Paris Saint-Germain v Manchester United , Round of 16 2nd Leg, BT Sport 2, 8pm

Bob Harris

It's going towards goal amd hits the guy's arm. Is it a penalty?
Technically you could say it is although you could say the shot was going a few feet over the bar
or at least looked like it was to me.

Even if it is technically a penalty I don't think it's in the spirit of the game.
There is no attempt to handle the ball, it's whacks into him from 8 or 9 yards. His arms aren't outstretched. I've followed United all my life and delighted we're through. I'm just not sure if this is making the game better.

Porto v Roma also saw VAR decide the game. A minor shirt tug, guy goes down in a heap and wasn't going to get to the ball either way. Again, technically a penalty but is it in the spirit if the game?

Bowlardo

The Porto VAR penalty was great. If it spells the end of dirty pulling and dragging from defenders then i’m All for it.
The days of players like Ramos are coming to an end

PhlegmyMoses

Bowlardo wrote: »

The Porto VAR penalty was great. If it spells the end of dirty pulling and dragging from defenders then i’m All for it.
The days of players like Ramos are coming to an end

Smalling is going to have to find another career when VAR comes into the PL :pac:

theteal

The more I see it, it's a clear as day penalty. He actually leads with his hands up and then jumps and turns his back. He's afraid of getting a smack of the ball, that's why the hands are where they are - also why the back is turned in the first place. It's an absolutely fantastic decision and added to examples such as the Porto VAR incident, should help lead to defenders copping on a bit.

theteal

Bob Harris wrote: »

It's going towards goal amd hits the guy's arm. Is it a penalty?
Technically you could say it is although you could say the shot was going a few feet over the bar
or at least looked like it was to me.

Even if it is technically a penalty I don't think it's in the spirit of the game.
There is no attempt to handle the ball, it's whacks into him from 8 or 9 yards. His arms aren't outstretched. I've followed United all my life and delighted we're through. I'm just not sure if this is making the game better.

Porto v Roma also saw VAR decide the game. A minor shirt tug, guy goes down in a heap and wasn't going to get to the ball either way. Again, technically a penalty but is it in the spirit if the game?

What, do a stupid thing, give away a foul? Very much in the spirit of the game I played for 25ish years. Very glad to see it being stamped out.

Also, his arms are outstretched, he's trying to protect himself from a smack of a ball - it's a bit pathetic really

bucketybuck

NIMAN wrote: »

Funnily, the Utd man that took the shot appealed for a corner and was happy that it was awarded.

Funny old game, eh.

What game were you watching, Dalot immediately appealed for a handball, you could see him lifting his arm and doing that whole "handball" gesture to the ref.

As far as I'm concerned it was a penalty all day long. He blocked the shot with his arm, thats undeniable and as such it is a penalty.

I've always thought that the only exception to that rule should be if a player is actively trying to keep his arms down/away from the ball, like when you see a defender have his elbows tucked in tight. Thats not the case here though, he jumped with his arms out and blocked the shot with his arm, it was quite rightly a penalty.

Liam O

jacool wrote: »

Clearly you watched BT Sport last night, but failed to mention that 4 ex-players, 3 of whom played with Manchester United said it was not a penalty.
Peter Walton always says that the referess call was right.
The only player I've ever seen jump without his arms coming up was another Manchester United player, Kevin Moran (pronounce that correctly now, everyone).

Why should a group of players who haven't played in the last 4 or 5 years be given more credence on the rules than referees and the other people interpreting the laws of the game.

Do you all seriously think players should be able to turn away from the ball and leave their arms in positions that can effect play, make no effort to move them out of the way and gain an advantage time after time from doing so?

It has been adjudged that accidentally handling it into the net will result in no goal calls so why should defenders be getting an advantage that isn't even proportional to that?!

Bob Harris

theteal wrote: »

What, do a stupid thing, give away a foul? Very much in the spirit of the game I played for 25ish years. Very glad to see it being stamped out.

Also, his arms are outstretched, he's trying to protect himself from a smack of a ball - it's a bit pathetic really

Well if his arm is outstretched away from his body how would that protect him?
His back is to the ball on impact and while his arm is away from his body
it's not up in the air attempting to block it.

I'm not really sure what you're referring to as pathetic.

facehugger99

theteal wrote: »

The more I see it, it's a clear as day penalty.

