VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

diarm said:
This is the best angle and resolution I've seen (mute it first):



This is the closest I've seen to evidence for a double touch but even at that, I don't think you can definitively say it's his standing/slipping foot that hits it and not the turf between that foot and the ball.
Click to expand...


Exactly this, heard people say this puts the argument to bed, but it doesn't at all. As you say the ball could move slightly because of the turf shifting.

Also if both feet are hitting at the same time then wouldn't that be allowed as it is with free kicks? The laws only state you can't touch it again AFTER your first touch, not that you can't kick it with both feet at the exact same time.
 
Withnail said:
Does the clear an obvious apply to VAR checks for pens?

Presumably they check them all for infringements like double contact, the goalie leaving his line etc as a matter of course which would fall outside of the clear and obvious process.
Click to expand...

You maybe right, I'm not sure what the stipulations are here and whether it's a different case based on whether it's actually overturning an on-field decision or not.

I just don't see how they can clearly decipher it one way or the other, I would have thought in that situation with it being such a big call and no obvious appeal from the other side that you would give them the benefit of the doubt. All the angles and all the slow-mo's I've seen I still can't see any definitive double-touch of the ball.

I'm sure if that stood and Atletico went through Real would probably boycott the Ballon D'or for the rest of the century in protest so maybe they've ruled in their favour to save them dealing with the petulant fallout...
 
DannyCAFC said:
Agreed - it's not decipherable frame-by-frame to the point it's 'clear and obvious' for me which is what VAR is supposed to be for.
Click to expand...
This was my immediate reaction as well. I think a lot more fans would be on board with VAR if the "clear and obvious" standard were applied consistently.

If you need frame-by-frame breakdowns or several minutes to review footage (not the case in this situation, but a common occurrence with VAR reviews nonetheless), then by definition it's not "clear and obvious".
 
An abomination of a VAR call...and I'm not even a fan of Atletico and their shithouse tactics under the sniveling shitbag Diego Simeone, man whose antics in 1998 were a disgrace to the game and put David Beckham in physical danger.
 
It's poor defending to let him get across and takes him out without getting the ball.

It's a penalty.
 
That should never be a penalty. Technically it was a trip, but come on, that's ridiculous.

But on what grounds was he given a yellow card? I don't understand that at all.
 
Get rid of it. The tech is great the officials are sad little ego nerds who ruin the game
 
Denies clearest possible chance with tackle from behind, but no red card. Okay, I see what we're up against tonight.
 
Then punch on RH isn't a pen for me but what's the difference between it and the uproar after the onana punch incident?
 
arnie_ni said:
The rule has changed
Click to expand...

The rule being that a genuine attempt to get the ball isn't punished with a red card when a penalty is given. But he had no hope of getting the ball without going through the player. It was clearly a foul to stop him shooting freely, hence a red card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.