[Albion] Was the penalty correctly awarded?

[ROSM]

Someone here said they were correct to give a drop ball to them after our penalty was ruled out - were they wrong then?

Yes they were. Would have been correct if he blew before the ball went out of play. But he gave pen after ball had gone for a corner. Therefore he should have restartes with a corner

 

[ROSM]

Interesting indeed. And seems to go against what's been posted on here. I haven't managed to track down the actual law - other than Law 8.

Here it is

The VAR Review: Man City's lost advantage that angered Haaland, plus penalty drama in Chelsea-Brighton

How Man City were robbed of the chance to win the game against Tottenham, plus penalty decisions between Chelsea and Brighton, and possible spot kicks for Arsenal and Nottingham Forest.

www.espn.com

 

[Bodian]

Where is this law? Law 8 refers to drop balls where the ref stops play. As the ball was already out - he didn't 'stop' play?

View attachment 170723

Yes - but he didn't 'stop play'. Play had stopped before he blew.

Here it is

The VAR Review: Man City's lost advantage that angered Haaland, plus penalty drama in Chelsea-Brighton

How Man City were robbed of the chance to win the game against Tottenham, plus penalty decisions between Chelsea and Brighton, and possible spot kicks for Arsenal and Nottingham Forest.

www.espn.com

Thanks. Well I must say that it's relatively pleasing to find that my instinctive reaction and reading of the law may have been correct after all..

 

[Triggaaar]

Here it is

The VAR Review: Man City's lost advantage that angered Haaland, plus penalty drama in Chelsea-Brighton

How Man City were robbed of the chance to win the game against Tottenham, plus penalty decisions between Chelsea and Brighton, and possible spot kicks for Arsenal and Nottingham Forest.

www.espn.com

Quite a few on the official match thread stating that it should be a drop ball:

Learn the laws. As crap as it was all round, the drop ball was correct

 

[American Seagle]

Not sure I understand the options given the question.
The penalty was not correctly awarded as it was not a clear and obvious error. I can see arguments for it being a penalty and for not being one. VAR should not suggest a review in those circumstances and allow the decision on the field to stand.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Going back to the penalty, I reckon there's a good case for it being a foul but at full-speed, in the pre-VAR days, that's very rarely being given.

Which goes back to the debate about what VAR is for.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Quite a few on the official match thread stating that it should be a drop goal:

Drop Goal?
That seems like an unfair advantage to us!

 

[Triggaaar]

Drop Goal?
That seems like an unfair advantage to us!

Oops

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Going back to the penalty, I reckon there's a good case for it being a foul but at full-speed, in the pre-VAR days, that's very rarely being given.

Which goes back to the debate about what VAR is for.

The presence of VAR influences everything though - including the referee's real-time decisions.

In this particular incident, knowing VAR is in the background to help him if it comes to it, its understandable for the on-field ref to hedge his bets and make no decision.

This is just conjecture of course, but I'd suggest that with no VAR in use, there is a higher chance that he actually gives the penalty live.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

The presence of VAR influences everything though - including the referee's real-time decisions.

In this particular incident, knowing VAR is in the background to help him if it comes to it, its understandable for the on-field ref to hedge his bets and make no decision.

This is just conjecture of course, but I'd suggest that with no VAR in use, there is a higher chance that he actually gives the penalty live.

That doesn't explain why he gave a pen at the end when he must have been only guessing that the ball struck Colwill's hand.

If you're right, (and I can't fathom Pawson's thought process any more than the next man), then why didn't he let this go, knowing that VAR would pick it up if it were a hand.

The analysis that Pawson is just a clueless chancer is much more persuasive on me

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Not sure I understand the options given the question.
The penalty was not correctly awarded as it was not a clear and obvious error. I can see arguments for it being a penalty and for not being one. VAR should not suggest a review in those circumstances and allow the decision on the field to stand.

Yes. We were sold a prospectus. That VAR would intervene on clear and obvious errors. The Theirry Henry handball, that sort of thing.

The more wizened and cynical football fans, counselled that intervention creep was inevitable, that refs by their nature like influencing outcomes.

I don't even think they claim that VAR is about the clear and obvious any more. It's about multi layered reffing.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

The presence of VAR influences everything though - including the referee's real-time decisions.

In this particular incident, knowing VAR is in the background to help him if it comes to it, its understandable for the on-field ref to hedge his bets and make no decision.

This is just conjecture of course, but I'd suggest that with no VAR in use, there is a higher chance that he actually gives the penalty live.

That is definitely an issue with VAR. (And indeed in other sports such as the NFL).

I do really think this one looks in real time like Milner has just got his body in the right place as Steele comes out and they come together. The arm and contact with the legs is so hard to spot until you have a slowed down, zoomed in replay.

