotspur-analysis-rochdale-fa-cup-son-heung-min-disallowed-penalty
which illustrates my point above.
FIFA has clouded it's 'feinting rule' by allowing the referee an opinion on what constitutes unsporting behaviour. Once you start adding layers of interpretation onto clear and simple rules then chaos reigns.
If one looks closely at the video Sonny takes a full step after his feint and so clearly had not completed his run-up at the time of the feint.
I think the club has a case for having the yellow card rescinded.
What's clear to me is that the current rules of football allow for feinting during the run-up but that there is confusion on how that can be achieved.
So, either FIFA should redefine the rule or, remove the 'feinting section' so that referees can apply the rule rather than interpreting it.
Incidentally, what's your view on GKs waving their arms about in an effort to distract the penalty taker (which appears to go unpunished)?
p.s. The dictionary & Thesaurus definitions of 'feinting' is to cause deception.
A penalty taker has to have constant forward motion all the way through his run-up.
But this certainly shown that people are not sure of the rules and players are the worst, as ex-players commentating constantly show us.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/fa-league-cups/son-heungmin-tottenham-disallowed-penalty-var-rochdale-fa-cup-team-news-fernando-llorente-a8235636.html
Thanks for your replies
The Guardian employ professional writers, they are not coaches, referees or experts on the laws of the game, just fans who write.
The article starts with an incorrect fact. Son's penalty run up was not a stutter, as claimed, he actually stopped. Thus from that point on the article is based on an incorrect premise.
Referees interpret the laws as they see fit, thus we get differing opinions, but, if you stop, then it is afoul, without question.
Mauricio Pochettino aid afterwards that he felt Son was still travelling forward, that being the crux of the matter, so the only question anyone needs to answer is, did he stop or not.
I strongly agree that VAR has had its image tarnished badly by this and earlier examples of misuse. However, I believe the ref on the day was a large contributer to the mess as his decisions were largely atrocious.
As for the penalty, I agree that stopping in the run-up is generally understood to be a no-no. What no-one seems to have commented on though, is that both teams had various players that encroached into the box even before the feint. My belief is that the kick should have been retaken. A word to Sonny about feinting could have been dropped in his shell-like as a warning at that time. I agree that, had there not been encroachment, Sonny was due a yellow. Why the ref needed VAR to tell him it was a penalty in the first place is beyond my understanding.
I'm really not sure how the first goal was disallowed. VAR should only be used when a clear mistake has been made. First time and every time it was clear the defender had Llorente's shirt and …