Vertonghen insists ‘extremely weird’ VAR penalty could change art of defending forever

mawspurs

Staff
Staff
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
27,573
Thread starter #1
Naturally, the old pros in their television studios were outraged. As Manchester City were awarded an early penalty against Tottenham on Tuesday night for Danny Rose’s involuntary handball, the immediate reaction suggested that some great sacrilege had occurred, some rupture to the fundamental fabric of the game they had grown up playing.

“Anyone who knows football knows that isn’t a penalty,” Rio Ferdinand fumed as Rose slid in to block Raheem Sterling’s shot.

Source: Independent
 

slartibartfast

Grunge baby forever
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
7,629
#2
It'll change attacking as well. Get anywhere near the goal area, hit the bloody thing. Take 40 odd shots you will almost guarantee a penalty. Absolutely idiotic decision. Its got to be intentional and arm in an unnatural position. As Ferdinand said these people making these decisions have to have played the game. Its common sense you cant dive sliding on with you bloody arms by your side. Pathetic. Setting it up to fail so yhey can get rid of it before it gets going. I smell a rat.
 

TottenhamMattSpur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
10,442
#3
I find the inconsistency more irritating than the actual decision.

If VAR is to be deemed a success there can never be a question as to "why this was given and that wasn't"

Also, if they're going to use it for every single penalty box decision then they simply HAVE to use it for holding, shirt pulling and general shenanigans in the box.
 

Hakkz

Svensk hetsporre
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
3,100
#4
I find the inconsistency more irritating than the actual decision.

If VAR is to be deemed a success there can never be a question as to "why this was given and that wasn't"

Also, if they're going to use it for every single penalty box decision then they simply HAVE to use it for holding, shirt pulling and general shenanigans in the box.
Seems to always benefit the big teams too..
 

ernie78

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
3,379
#6
I think the fact that TAA got away with a similar (which I think it was more of a penalty as it was easier for him to move his arm away than it was for Rose) last night just shows that VAR is still open to massive inconsistencies
 

John48

Active Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
794
#7
He's right, they were even claiming for a handball when the arm was against the body, but the player had turned sideways & the ball hit it, thankfully it was waved away.

Let's hope we get something in our favour in the return leg.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
23,483
#8
Seems to always benefit the big teams too..
Under the current handball ruling big teams tend to have more shots on goal, put more pressure on the opponents and spend more time in the opponents box, so I find the fact that the smaller sides who will be making more last ditch tackles which means they have far less margin for error especially if they're going to be throwing themselves in front of shots.
 

TottenhamMattSpur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
10,442
#9
Under the current handball ruling big teams tend to have more shots on goal, put more pressure on the opponents and spend more time in the opponents box, so I find the fact that the smaller sides who will be making more last ditch tackles which means they have far less margin for error especially if they're going to be throwing themselves in front of shots.
Valid.
I recall a lot of bleating about Man United getting loads of penalties over a season or 2 and us getting none. We were shit and rarely got in the opposition box, whereas United were pretty much playing 90 minutes there. You don't get a penalty for nothing. Then again, they did sometimes. But they were at least in the box.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
23,483
#10
Valid.
I recall a lot of bleating about Man United getting loads of penalties over a season or 2 and us getting none. We were shit and rarely got in the opposition box, whereas United were pretty much playing 90 minutes there. You don't get a penalty for nothing. Then again, they did sometimes. But they were at least in the box.
Indeed, you make you're own luck and all that which I suppose benefits us, 90% of matches we end up dominating anyway but still they should be doing all they can to implement fair play and at least give smaller teams some advantage.
 

Locotoro

Prince of Zamunda
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
6,030
#11
Indeed, you make you're own luck and all that which I suppose benefits us, 90% of matches we end up dominating anyway but still they should be doing all they can to implement fair play and at least give smaller teams some advantage.
Should they?

Isn't fair play all about giving teams, big or small, equal application of the rules and not some advantage?

As for the rule itself, it's absolutely ridiculous that they keep changing the rules for such things. Handball used to be an act of intention, and now it's whether it's clear and reasonable. The point made by the studio after the game about what is clear and reasonable I thought held more sway than anything that pillock Peter Walton said.

"If everyone in the stadium would look at it and say it was a handball, that's clear and reasonable"
"Doesn't depend which stadium?"
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
23,483
#12
Should they?

Isn't fair play all about giving teams, big or small, equal application of the rules and not some advantage?

As for the rule itself, it's absolutely ridiculous that they keep changing the rules for such things. Handball used to be an act of intention, and now it's whether it's clear and reasonable. The point made by the studio after the game about what is clear and reasonable I thought held more sway than anything that pillock Peter Walton said.

"If everyone in the stadium would look at it and say it was a handball, that's clear and reasonable"
"Doesn't depend which stadium?"
But the current handball rules does exactly the opposite, it gives bigger teams the advantage, IMO they should be doing away with that.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
23,483
#14
Sorry, I'm confused.