Although I am not a skilled ref.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The MotD commentator summed it up best.
Whether it was or wasn't a penalty, the insistence on letting VAR decide whether a subjective decision is or isn't a penalty, is "ruining the game".

Media/MotD etc all moaning about VAR after bleating on for years about how it's needed to improve the game.

Almost like they are never happy

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Yes. We were sold a prospectus. That VAR would intervene on clear and obvious errors. The Theirry Henry handball, that sort of thing.

The more wizened and cynical football fans, counselled that intervention creep was inevitable, that refs by their nature like influencing outcomes.

I don't even think they claim that VAR is about the clear and obvious any more. It's about multi layered reffing.

Anyone that thought it wouldn't creep into everything is a fool.

They are already talking about expanding it further, the line will always be "the tech is there, why can't we use it for corners?"

Bravo to those that wanted this, ruined the game

 

[Simster]

Media/MotD etc all moaning about VAR after bleating on for years about how it's needed to improve the game.

Almost like they are never happy

It's been so poorly implemented though.

The blueprint is rugby, where the control is entirely with the ref and the video refs are there to assist him. With football, it's the tail wagging the dog and completely shit. In my view, the *only* time VAR should interfere unless requested by the on-field ref is where a blatant offside, red card or goal-line decision has been missed.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

It's been so poorly implemented though.

The blueprint is rugby, where the control is entirely with the ref and the video refs are there to assist him. With football, it's the tail wagging the dog and completely shit. In my view, the *only* time VAR should interfere unless requested by the on-field ref is where a blatant offside, red card or goal-line decision has been missed.

Rugby has nailed it, but there is more natural breaks, the 10 minute sin bin allows a proper look at a potential Upgrade to a red, they also start with having respect for the match officials, none of the pathetic and childish outburst we see from PL managers and players for a decision not going for them.

VAR should only be used a handful of times a season, but that's not going to ever happen now.

As I've previously said they should have brought it in bit by bit.

 

[Simster]

Rugby has nailed it, but there is more natural breaks, the 10 minute sin bin allows a proper look at a potential Upgrade to a red, they also start with having respect for the match officials, none of the pathetic and childish outburst we see from PL managers and players for a decision not going for them.

VAR should only be used a handful of times a season, but that's not going to ever happen now.

As I've previously said they should have brought it in bit by bit.

All true of course.

But my point is that this is why the media/MotD are moaning about it. There are so many ways VAR could be improved, and yet the current mess is what we've got. Of course they're moaning, everyone's moaning!

 

[Brok]

That is definitely an issue with VAR. (And indeed in other sports such as the NFL).

I do really think this one looks in real time like Milner has just got his body in the right place as Steele comes out and they come together. The arm and contact with the legs is so hard to spot until you have a slowed down, zoomed in replay.

Although I am not a skilled ref.

And here's the trouble. The average fan doesn't know what the bleeding hell's going on. Constant law changes? Just to please themselves?
Shame.

 

[Triggaaar]

The presence of VAR influences everything though - including the referee's real-time decisions.

In this particular incident, knowing VAR is in the background to help him if it comes to it, its understandable for the on-field ref to hedge his bets and make no decision.

While that is understandable, it's something which is clearly causing an issue, and refs need to ref the game as if there is no VAR. I assume they're being instructed to do that.

This is just conjecture of course, but I'd suggest that with no VAR in use, there is a higher chance that he actually gives the penalty live.

I still don't think it should have been a penalty anyway.

 

[Acker79]

As one of the people on some threads noting the drop ball was correct, this is why I believed that to be the case:

Law 8 - The Start and Restart of Play | IFAB

Kick off rules football, drop ball in footbal, football game starts

www.theifab.com

8.2 Dropped ball​

Procedure​

• The ball is dropped for the defending team goalkeeper in their penalty area if, when play was stopped:
  
  • the ball was in the penalty area or
  • the last touch of the ball was in the penalty area
• In all other cases, the referee drops the ball for one player of the team that last touched the ball at the position where it last touched a player, an outside agent or, as outlined in Law 9.1, a match official
• All other players (of both teams) must remain at least 4 m (4.5 yds) from the ball until it is in play

The ball is in play when it touches the ground.​

Because Pawson awarded a penalty, the play stopped. When it restarts it follows the above law - last touch of the ball was in the penalty area.

I can't see anything in the VAR protocol https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/ that contradicts this.


In trying to find the law that Dale Johnson is citing, I'm still struggling.

I have found this




Which suggests ref watch (and Dale) previous said drop ball was correct. He says he has checked with PGMOL, and I've no reason to not believe him so acept it was an error and I was wrong. But I will say my wrongness on this was understandable.