Np doubt explaining the lack of debate on the issue :rolleyes:

Liam O

facehugger99 wrote: »

Np doubt explaining the lack of debate on the issue :rolleyes:

You keep coming in with all the snide remarks but are yet to provide a shred of evidence that shows that it was not the correct call. In fact, bar calling it a shocking decision I don't think you've really discussed it at all.

osarusan

It's the referee's interpretation on whether the defender's arm is where it is 'to make the body bigger' (or whatever the wording is).

Just my opinion, but when I watched the replays, and looked at what the defender was doing - he raced across to get between Dalot and goal and then jumped as high as he can while twisting his body to avoid the ball smacking him in the face or groin.

Can the position of the defender's arm at the moment of impact be described as natural in the context what he was trying to? Or can his arm only have been there as a result of him leaving it out there 'to make the body bigger'?

I still think it's a very harsh decision.

As I wondered last night on thread...whatever IFAB committee it was that produced the guidelines on 'making the body bigger'...when they watch this decision, are they thinking to themselves that it's the right decision as it's the kind of thing they want to see penalised, or are they thinking that they never expected their guidelines to be interpreted in such a way.

PhuckHugh

I honestly cant understand why people feel the need to defend the penalty decision just because they support utd. Anyone that's played the game at any level knows that's never a pen ... not in real time ffs .... but it doesnt matter. Utd got the result and that's all that matters... As a Liverpool fan I was delighted they knocked Paris out , a truly horrible, horrible club.... Anyway, FIFA have recognized the problem with the way penos are being interpreted and are going to change the wording from next year i'd imagine.... Ferdinand summed it up well last night I thought.

theteal

Bob Harris wrote: »

Well if his arm is outstretched away from his body how would that protect him?
His back is to the ball on impact and while his arm is away from his body
it's not up in the air attempting to block it.

I'm not really sure what you're referring to as pathetic.

The arms are up in a defensive manner before he jumps, he just doesn't get them out of the way when he turns his back in a similarly defensive manner. The pathetic bit is a defender (a player of any sort really) afraid to get hit by a ball, especially so given the circumstances at the time.

Bob Harris

osarusan wrote: »

As I wondered last night on thread...whatever IFAB committee it was that produced the guidelines on 'making the body bigger'...when they watch this decision, are they thinking to themselves that it's the right decision as it's the kind of thing they want to see penalised, or are they thinking that they never expected their guidelines to be interpreted in such a way.

I think the committees that produce the guidelines need to get out on the training pitch and have a few shots leathered at them from 10 yards.

jayo26

For example he wasn't even challenging for a ball so he didn't need to jump. He jumped to make himself bigger and turned his back on it as a result he had his arm away from his body and the ball hit it.

Over the years the way a defender closes down a ball like that is with his hands behind his back and suck it up. Garry Neville was a master of this.

PhuckHugh

theteal wrote: »

The arms are up in a defensive manner before he jumps, he just doesn't get them out of the way when he turns his back in a similarly defensive manner. The pathetic bit is a defender (a player of any sort really) afraid to get hit by a ball, especially so given the circumstances at the time.

How do you propel yourself into the air and then pull your arms behind your back in .5 of a second? give over ffs.

Liam O

Bob Harris wrote: »

I think the committees that produce the guidelines need to get out on the training pitch and have a few shots leathered at them from 10 yards.

So you should be able to gain an advantage with your arms?

If you can turn away, you can move your arm.

theteal

PhuckHugh wrote: »

How do you propel yourself into the air and then pull your arms behind your back in .5 of a second? give over ffs.

"Propel"?

It's a little hop off his standing left foot which comes about 5 inches off the ground. Give over indeed.

Drumpot

PhuckHugh wrote: »

I honestly cant understand why people feel the need to defend the penalty decision just because they support utd. ....

I think it was a soft peno and I would be sick had it been given against United.. However . .

Fact is, that it doesn't matter what ex players or people who think they know the game think, the rules were applied correctly and the penalty was the correct call. The VAR ref , the ref and even the TV panel ref all agreed. It wasnt a contentious decision, there was a consensus that it was the obviously correct call. The only real issue appears to be that players and fans are not actually clear on the rules.