How does it do that?
Indirectly:

Under the current handball ruling big teams tend to have more shots on goal, put more pressure on the opponents and spend more time in the opponents box, so I find the fact that the smaller sides who will be making more last ditch tackles which means they have far less margin for error especially if they're going to be throwing themselves in front of shots
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
23,483
#16
So it doesn't help big sides but more so sides that attack more which is a good thing isn't it?
Big sides normally attack more than smaller sides, wouldn't say it's a good thing either as smaller sides need all the advantages they can get to compete in matches. I think if we carry on down this route this will only increase the gap further as handballs would be seen as a legitimate easier way to score against a team who are backs to the wall.
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
2,828
#17
Big sides normally attack more than smaller sides, wouldn't say it's a good thing either as smaller sides need all the advantages they can get to compete in matches. I think if we carry on down this route this will only increase the gap further as handballs would be seen as a legitimate easier way to score against a team who are backs to the wall.
Yep. There is a real danger that when a team parks the bus the opponents try to win handball penalties rather than play their way through the defending team.

Some might argue that it would therefore discourage parking the bus, but in the modern game where one team can field a player that costs more than the opposing team's starting XI combined I think that "stout defending" should be a viable choice for the lower budget teams. This is especially true for the early rounds of domestic cup games.

I can imagine that the silhouette rule has been brought in with good intentions (or due to be brought in) but it seems that there hasn't been enough consultation on it and it doesn't adequately cover off all the possible ramifications... like the Qatari penalty described in the article.

If we are going to have VAR as part of the game I think having it become a bit more strategic could be interesting. Perhaps reduce the number of default checks that happen and give each team the opportunity to challenge a decision, similar to cricket, tennis and baseball. If the City players/staff didn't feel it was a handball they probably don't use their challenge and we get on with the game. Likewise, if United had already used their challenge up that PSG handball may never be given.

If a team could use a challenge to look at a potential red-card tackle that would surely discourage those dirty tackles which must be a better outcome than encouraging defenders to jump with their arms down. I'm totally fine with the idea of VAR being in the game but it should be used to improve the quality of the football rather than being like a grammar Nazi constantly picking up on the misuse of apostrophes!
 

Locotoro

Prince of Zamunda
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
6,030
#18
Big sides normally attack more than smaller sides, wouldn't say it's a good thing either as smaller sides need all the advantages they can get to compete in matches. I think if we carry on down this route this will only increase the gap further as handballs would be seen as a legitimate easier way to score against a team who are backs to the wall.
Forgive me but I don't see how it favours "big" teams over "small" teams. Surely it depends on how the team plays?
If ManUtd decided they would play counter attacking football they would get less benefit from this handball ruling, just as if Bournemouth decide to play possession-based game where they work it into the box the converse if equally applicable.

Maybe I'm getting bogged down with semantics but any action which encourages attacking play is a positive. Equally so, i'm not in favour of favouring smaller or weaker sides over bigger or larger teams. i'm in favour of creating a fairer system that applies universally because then teams win on merit not because of technicalities.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
23,483
#19
Forgive me but I don't see how it favours "big" teams over "small" teams. Surely it depends on how the team plays?
If ManUtd decided they would play counter attacking football they would get less benefit from this handball ruling, just as if Bournemouth decide to play possession-based game where they work it into the box the converse if equally applicable.

Maybe I'm getting bogged down with semantics but any action which encourages attacking play is a positive. Equally so, i'm not in favour of favouring smaller or weaker sides over bigger or larger teams. i'm in favour of creating a fairer system that applies universally because then teams win on merit not because of technicalities.
Of course there will be anomalies from time to time but generally if you look at any league in football, bigger sides tend to have more possession and dominate games more because they have better players who take more risks, smaller teams tend to play a more defensive games because their players aren't as good tactically or technically or mentally.

I'm a football purist so I'd normally agree that attacking football is the way to go, no-one wants to see teams camp up but we have to be realistic and fair at the same time, you're not gonna expect a team like Norwich to get promoted from the Championship and play an open brand of football away at City for example.
 

Locotoro

Prince of Zamunda
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
6,030
#20
Of course there will be anomalies from time to time but generally if you look at any league in football, bigger sides tend to have more possession and dominate games more because they have better players who take more risks, smaller teams tend to play a more defensive games because their players aren't as good tactically or technically or mentally.

I'm a football purist so I'd normally agree that attacking football is the way to go, no-one wants to see teams camp up but we have to be realistic and fair at the same time, you're not gonna expect a team like Norwich to get promoted from the Championship and play an open brand of football away at City for example.
But the question is "Do we try and level the playing field between bigger and smaller clubs by making it easier for smaller clubs? And what message does that send to competitive sport?

If you'll permit me on this - I think its part of my thought process that regulating a game, an economy, a society, or anything should be about encouraging, ability, competency and merit and not trying to create a "positive discrimination" outcome - i know that is somewhat taking it up a notch but I don't see why smaller clubs should be favoured.

We previously were one of those mid-sized or smaller teams and we through competency and merit have moved to being a bigger side. If other clubs are making poor decisions why should the game reward that?
 
Last edited:
Top