VAR Sham: Spurs v Man. City

[Enugu II]

Kai, these decisions by those operating the VAR are simply sham. That first pk saw the ball saved before Aurier stepped on Aguero. Was the call correct? IMO, YES. The second, the GK misses ball entirely and clearly fouls Sterling. VAR says no pk. IMO, the second is also a pk. GK misses ball completely and fouls Sterling.

[pajimoh]

Kai, these decisions by those operating the VAR are simply sham. That first pk saw the ball saved before Aurier stepped on Aguero. Was the call correct? IMO, YES. The second, the GK misses ball entirely and clearly fouls Sterling. VAR says no pk. IMO, the second is also a pk. GK misses ball completely and fouls Sterling.

OK how about the Sterling tackle on Dele?

[kajifu]

Kai, these decisions by those operating the VAR are simply sham. That first pk saw the ball saved before Aurier stepped on Aguero. Was the call correct? IMO, YES. The second, the GK misses ball entirely and clearly fouls Sterling. VAR says no pk. IMO, the second is also a pk. GK misses ball completely and fouls Sterling.

What about the red card miss that Sterling should have head to early shower?

[Cellular]

Kai, these decisions by those operating the VAR are simply sham. That first pk saw the ball saved before Aurier stepped on Aguero. Was the call correct? IMO, YES. The second, the GK misses ball entirely and clearly fouls Sterling. VAR says no pk. IMO, the second is also a pk. GK misses ball completely and fouls Sterling.

I have said this from the get-go that EPL refs are conspiring to discredit VAR's effectiveness.

The system has to be tweaked.

They should borrow a leaf from the NFL that constantly tweaks its Instant Replay with the aim of getting it right.

[txj]

Kai, these decisions by those operating the VAR are simply sham. That first pk saw the ball saved before Aurier stepped on Aguero. Was the call correct? IMO, YES. The second, the GK misses ball entirely and clearly fouls Sterling. VAR says no pk. IMO, the second is also a pk. GK misses ball completely and fouls Sterling.

I have said this from the get-go that EPL refs are conspiring to discredit VAR's effectiveness.

The system has to be tweaked.

They should borrow a leaf from the NFL that constantly tweaks its Instant Replay with the aim of getting it right.

I have sometimes thought that VAR implementation in the PL is the revenge of the refs

[mcal]

...the VAR review of Sterling v Lloris the GK is correct. No pk.
Note, Sterling did touch the ball first but ball was going out of bounds, that even if the goalie never touched him he would not have gotten the ball back.
So no clear goal scoring chance, no pk.

[bushboy]

...the VAR review of Sterling v Lloris the GK is correct. No pk.
Note, Sterling did touch the ball first but ball was going out of bounds, that even if the goalie never touched him he would not have gotten the ball back.
So no clear goal scoring chance, no pk.

Does a penalty call hinge on a "goal scoring chance" or simply a foul in the box?

[txj]

...the VAR review of Sterling v Lloris the GK is correct. No pk.
Note, Sterling did touch the ball first but ball was going out of bounds, that even if the goalie never touched him he would not have gotten the ball back.
So no clear goal scoring chance, no pk.

Does a penalty call hinge on a "goal scoring chance" or simply a foul in the box?

He's watching too much NFL football!

[Cellular]

Kai, these decisions by those operating the VAR are simply sham. That first pk saw the ball saved before Aurier stepped on Aguero. Was the call correct? IMO, YES. The second, the GK misses ball entirely and clearly fouls Sterling. VAR says no pk. IMO, the second is also a pk. GK misses ball completely and fouls Sterling.

I have said this from the get-go that EPL refs are conspiring to discredit VAR's effectiveness.

The system has to be tweaked.

They should borrow a leaf from the NFL that constantly tweaks its Instant Replay with the aim of getting it right.

I have sometimes thought that VAR implementation in the PL is the revenge of the refs

There's some truth to your suspicion.

It is rather obvious if you ask me.

[Cristao II]

Is that all you saw?

Zinchenko on Moura?
Sterling on Alli?
Fernandinho on Ndombele?

And these are from one match. There is enough backlog wahala from previous meetings.

[oloye]

...the VAR review of Sterling v Lloris the GK is correct. No pk.
Note, Sterling did touch the ball first but ball was going out of bounds, that even if the goalie never touched him he would not have gotten the ball back.
So no clear goal scoring chance, no pk.

You are confusing matters here. The analysis you gave here is for considering if a red should be issued or not. In the case of penalty, it does not matter if Raheem was facing the goal or Baltimore,it is a simple was there a contact? If yes, then it is a foul and because it happened in the penalty box a penalty.

That said, for how long will keepers continue to dive at the feet of players knowing their body momentum would also end up fouling a player everytime they fail to make a contact with the ball. I have been seeing this silly attempt by keepers to win the ball from when I was a kid and I am so sick of it now, I have no sympathy for keepers who still dive in for the ball at the feet of players. 9 out of ten when they do it, it results in a penalty.

[oloye]

As for the VAR in the EPL, it does not matter what tool you use, place it in the hands of compromised incompetent morons, the result would still be the same. All we are seeing with the abuse of the VAR is the confirmation of how bent these officials are, we now know that they deliberately make those atrocious calls we take for mistake before the coming of VAR.

[mcal]

...the VAR review of Sterling v Lloris the GK is correct. No pk.
Note, Sterling did touch the ball first but ball was going out of bounds, that even if the goalie never touched him he would not have gotten the ball back.
So no clear goal scoring chance, no pk.

Does a penalty call hinge on a "goal scoring chance" or simply a foul in the box?

...nope, dangerous play, high boot, etc...but this is not, as even slo-mo replayed showed Sterling initiated or was looking for that touch.
They did review it at least.
If and only if, Lloris the goalie feigned the dive without an outstretched arms the player will still go down, he has advance the ball so far out and looking for contact.