The Cavani goal is doing the rounds by the usual sports channels as a potential goal of the season. Just the three yards offside. Shocking decision
5 live this morning "was it offside? Does it matter?"
Well yes
Greenlizard0 Premier League Football Thread ** spoilers ** [18th - 19th May 2021]
- Thread starter explicit4u
- Start date
The Cavani goal is doing the rounds by the usual sports channels as a potential goal of the season. Just the three yards offside. Shocking decision
5 live this morning "was it offside? Does it matter?"
Well yes
Caporegime
It was a cracking goal though 
wonder how many other amazing goals would have been chalked off by VAR over the years.
wonder how many other amazing goals would have been chalked off by VAR over the years.
Caporegime
Yes Cavani was offside but whether Bruno didn't touch the ball wasn't clear and obvious so the law is the law. Werner just jumped in front of Ndidi's swinging leg to buy the foul. He got no where near the ball. He knew exactly what he was doing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,191
Same with Chelsea, with the Euro's around the corner, Grealish will want to put a shift in.
I still can't believe Perez missed that sitter, hit the bloody target. Imo he is done in a Leicester shirt. Shouldn't of dropped Senior man
It was absolutely clear and obvious. The ball does change at all, it took me 30 seconds to come to that conclusion, the same for the pundits etc.
Honestly I didn't feel the touch. The referee said I touched the ball. How it is, I don't care honestly,” Fernandes told Sky Sports.
Wow. That's comical stuff.
I only had to watch 1 replay from the front and it is absolutely clear and obvious that Bruno didn't touch the ball, there is no change in movement/speed from the ball so completely clear he doesn't touch it.
Werner got his foot in front of Youri to take control of the ball, anywhere else on the pitch and Werner has nicked the ball and getting a freekick not Youri so is 100% a penalty, it's a completely different scenario to Kane doing the 'initiating contact' trick
Caporegime
I mean, what did you expect him to say. He was honest at least. "I didn't touch the ball and I think I will regret that for the rest of my days". If footballers were moral creatures they wouldn't do very well in the modern game.
The rules say that it should be a foul but I really hate these penalties/fouls. Where one player is trying to play the ball and the other one is trying to get kicked in order to win the penalty/foul. Its very much in the same vein as when an attacker boots the ball out for a goal kick just as a defender is trying to get the ball and the defender makes contact with the attacker and its a penalty. There should be some rule that requires the player to be going for the ball and not intentional contact. A penalty should be for taking away a goalscoring opportunity. If the attacker has had to kick the ball out of play or miles away from the box in order to "win" the ball then its not a goalscoring opportunity.
In the Werner case, if the defender is running with the ball and Werner does what he did, its a foul. He has missed the ball and got in the way of the player in possession of the ball. If he nicks it away from the defender and the defender kicks him, fair play, but he didn't, he just stuck his leg in front of a swinging leg.
Caporegime
So what are you going to do for fouls in the box that aren't a goal scoring opportunity? Direct free kick?
I think you're reading that too literally omnom. I doubt Fernandes told the ref he didn't touch it and he replied, no you did. He could simply be referring to the fact that var decided he touched it or when the players asked the ref what they were checking, he replied by saying they were checking to see if Fernandes touched the ball.
As for the other decisions being discussed and VAR for subjective calls. I can't decide re the Werner penalty - like fez, I don't like the way Werner is simply looking to run into the Leicester player to create a foul. VAR for subjective decisions is a total waste of time though. Today that exact same scenario will be given as a penalty. If we're going to be massively inconsistent with decisions then we may as well leave it to the ref.
As for the other decisions being discussed and VAR for subjective calls. I can't decide re the Werner penalty - like fez, I don't like the way Werner is simply looking to run into the Leicester player to create a foul. VAR for subjective decisions is a total waste of time though. Today that exact same scenario will be given as a penalty. If we're going to be massively inconsistent with decisions then we may as well leave it to the ref.
Caporegime
Ahh, fair play. I shall start calling him "Honest Bruno" herceforth.
