Sweep it under the carpet

comment by Shaun M - Ran out of usernames (U9955)
posted 46 minutes ago
VAR was brought into ensure that the correct decision is given if it had not been awarded by the ref. The Silva and spurs ignored penalty claims were pathetic and VAR atm just seems a complete pointless waste of time if its not going to do its purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Kane’s reputation for diving and initiating contact to win penalties doesn’t help in this situation.
Could have gone either way for me.

The Silva incident was a clear blatant penalty.

comment by Shaun M - Ran out of usernames (U9955)
posted 58 minutes ago
VAR was brought into ensure that the correct decision is given if it had not been awarded by the ref. The Silva and spurs ignored penalty claims were pathetic and VAR atm just seems a complete pointless waste of time if its not going to do its purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spurs one was a dive, for me.

IMO City and Spurs should have each gotten a penalty.

It does VAR no favours when they fail to overturn blatant decisions.

VAR can be great but what a shame at some of it's application.

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by Shaun M - Ran out of usernames (U9955)
posted 58 minutes ago
VAR was brought into ensure that the correct decision is given if it had not been awarded by the ref. The Silva and spurs ignored penalty claims were pathetic and VAR atm just seems a complete pointless waste of time if its not going to do its purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spurs one was a dive, for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Might fall into the category of trying to buy a pen, but there was plenty of contact. Seen much less given.

I think the same points raised with Kanes non pen could equally be raised with the Jimenez one which was given.

comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by Shaun M - Ran out of usernames (U9955)
posted 58 minutes ago
VAR was brought into ensure that the correct decision is given if it had not been awarded by the ref. The Silva and spurs ignored penalty claims were pathetic and VAR atm just seems a complete pointless waste of time if its not going to do its purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spurs one was a dive, for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Might fall into the category of trying to buy a pen, but there was plenty of contact. Seen much less given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes there was contact and I changed my mind on this after about ten replays, that Kane pushed himself left, into the contact and then went down just before it became enough to send him down. If he had continued right, on his natural course, it wouldn't have happened. In this case, according to the guidance given to the VAR, it's not a 'clear and obvious error'. For me it wasn't even an error as Kane attempted to buy the penalty.

comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 25 minutes ago
I think the same points raised with Kanes non pen could equally be raised with the Jimenez one which was given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just watched that one. I'd say they are very different. Jimenez uses his body to shield the ball, getting in front of the defender, who fouls him. Kane was going right with the ball then unnaturally comes in left without the ball and starts going down, before the contact is enough for a foul.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/var-right-deny-harry-kane-19009336

----------------------------------------------
Talk about stealing a living.

City are going to be the 'victims' of VAR as things stand in the Premier League.

They spend more time in their opponents penalty areas, and therefore have more opportunities for penalty claims, which at the moment is still 'whatever the Ref sees' that is the decision; so it stands to reason that they will have more clear cut penalty claims turned down, with Silva vs Bournemouth and Rodri vs Tottenham (both nailed on spot kicks) turned down.

Also, having more arms and hands in the opponents penalty area means there is more chance of the ball accidentally hitting one of them, ie Laporte's hand denying Jesus goal against Tottenham even though not a single person in the Stadium saw it.

Also, their main 'weapons' for breaking down well organised defences are precise through balls and well timed runs; clearly the split second nature of this type of play means they are regularly going to fall foul of the accuracy of VAR in comparison with the human eye, Jesus (again) ruled out goal vs West Ham (a superb piece of football) was ruled out because Sterling hadn't shaved his armpit hair or some equally daft explanation.

It isn't right that attacking football be punished, sadly that is what seems to be the outcome (even if it is City)

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 day, 3 hours ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 25 minutes ago
I think the same points raised with Kanes non pen could equally be raised with the Jimenez one which was given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just watched that one. I'd say they are very different. Jimenez uses his body to shield the ball, getting in front of the defender, who fouls him. Kane was going right with the ball then unnaturally comes in left without the ball and starts going down, before the contact is enough for a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They are and they aren’t. Jimenez was very clever with his and knew exactly what he was doing to get the result he wanted.