So, it WAS a penalty by the letter of the law, but clearly the rules need to be cleared up or amended (which I believe they have been). Intent will not be a factor in future when determining a Peno so it wont matter if a player accidentally handled it. .

Bob Harris

Drumpot wrote: »

So, it WAS a penalty by the letter of the law, but clearly the rules need to be cleared up or amended (which I believe they have been). Intent will not be a factor in future when determining a Peno so it wont matter if a player accidentally handled it. .

From FIFA:
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with
the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into
consideration:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an
infringement

As the rules stand intent is a factor in determining whether it is a penalty or not. Very hard to say there was intent to handle the ball. No obvious intent anyway.
The ball hit the player, not the other way around.
Dalot was 8/9 yards away when he took the shot.

Loving the salt over the peno

Drumpot

Bob Harris wrote: »

From FIFA:
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with
the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into
consideration:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an
infringement

As the rules stand intent is a factor in determining whether it is a penalty or not. Very hard to say there was intent to handle the ball. No obvious intent anyway.
The ball hit the player, not the other way around.
Dalot was 8/9 yards away when he took the shot.

I think its fair to say that professional match officials understand the rules of the game better then any of us or players.

With that in mind, Why do you feel there was such a strong consensus from all officials watching the game that it was a clear penalty ?

MD1990

I think if Kimbempe doesnt turn his back & keeps his arm closer to his body,hits his arm it is no penalty.

But he turns his back & his arm is out a bit from his body. Harsh probably a 50/50 call but I can see why it was given.

Poor defending from a poor defender.

Lord TSC

PhuckHugh wrote: »

How do you propel yourself into the air and then pull your arms behind your back in .5 of a second? give over ffs.

I've seen a few people suggest this, and I'd imagine the answer is....you don't.

Just because you have to jump with your arms out for the ball doesn't mean you've a god given right to do so. If you have to jump with your arms spread out to block the ball, then you know leaping for it you're taking the risk of handling it. If you decide to use your arms to get yourself the extra height, then the risk you run is your arms are spread out and a handball is possible.

Weepsie

Bob Harris wrote: »

From FIFA:
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with
the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into
consideration:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an
infringement

As the rules stand intent is a factor in determining whether it is a penalty or not. Very hard to say there was intent to handle the ball. No obvious intent anyway.
The ball hit the player, not the other way around.
Dalot was 8/9 yards away when he took the shot.

His arm actually started out in an outstretched position. He was pulling it in. The ball was moving towards his arm just as much as his arm was moving towards the ball in that respect.

Had he kept them outstretched, it would've just gone under his arm.

osarusan

Drumpot wrote: »

Intent will not be a factor in future when determining a Peno so it wont matter if a player accidentally handled it. .

I don't think this is correct.

David Elleray, the technical director of Ifab, told The Times: “The new text will clarify those situations where players can expect contact with the arms to be penalised and where they can expect not to be penalised. It will significantly reduce the grey areas around handball.

“We will be identifying those areas were non-deliberate contact will be penalised and when it won’t be.

https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2019/0221/1032007-handball-rule-to-be-clarified-to-reduce-grey-areas/

There will still be situations where non-deliberate handball will not be penalised.

Drumpot

osarusan wrote: »

I don't think this is correct.

David Elleray, the technical director of Ifab, told The Times: “The new text will clarify those situations where players can expect contact with the arms to be penalised and where they can expect not to be penalised. It will significantly reduce the grey areas around handball.

“We will be identifying those areas were non-deliberate contact will be penalised and when it won’t be.

https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2019/0221/1032007-handball-rule-to-be-clarified-to-reduce-grey-areas/

There will still be situations where non-deliberate handball will not be penalised.

I will stand corrected on that but I heard somewhere that non deliberate handball will not be penalised if their hands are in a natural position to their body. "Natural position" will be defined more clearly , I presume having them beside your side will be the target and anytime you jump with your hands away from your side its a peno. The idea is to stop defenders having to twist their hands behind their back into an unnatural position, but in general even non deliberate handball will be a free/penalty.

I think by these new rules, last nights peno is as clear as it gets to a penalty under these sort of guidelines. There was nothing "natural" about the way the defender tried to block that shot. That was why the match and tv officials were sure it was a nailed on peno.

clubberlang12

People posting on internet forums, while quickly Googling the rules of the game, criticising refs and officials who have studied and applied the rules, reminds me of someone who casually uses the Internet trying explain GDPR to someone who is an expert in data regulation and protection!!!