You foul someone in the box and most of the time its a penalty as you might have denied a goalscoring opportunity. The attacker gets to the ball a split second before the defender and kicks it out for a goal kick and the defender touches him a split second later. That is not denying a goalscoring opportunity. A player fouled with his back to goal at the edge of the box could turn his guy and bang it into the top corner. Its unlikely but possible. If you have to kick the ball out of play or miles away in order to "win" the ball then there isn't a popsicles chance in hell its a goalscoring opportunity. Thats my point.
With the Werner one he doesn't have the ball. He hasn't played the ball. He has literally stuck his foot in front of a player mid kick and forced contact when he doesn't have the ball. If he nicked the ball away then fair enough, but he doesn't.
Caporegime
I think I got your point, what I'm not getting is what are you doing with these examples, are you saying they aren't fouls?
Caporegime
I'm saying they probably shouldn't be fouls and they certainly shouldn't be penalties. Either there needs to be another category of foul that doesn't result in a penalty or they are ignored. If there is 0 chance of a goalscoring opportunity being lost then its not a penalty.
Formula one has the "racing incident" where neither party was really at fault and its just ignored. I would be happy with something like that.
"Yes you did get to the ball before the defender but you kicked it out of play because you couldn't get there first and have any control over the ball. Goal kick."
Caporegime
I see where you're coming from, it irks me when players aren't going to get to the ball but get a foul.... providing the same rules would apply everywhere on the pitch I wouldn't be totally against it personally.
What I don't like which we currently have is one ruleset in the box and one for outside. You know, the tiniest of touches is a penalty because 'contact' but anywhere else you'd get laughed at for going down so easily.
What I don't like which we currently have is one ruleset in the box and one for outside. You know, the tiniest of touches is a penalty because 'contact' but anywhere else you'd get laughed at for going down so easily.
Guys, this idea is mad. If you kick, trip or pull somebody back it's a foul, whether they're getting the ball or not. Have you considered how complicated implementing such a rule would be too? We already have enough going on with over complicated rules and now we're going to have to decide whether an attacker was going to get to the ball or not? It would be a minefield with every ref having a different view on the same incident. What do you then do with fouls off the ball? If you're not giving a foul because x has overrun the ball, how do you give a foul when a player is fouled off the ball?
Exactly, ball up the other end of the pitch then a defender could just boot the attacker as he wasn't in control of the ball, if it's not a foul then the ref can't pull it up.
Caporegime
I'm not talking marginal decisions. I'm talking "he kicks the ball off the pitch and then the defender makes a bit of contact trying to tackle him". Most of the time the rules are fine. There are just some things where they make no sense.
What?? You know that we already have a lot of completely situational decisions. If you take a guy out cynically it can be a yellow a red or nothing depending on whether you are last man, how many guys were back and how early in the game it was and how many fouls the player has committed.
You go for a header and your arm is up. It can be a yellow, red or nothing depending on how the ref interprets your intent.
In fact there are very few rules in football that are completely cut and dry and not open for interpretation and wiggle room.
A simple change would be to say that if the referee decides the defender made an honest attempt for the ball, without excess force and the attacker had completely lost control of the ball and had no chance to recover it then its not a foul/penalty.
Thats not giving players carte blanche to kick the **** out of the other team if they lose control of the ball. Its not giving them the chance to drop the peoples elbow on any player who doesn't have control of the ball. Its just stopping attackers from getting penalties from situations that would never have resulted in goals.
Last edited:
You're still going to have the issue of different refs having different opinions on whether the attacker was going to get to the ball or not. You only have to look at how we've used var for subjective decisions to see that - one day a very tight, marginal call is overturned and then the next day a clear error isn't overturned because each official has a different definition of what clear and obvious is.
I don't really agree with the whole idea anyway. The only thing that matters when determining whether something is a foul or not is the action of the defender. If I trip you, my action is no better or worse depending on whether you overrun the ball or not. I could commit the same offence twice but the outcome would be different depending on how heavy your touch was. That makes no sense to me.
There's a big difference between suggesting not a foul and not a penalty.
I can understand the argument to not award a penalty (assuming the alternative is some type of free kick) when an attacker has clearly just launched the ball at the corner flag, solely to 'get there first' and draw a foul but it would become such a subjective nonsense in marginal cases.