Palace & VAR

[GreatGonzo]

Originally Posted by Stats74

We got away with that. It’s not a marginal/subjective call. Cahill wasn’t fouled. Top marks for the penalty being overturned. Atkinson is better than that. Can spot a dive too. Gave a second yellow to Ndidi at Leicester against us. But, in general, VAR is meant to make the game better. I don’t see that at present. Why don’t the refs use the screen by the pitch? That was the time to use it last night. Big decision to make in closing minutes. Surely you check it for yourself. There was nothing clear and obvious about that. Take the point and run! It’s bound to bite us on the bum against Brighton. Then we will really hate it!

When watching on the stream, the VAR shot they stopped on was clearly the Chambers treading on the foot of the Palace player making him go down and unable to attempt a block.

That is consistent with all the other similar situations in recent games.

[EddieEdwards]

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo

No it didn't.

The referee had blown his whistle before the goal had been scored so could not get involved in the goal.

Did they review a possible penalty?

Yes - I think that's what 917L was saying. The Wilf challenge was not reviewed as it was outside the box but the Cahill challenge was reviewed and VAR agreed with the ref that it was not a penalty.

[Stellavista]

If it hadn't been Wilf, I reckon the penalty would have been given straight away by the ref. Any other player, no question.

In other news, The Arsenal Mania forum is a joy this morning. 'Diving cheat ', 'soft fouls', 'conspiracy '. Doing their pieces over there. 6th, after ten games, and in the middle of our hardest run of the season. Well done, Roy and Ray. I think we might stay up

[Stats74]

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo

When watching on the stream, the VAR shot they stopped on was clearly the Chambers treading on the foot of the Palace player making him go down and unable to attempt a block.

That is consistent with all the other similar situations in recent games.

It’s not a foul. Switch it around. We would be fuming if we were denied that goal. We would be moaning about the big clubs getting the big decisions.
Just read Clattenburke’s view on yesterday and he said Zaha dived...confirmed my view on that bloke.

[Celestial Empire]

The VAR ref was a (five times ref of the year) Australian. (Arsenal fans immediately said he's a Spurs fan ).
Perhaps that's why he didn't automatically favour the "big club" - Aussies generally give a fair crack to the underdog.

Emery said he is in favour of VAR, "but it needs to be managed properly" - he probably meant "managed" by someone like Clattenburg - you have to laugh !

[Joe85]

Originally Posted by Stats74

It’s not a foul. Switch it around. We would be fuming if we were denied that goal. We would be moaning about the big clubs getting the big decisions.
Just read Clattenburke’s view on yesterday and he said Zaha dived...confirmed my view on that bloke.

It was a foul. That's all there is to it. **** Arsenal.

[Celestial Empire]

Originally Posted by Stellavista

If it hadn't been Wilf, I reckon the penalty would have been given straight away by the ref. Any other player, no question.

In other news, The Arsenal Mania forum is a joy this morning. 'Diving cheat ', 'soft fouls', 'conspiracy '. Doing their pieces over there. 6th, after ten games, and in the middle of our hardest run of the season. Well done, Roy and Ray. I think we might stay up

18 fouls by Arsenal, 9 by Palace (and no cards).

[Random*]

Having watched the rugby over the weekend I'm struck by the difference between how TMO compared to how VAR has been implemented in the Premier League (but not necessarily elsewhere).

In rugby they seem to check for any infraction to disallow a score, whereas the Premier League generally appears to look for a reason to support a referee's decision and quickly move on.

Is it debatable? Agree with the referee and move on. It stops the referee's authority being undermined and players constantly asking for a second opinion as we saw at the World Cup in 2018 (although the chaos was very entertaining).


From that point of view, I'm not sure that Arsenal's goal should have been chalked off last night, although I'm happy it was.

[Olympian2]

Originally Posted by Stellavista

If it hadn't been Wilf, I reckon the penalty would have been given straight away by the ref. Any other player, no question.

In other news, The Arsenal Mania forum is a joy this morning. 'Diving cheat ', 'soft fouls', 'conspiracy '. Doing their pieces over there. 6th, after ten games, and in the middle of our hardest run of the season. Well done, Roy and Ray. I think we might stay up

They said the same after the game at Selhurst last season. Then Xhaka came out & conceded it was a definite pen.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by sydnsteve

Somewhat more than that. Luka pushes someone over then there is a coming together of 3 players. No obvious foul and Sokratis scores a perfectly good goal. Of course I am very pleased but ruling that out verges on the incomprehensible and it is really silly to say anything else.