Weepsie

I will ad to that. If it were against a team I support, I'd be livid, but it's happened. I thought the handball against Croatia in the WC final was harsh, and this too, but with VAR it's always a bit more likely to be punished as things stand I think.

clubberlang12

The rules determine whether it is a handball or not.......so consider this scenario.

Take the location of the handball and move Kimpede to 5 yards in front of the goal line. Dalot hits the ball towards the goal with only Kimpede in his line of shot. If it doesn't hit Kimpede's arm the ball goes in and Dalot scores. But the ball hit's his arm in exactly the same motion and position, and deflects wide.

Without taking into your personal view of United, would you still say it wasn't a penalty?

osarusan

Drumpot wrote: »

I will stand corrected on that but I heard somewhere that non deliberate handball will not be penalised if their hands are in a natural position to their body. "Natural position" will be defined more clearly , I presume having them beside your side will be the target and anytime you jump with your hands away from your side its a peno. The idea is to stop defenders having to twist their hands behind their back into an unnatural position, but in general even non deliberate handball will be a free/penalty.

This is what I think needs to be defined too - what constitutes a natural position.

In that regard, I think that the term 'deliberate' is a bit of a misnomer, as I think that what will be defined as an unnatural position (that couldn't have been arrived at naturally) will be seen as deliberately positioning an arm with a view to blocking the ball. So it will be seen as deliberate anyway (if you see what I mean).

I disagree though, that last night was an example of an unnatural position. A defender racing across, jumping, and twisting the body in the way Kimpempe did will never naturally have his arms right by his sides. All of those things are most naturally achieved by using the arms as further leverage.

'Natural' and 'arms down by the sides' are not always going to be the same thing in football.

When I was watching the replays last night, the question I was asking myself was whether the only way his arm could have ended up where it did was because he put it there to block the shot? Or could it have ended up there naturally in the context of what he was doing? I definitely think the latter is a possibility, so I think it's a harsh decision.

I actually think if he'd had his arm out at 90 degrees, in a position that would be much harder to describe as 'natural', he wouldn't have made contact.

Drumpot

osarusan wrote: »

This is what I think needs to be defined too - what constitutes a natural position.

In that regard, I think that the term 'deliberate' is a bit of a misnomer, as I think that what will be defined as an unnatural position (that couldn't have been arrived at naturally) will be seen as deliberately positioning an arm with a view to blocking the ball. So it will be seen as deliberate anyway (if you see what I mean).

I disagree though, that last night was an example of an unnatural position. A defender racing across, jumping, and twisting the body in the way Kimpempe did will never naturally have his arms right by his sides. All of those things are most naturally achieved by using the arms as further leverage.

'Natural' and 'arms down by the sides' are not always going to be the same thing in football.

When I was watching the replays last night, the question I was asking myself was whether the only way his arm could have ended up where it did was because he put it there to block the shot? Or could it have ended up there naturally in the context of what he was doing? I definitely think the latter is a possibility, so I think it's a harsh decision.

I actually think if he'd had his arm out at 90 degrees, in a position that would be much harder to describe as 'natural', he wouldn't have made contact.

I see what you mean. I really don’t understand the rule completely but I also can’t find a reasonable explanation as to how 3 different independent officials all felt it was a stone wall peno.

I would be gutted if united had lost to a peno like that but if we are taking it that all officials didn’t have it in for PSG, then it seems like the rules were applied correctly.

osarusan

Drumpot wrote: »

I see what you mean. I really don’t understand the rule completely but I also can’t find a reasonable explanation as to how 3 different independent officials all felt it was a stone wall peno.

I would be gutted if united had lost to a peno like that but if we are taking it that all officials didn’t have it in for PSG, then it seems like the rules were applied correctly.

It'll always be a grey area.

Unless you take the position that any contact with hand/arm is automatically a foul (which i think would be a disaster) then you are always going to be left with the question of when it is and when it isn't, and "ball to hand/arm but where was the defender's hand/arm positioned" will be the most controversial of all.

