[ad_1]
Last updated: 21/02/19 10h26
Referee Carlos del Cerro Grande inflicted two penalties on Schalke against Man City
The video badistant referee was in the spotlight on Wednesday, with a three-minute delay in Manchester City's win over Schalke in the Champions League, qualified as "first clbad incompetence".
City boss Pep Guardiola said he "continued to" trust VAR despite the controversy, apparently caused by a side monitor of the broken track.
But what exactly happened in Germany and what does it mean for VAR? We explain …
Why was the VAR called to action?
VAR was used for the first time after City took the lead by Sergio Aguero to check if David Silva had made a mistake in goal preparation. Nothing has been given.
However, the main topic of discussion came in the 38th minute when a long-range shot hit Nicolas Otamendi in the box.
VAR in the honor at Gelsenkirchen
Schalke's Daniel Caligiuri said the ball had touched Otamendi's arm and that the game had been stopped while VAR was checking for evidence of an "obvious mistake".
The referee Carlos del Cerro Grande did not examine the incident himself on the side of the field, apparently because of a technical problem.
There were no reruns on the giant screens or any indication of what was happening at the stadium.
A person from UEFA has just learned that the screen at the edge of the field was broken during the 1st half. As a result, the match umpire was unable to review the penalty imposed on #ManCity & Otamendi. Instead, the VAR told him to return the pen to #Schalke UEFA statement coming later #MCFC pic.twitter.com/ZWMwYUxTqz
– Ben Ransom (@BenRansomSky) February 20, 2019
Supporters had blunders for a three-minute delay, but they were encouraged when the referee finally revealed the spot to inflict a penalty on Schalke.
Schalke was also sentenced to a second penalty, but this time there was no prolonged stoppage, as Fernandinho fouled Salif Sane.
What are the rules?
The board of the International Football Association, which governs and develops the laws of football, says that the original decision of the referee will not be changed by the VAR unless there is "a clear mistake and obvious ".
It is added that "the referee is the only person who can make the final decision, the dealer has the same status as the other officials of the match and can only badist the referee".
UEFA has announced that it will issue a statement on the incident.
Chelsea vs Man City
February 24, 2019, at 3.30 pm
Live of 
What was the reaction?
The debate raged afterwards. Matt Le Tissier, former Southampton and Sky Sports striker, wrote on Twitter: "There is no point in having VAR if referees have to take three minutes to know if it is handball! Incompetence of the highest level.
The former Stoke defender, Danny Higginbotham, said on Sky Sports News that "VAR gives us more questions than answers".
"I do not think it's ready. [UEFA] have seen the problems in football and how they want to help the referees, they went directly to the VAR. I think there were a few more levels before introducing VAR, like simplifying the rules.
Not much point to have VAR if referees have to take 3 minutes to find out if it's a handball or not! Incompetence of the highest order
– Matt Le Tissier (@ mattletiss7) February 20, 2019
"People say that it works very well in other sports, but in many other sports, the rules are very black and white.There are no gray areas. it may be thought that it is handball, but not at all.I think simplifying the rules first and you may find that there is less need for VARs.
"A lot of decisions are subjective, so instead of helping the referee, that could be a problem."
Guardiola tried to defuse the tensions by saying that he always trusts the VAR.
"It's a penalty," he said. "I'm a big fan of VAR, and the second is a penalty.
"It was also an offside. So, if we complain about VAR, it may be an offside, but it was a penalty and the red card may be a cardboard red, VAR needs time, next time it will be better.
1:06 Pep Guardiola, coach of Manchester City, says he favors VAR despite the two penalties he has conceded
"I trust VAR, I'm a big fan of that, so it's a penalty, I have arguments to complain about sometimes, but I think it was a penalty, the first and the second and the red card. "
Speak on DebateFormer City striker Paul Dickov said: "Personally, I did not think it was a penalty, but how he made that decision, I do not know, it took about three hours!
1:39 Paul Dickov and Kevin Campbell discuss the use of VAR in Schalke's win against Manchester City
"It should not take too much time and you can see the frustration of both groups of players.If the screen is broken, there is surely someone in the ear who can prevent it in less than three minutes.The longer the time was longer the more you thought it was going to give a penalty.
"It should be done more quickly, look at the rugby league, the decision is made and nobody discusses."
VAR was also used in Atletico Madrid 's win over Juventus on Wednesday to dismiss a goal from Alvaro Morata.
Former players and journalists on social media have not been impressed either …
The VAR must be accelerated. Wait a lot too long for this VAR decision. No communication of the process on the big screens before the final verdict. Boos on all rounds in expectation of encouragement from Schalke fans when VAR signals handball and penalty. Bentaleb pen 1-1 #SchalkeCity
– Henry Winter (@henrywinter) February 20, 2019
I am a big supporter of VAR but I do not like the way it is applied. It's being overused. Should only be there to correct clear and obvious mistakes. For the moment, it is used for too many marginal decisions. Most of them seem to go against Alvaro Morata.
– Andy West (@ andywest01) February 20, 2019
The greatest danger to the abuse of value-added resellers, as we are doing now, is that everyone will get fed up with it and there will be a strong enough reaction to drop it completely. What would be a big missed opportunity to use something that can improve the sport if it is correctly applied.
– Andy West (@ andywest01) February 20, 2019
Play Super 6
Predict 6 good results for a chance to win £ 250,000.
[ad_2]
Source link
