VAR

[URZZZZ]

We've had a couple of these this season (Declan Rice one of them?) - the Premier League's interpretation of the encroachment rules is to apply them where encroachment leads to an advantage. In this case, Max Aarons was inside the box when the kick was taken, and he cleared the ball from the rebound - clear advantage. Had the rebound fallen to an Arsenal player who had encroached, it would have been disallowed. Had Arsenal scored the original penalty, encroachment would not have been penalised as Arsenal gained no advantage from it.

OK, thanks for the clear up. Not something I necessarily agree with though, I don’t think anyone should encroach regardless of the outcome. I, for one am personally surprised we haven’t seen more penalty retakes given how they’re checking goalies on their lines this season

Not sure I agree - if no advantage accrues, why stop the game? By the same logic you'd retake every penalty where the keeper comes off his line, whether it is scored or not.

Not necessarily. If the goalie was off his line, obviously I’d only retake it if he saved it

But it’s a different scenario if the players are encroaching. If any defender encroaches, and the goalie saves it, regardless of whether the defender has any impact after the save, I’d order a retake. Similarly, if any attacker encroaches, even if it goes straight in, I’d order a retake. Now with Arsenals penalty on Sunday, I wouldn’t have ordered a retake because both teams were guilty of encroachment. It shouldnt necessarily come down to chance (I.e where the ball lands at) to determine whether or not a penalty should be retaken

[Sanguine]

OK, thanks for the clear up. Not something I necessarily agree with though, I don’t think anyone should encroach regardless of the outcome. I, for one am personally surprised we haven’t seen more penalty retakes given how they’re checking goalies on their lines this season

Not sure I agree - if no advantage accrues, why stop the game? By the same logic you'd retake every penalty where the keeper comes off his line, whether it is scored or not.

Not necessarily. If the goalie was off his line, obviously I’d only retake it if he saved it

But it’s a different scenario if the players are encroaching. If any defender encroaches, and the goalie saves it, regardless of whether the defender has any impact after the save, I’d order a retake. Similarly, if any attacker encroaches, even if it goes straight in, I’d order a retake.

Why, if, as in the goalie off his line scenario, no advantage is gained by the encroachment?

[Sanguine]

Something that struck me about the punditry on Amazon's coverage is that it had a real BBC feel, with Logan, Jenas, Martinez, and Shearer. Is this because Sky ties its pundits into exclusive contracts?

[Hendo]

Something that struck me about the punditry on Amazon's coverage is that it had a real BBC feel, with Logan, Jenas, Martinez, and Shearer. Is this because Sky ties its pundits into exclusive contracts?

I'd have thought that would be the reason.

None of the Sky team do Champions League either, do they?

BBC are probably a bit more relaxed about their contracts, seeing as Jenas and Lineker also do BT for Champions League.

[URZZZZ]

Not sure I agree - if no advantage accrues, why stop the game? By the same logic you'd retake every penalty where the keeper comes off his line, whether it is scored or not.

Not necessarily. If the goalie was off his line, obviously I’d only retake it if he saved it

But it’s a different scenario if the players are encroaching. If any defender encroaches, and the goalie saves it, regardless of whether the defender has any impact after the save, I’d order a retake. Similarly, if any attacker encroaches, even if it goes straight in, I’d order a retake.

Why, if, as in the goalie off his line scenario, no advantage is gained by the encroachment?

It doesn’t matter. A law is a law. Goalie are ordered to stay on their line. If they brake that law, they need the worst possible outcome given (which is either a goal if it goes in or a retake if it doesn’t regardless of whether the goalie saves it)

[Sanguine]

It doesn’t matter. A law is a law. Goalie are ordered to stay on their line. If they brake that law, they need the worst possible outcome given (which is either a goal if it goes in or a retake if it doesn’t regardless of whether the goalie saves it)

You haven't explained why. I just asked why. If a team gains no advantage from a particular action, why penalise it?

[URZZZZ]

It doesn’t matter. A law is a law. Goalie are ordered to stay on their line. If they brake that law, they need the worst possible outcome given (which is either a goal if it goes in or a retake if it doesn’t regardless of whether the goalie saves it)

You haven't explained why. I just asked why. If a team gains no advantage from a particular action, why penalise it?

I don’t understand the question. In each scenario, a team gains a benefit

If the goalie is off their line:

And the player scores - then resume as normal. The team who’s player had scored benefits
Player hits it wide - retake. The team who’s player has missed the penalty benefits
Goalie saves it - retake. The team who’s player has missed the penalty benefits

In other words, if the goalie is off their line for the penalty, whatever the outcome, the offensive team benefits

[Sanguine]

I agree with you on goalie off their line. I'm asking why you wouldn't take the same sensible approach on encroachment. If a keeper tips a penalty around the post, no advantage has been gained from a defender encroaching into the box. If a penalty is scored, no advantage is gained by an attacker encroaching. Why would you penalise these, yet take a different (more sensible) approach for goalie off his line?