Bob Harris

If the defender had jumped like that 5 yards from the line then it's a penalty, clearly stopped the ball going in however much he didn't mean to do so with his arm.
Dalot's shot last night though is from outside the box and looked like it was going to go a few feet over, if it didn't there's a keeper there. Very unsure if it was going to hit the target let alone go in.
That's why I think it's unfair though I get the fact that it was going towards the goal and it hit the defenders hand inside the area. Penalty according to the letter of the law. But a very rigourous one and had the shoe been on the other foot any United fan would be feeling very hard done by.

super_furry

I think the issue seems to be that in the Premier League, we're told that it has to be a deliberate movement of ball to hand and that doesn't seem to be the case in Europe. The whole 'unnaturalbposition' thing is nonsense, his arm was in a natural position for the piriout he was performing.

Still think it should be an automatic penalty and a red card for bring a clown and turning your back on the ball.

Cookiemunster

According to UEFA directives it was a pen. End of. It makes no difference what would have happened in the PL.

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/status/1103604696290349057

ERG89

Big issue with VAR is they often look at replays in slow motion which honestly makes even the most accidental foul look intentional. The penalty Sandro conceded last weekend was a great example of how if you slow something down enough you can convince yourself it was intentional.

Bob Harris

Cookiemunster wrote: »

According to UEFA directives it was a pen. End of. It makes no difference what would have happened in the PL.

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/status/1103604696290349057

I don't think you can say the position of his arm is 'not normal'
and it certainly wasn't over his head.

marklazarcovic

im glad they are out,would a free have been given if that happened 15 yards further out i really dont even think it would get a mention, if roles were reversed utd and utd fans would be going nuts too.

instead there will be days and days of back and forth, actually taking away the vibe of the lucky win. credit to rashford who i personally thought had been overawed in the first half,going by his display.

as for mbappe, talk about fluffing his lines,believing his hype, he could easily have put psg through on more than one occasion last night.

fantastic players take their eyes off the ball too.


neymar though ...hahahahahahahahahaha,talent you have is wasted on such a personality.

Weepsie

Bob Harris wrote: »

If the defender had jumped like that 5 yards from the line then it's a penalty, clearly stopped the ball going in however much he didn't mean to do so with his arm.
Dalot's shot last night though is from outside the box and looked like it was going to go a few feet over, if it didn't there's a keeper there. Very unsure if it was going to hit the target let alone go in.
That's why I think it's unfair though I get the fact that it was going towards the goal and it hit the defenders hand inside the area. Penalty according to the letter of the law. But a very rigourous one and had the shoe been on the other foot any United fan would be feeling very hard done by.

It doesn't matter where the ball is going though, it matters where the ball and player is. They were both in the box. It will matter in the context of should a card be given, and if so, what card.

The Roma v Porto match. The Porto player was never getting to that ball, whether or not he had his jersey pulled and the ball was going out of play. It doesn't make it not a foul though.

Bob Harris

Weepsie wrote: »

It doesn't matter where the ball is going though, it matters where the ball and player is. They were both in the box. It will matter in the context of should a card be given, and if so, what card.

The Roma v Porto match. The Porto player was never getting to that ball, whether or not he had his jersey pulled and the ball was going out of play. It doesn't make it not a foul though.

In the Porto match the ref was checking to see if it was offside. Had it been then it was no penalty as the offside would invalidate the play.

However imagine it was offside and instead of just a shirt tug had the Roma player kicked out or punched the porto player. He'd be read carded but would it be a penalty or a free kick to Roma for offside?

Bob Harris

marklazarcovic wrote: »

neymar though ...hahahahahahahahahaha,talent you have is wasted on such a personality.

Neymar lashed out on instagram saying it had hit the players back.
He really does live in dreamland.

Cookiemunster

Bob Harris wrote: »

I don't think you can say the position of his arm is 'not normal'
and it certainly wasn't over his head.

He made his body bigger. It's in the second paragraph. On the continent (including in France) pundits thought it was a pen. That's how it's reffed on the continent and it's what UEFA told referees to do.

osarusan

Cookiemunster wrote: »

He made his body bigger. It's in the second paragraph. On the continent (including in France) pundits thought it was a pen. That's how it's reffed on the continent and it's what UEFA told referees to do.

But in the first paragraph it says a player won't be penalised for a natural or normal position. There is very often going to be an overlap between having your arm in a natural position and 'making the body bigger', because on a football pitch it's very rarely natural for a player to have his arms right by his sides.