Luka's push on Chambers had no effect though as Chambers was still able to stand on Luka's foot and cause him to go down.

[Kirby]

Incredibly harsh to rule their third out but who cares. Long live VAR (until it finally goes against us).

[hughff]

Originally Posted by Random*

In rugby they seem to check for any infraction to disallow a score, whereas the Premier League generally appears to look for a reason to support a referee's decision and quickly move on.

It all depends on what the ref says. If he says, "Can you look at a possible forward pass?" then the only thing the TMO can look for is a forward pass. If he says, "Check the grounding," ditto - the TMO checks only that. If, however, he says, "Is there any reason that I cannot award the try?" then the TMO has carte blanche. The TMO does have the right to say, "I think you should have a look for a possible knock on," which the ref can either ignore or go to the big screen to examine.

[alexcpfc]

Originally Posted by Kirby

Incredibly harsh to rule their third out but who cares. Long live VAR (until it finally goes against us).

Karma for all the years and years all of the bigger clubs have been cheating or getting decisions go their way.

VAR is no way perfect at present but at least it’s levelling up the playing field.

[davech]

Originally Posted by Golf Boy

Who the **** is saying it's going against us?

Just wait till we play the smaller teams like Brighton

[brighton_eagle]

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo

When watching on the stream, the VAR shot they stopped on was clearly the Chambers treading on the foot of the Palace player making him go down and unable to attempt a block.

That is consistent with all the other similar situations in recent games.

Agreed. And if that's the other way around it would be a penalty.

[brighton_eagle]

Originally Posted by Stellavista

If it hadn't been Wilf, I reckon the penalty would have been given straight away by the ref. Any other player, no question.

In other news, The Arsenal Mania forum is a joy this morning. 'Diving cheat ', 'soft fouls', 'conspiracy '. Doing their pieces over there. 6th, after ten games, and in the middle of our hardest run of the season. Well done, Roy and Ray. I think we might stay up

Arsenal fans are, on the whole, absolute bellends.

[stevek]

Originally Posted by Random*

Having watched the rugby over the weekend I'm struck by the difference between how TMO compared to how VAR has been implemented in the Premier League (but not necessarily elsewhere).

In rugby they seem to check for any infraction to disallow a score, whereas the Premier League generally appears to look for a reason to support a referee's decision and quickly move on.

Is it debatable? Agree with the referee and move on. It stops the referee's authority being undermined and players constantly asking for a second opinion as we saw at the World Cup in 2018 (although the chaos was very entertaining).


From that point of view, I'm not sure that Arsenal's goal should have been chalked off last night, although I'm happy it was.

The main difference in the between the rugby and the football is how clearly everything is explained by the TMO and the ref in the rugby, compared with the silence (other than the bare decision) in the football.

The other difference is that in rugby, that would have been a high tackle and a red card.

[917L]

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo

No it didn't.

The referee had blown his whistle before the goal had been scored so could not get involved in the goal.

Did they review a possible penalty?

Err, yes it did, which is why I said it got involved with the foul, I never mentioned the 'goal'

[GreatGonzo]

Originally Posted by EddieEdwards

Yes - I think that's what 917L was saying. The Wilf challenge was not reviewed as it was outside the box but the Cahill challenge was reviewed and VAR agreed with the ref that it was not a penalty.

Thats as i understood it too. It was Wilf's challenge that was the foul and couldn't be reviewed. Cahill does nothing so it is not a penalty and the whistle has gone so they cannot review the whole passage of play, including whether it was a dive or not, to determine a goal.

[GreatGonzo]

Originally Posted by Stats74

It’s not a foul. Switch it around. We would be fuming if we were denied that goal. We would be moaning about the big clubs getting the big decisions.
Just read Clattenburke’s view on yesterday and he said Zaha dived...confirmed my view on that bloke.

I disagree with the decision.

It is consistent with the other VAR decisions in the last 10 days of similar occasions when 1 player has trodden on another.

I feel really upset that i have to agree with Robbie Savage in that the VAR bar was set too high and now it is too low.