[Hoop Blah]

I agree with you on goalie off their line. I'm asking why you wouldn't take the same sensible approach on encroachment. If a keeper tips a penalty around the post, no advantage has been gained from a defender encroaching into the box. If a penalty is scored, no advantage is gained by an attacker encroaching. Why would you penalise these, yet take a different (more sensible) approach for goalie off his line?

How do you measure if a team gains an advantage from the encroachment? Just because they haven't touched it it doesn't mean they haven't influenced another players run or even the penalty takers strike of the ball or the way the keeper moves or reacts.

Much simpler to say encroachment from a defender results in a penalty being retaken if it hasn't been scored, and likewise if an attacker encroaches and it's scored. Then it's purely objective, not subjective. That's how the rule has always been written so I see no reason for not applying it.

[URZZZZ]

Only difficulty is if both an attacker and a defender encroaches. Perhaps the sensible thing there would just be to leave the outcome as it is because both parties are guilty

[Winston Biscuit]

I don't like the word 'encroachment'

[Sanguine]

I agree with you on goalie off their line. I'm asking why you wouldn't take the same sensible approach on encroachment. If a keeper tips a penalty around the post, no advantage has been gained from a defender encroaching into the box. If a penalty is scored, no advantage is gained by an attacker encroaching. Why would you penalise these, yet take a different (more sensible) approach for goalie off his line?

Just because they haven't touched it it doesn't mean they haven't influenced another players run or even the penalty takers strike of the ball or the way the keeper moves or reacts.

Just my view, but I think that's a little silly. In terms of the keeper's view, there will be an immeasurably small difference in what he perceives because onrushing players are just inside the area vs. just outside it.

[Franchise FC]

Oh dear
Vardy booked for a dive that should’ve been a penalty and somehow not overturned by VAR.

[Hoop Blah]

I agree with you on goalie off their line. I'm asking why you wouldn't take the same sensible approach on encroachment. If a keeper tips a penalty around the post, no advantage has been gained from a defender encroaching into the box. If a penalty is scored, no advantage is gained by an attacker encroaching. Why would you penalise these, yet take a different (more sensible) approach for goalie off his line?

Just because they haven't touched it it doesn't mean they haven't influenced another players run or even the penalty takers strike of the ball or the way the keeper moves or reacts.

Just my view, but I think that's a little silly. In terms of the keeper's view, there will be an immeasurably small difference in what he perceives because onrushing players are just inside the area vs. just outside it.

Where do you draw the line as to what constitutes interference? Physically touching only? Running in front of?

If players didn't think it was gaining them an advantage then they wouldn't do it, so why not penalise it as it's in the rules? Making it black or white makes it easier to officiate, IF it's done consistently and accurately that is.

[Sanguine]

Just because they haven't touched it it doesn't mean they haven't influenced another players run or even the penalty takers strike of the ball or the way the keeper moves or reacts.

Just my view, but I think that's a little silly. In terms of the keeper's view, there will be an immeasurably small difference in what he perceives because onrushing players are just inside the area vs. just outside it.

Where do you draw the line as to what constitutes interference? Physically touching only? Running in front of?

If players didn't think it was gaining them an advantage then they wouldn't do it, so why not penalise it as it's in the rules? Making it black or white makes it easier to officiate, IF it's done consistently and accurately that is.

We're talking about encroaching into the penalty area before a kick is taken. In practical terms that normally means having taken a couple of steps inside the box. Where does physically touching or running in front of come into it?

[John Madejski's Wallet]

Oh dear
Vardy booked for a dive that should’ve been a penalty and somehow not overturned by VAR.

VAR can just fukk off. Again

That was a much clearer pen that the (similar) Rashford one.
Were the VAR bods just too scared to overrule the on-field ref or something?

[Franchise FC]

Oh dear
Vardy booked for a dive that should’ve been a penalty and somehow not overturned by VAR.

VAR can just fukk off. Again

That was a much clearer pen that the (similar) Rashford one.
Were the VAR bods just too scared to overrule the on-field ref or something?

And Vardy's booking stands - what a complete joke.

[John Madejski's Wallet]

I wonder what would have happened had the ref given the pen. I bet hands down it would have stood

Absolute mockery

[Silver Fox]

Yep VAR proven t be absolute jokes again last night, the Vardy booking obviously and then the penalty that wasn't given against Van Dijk (although quite why the MOTD pundits thought it was a red I don't know)

[Franchise FC]

For me they can bin it now.

Previously at least, we could argue that the referee and linesman only get one look in real time so can be forgiven a mistake. Looking at a screen and still getting it wrong is unforgivable.

They claimed it would bring accuracy and consistency and, to be fair, the David Silva incident earlier in the season and Vardy's the other night are at least consistent to the point where no penalty was given. However, it all falls apart when Vardy is booked, Silva isn't and the Michael Keane challenge at Palace, I think, was overturned to give a penalty. All three were, to all intents and purposes, identical.

Get rid.