There are loads of times that a player is doing things which naturally causes their arms to be away from the torso.

I think last night was one of those times.

munchkin_utd

funny that if you look at a lot of players nowadays they will not jump to block a shot without having the 2 hands clasped together meaning their arms have no chance to be too far outside of their silhouette - obviuously smart guys looking to give the ref no chance to give a decision against them.

Conversely, that lad yesterday had one hand up in the air poking out beyond his head, the other arm a foot out from his body which the ball then hit.
He was giving himself every chance of blocking the ball with a stray arm or hand which is either shoddy or VERY professional (to try and get the maximum advantage and then hope to claim for "natural" flappy convienently placed limbs and get away with it).

That Kimpebe lad is reckoned to be earning 2.5 million euro a year, has no other purpose in his job but to defend within the rules and has all the time in the world to practice at it, and still cant jump in a way to block a shot with his arms tucked in but rather has both his arms flapping about the place.

With VAR these chancers need to tidy up their act. There was a sneaky jersey pull punished in the Porto game that the likes of Skrtel used to do a dozen times a game, but with no VAR got away with it.
If things like that now get punished, is that VAR's fault or the referees fault or is it actually defenders chancing a flappy arm or a wee jersey tug and forgetting that its against the rules and they now have a massive chance of being caught doing it.

Nerdlingr

VAR is going to be horrible in the PL next season. Four minutes waiting around. Last night's incident was such a grey area -was it/ wasn't it ?
Thought it was only going to be used or referred to for objective incidents ...like in the madrid and porto games. Was the ball over the sideline...was the player offside ?
After Porto got their VAR assisted penalty last night, a few minutes later play was stopped to review a potential Romas penalty. Nothing in it. But as the commentator said, if they're going to review every little incident or appeal it'll kill the game.

TitianGerm

Nerdlingr wrote: »

VAR is going to be horrible in the PL next season. Four minutes waiting around. Last night's incident was such a grey area -was it/ wasn't it ?
Thought it was only going to be used or referred to for objective incidents ...like in the madrid and porto games. Was the ball over the sideline...was the player offside ?
After Porto got their VAR assisted penalty last night, a few minutes later play was stopped to review a potential Romas penalty. Nothing in it. But as the commentator said, if they're going to review every little incident or appeal it'll kill the game.

They need a coach/captain call. You get one per half, if you use it and it's found to be correct your call isn't used. If you use your call and it's wrong it's gone.

clubberlang12

Bob Harris wrote: »

If the defender had jumped like that 5 yards from the line then it's a penalty, clearly stopped the ball going in however much he didn't mean to do so with his arm.
Dalot's shot last night though is from outside the box and looked like it was going to go a few feet over, if it didn't there's a keeper there. Very unsure if it was going to hit the target let alone go in.
That's why I think it's unfair though I get the fact that it was going towards the goal and it hit the defenders hand inside the area. Penalty according to the letter of the law. But a very rigourous one and had the shoe been on the other foot any United fan would be feeling very hard done by.

The location has no relevance as to whether it was handball or not......it's a foul or not a foul. The same action, be it just inside the box or 5 yards from the line should result in the same verdict. Completely agree that had it been a United player most would be annoyed with the call, but by the officials interpretation of the rules it was a foul, and it would be one we would have had to accept and understand why so. Penalty calls can be soft, in relation to other clear cut fouls in the box, but that doesn't mean that the rules weren't infringed upon.

rob316

It just shouldn't take so long. If you cant decide in the first 30 seconds, then you should wave it off, call it inconclusive or something. Stopping games for 4 mins at a time is ridiculous. It's not too bad for the people watching it at home but if your in the stadium and your wondering whats going on for 4 mins it kills the game.

raze_them_all_

rob316 wrote: »

It just shouldn't take so long. If you cant decide in the first 30 seconds, then you should wave it off, call it inconclusive or something. Stopping games for 4 mins at a time is ridiculous. It's not too bad for the people watching it at home but if your in the stadium and your wondering whats going on for 4 mins it kills the game.

It needs an America. Football flag system. Give a manager two challenges. If they win bohh they get a third. If they lose one they lose a substitution. That way managers can decide the risk and it won't happen all the time