Response acknowledged. Remember the Kompany freeze-frame from the World Cup. Probably the best example of how misleading the use of 'photographs' is
Anyway, the VAR dossier seemed to forbid the use of slow motion and frames for this type of incident. No surprise therefore, to see them making it up. It's just plain stupid imo
The thing with this incident, is I see comments like... 'the more I look at this' etc.
We don't get days on end to analyse replays and damning inappropriate evidence. The fact the commentators didn't know what the review was for, is fairly telling (I'm assuming they are better than Fletch and MacManaman!). If it doesn't smell like SFP, if doesn't have that instant signature of SFP and if the players don't detect anything majorly wrong, it probably ain't endangering anyone or using excessive force. On these occasions, replays are likely to be misleading because that real-time signature (for which you need to 'be there at the time') of SFP was probably absent
Completely fair comments, as all of yours have been in this discussion. I don't necessarily disagree with your line of reasoning. In my opinion, I think this type of challenge is one where VAR can really provide some value. I watched the play first on my computer, then on my TV (admittedly, not a very big screen). The challenge was definitely "orange" at full speed, where red or yellow both have justification. The replays, for me, turned me to supporting a send-off.
From my seat in the stands, this is the type of play where VAR can have real value. Maybe the referee didn't have a great angle. Maybe the challenge doesn't look all that bad in real time. But if you have the technology to look at it again, I see the items that lead me to believe it's a red card. For me (and this is again my opinion), if you can see the elements of this challenge in a video review, I think you can support a send-off.
I'd MUCH rather see VAR used to get these types of challenges out of the game than spending 3-4 minutes determining if someone's big toenail or arm hair is a millimeter offside. I can live with a tight offside-no offside call. What I do want to see is a tackle like this get out of the game because it does have the potential to be a season-ender.
EDIT - I did review the VAR protocols in my IFAB app. What is in the protocol is as follows: "(I)n general, slow motion replays should only be used for facts . . . e.g. point of contact for physical offences and handball . . ." So while slow motion shouldn't be used to judge the seriousness or speed of a challenge, it can be used to review point of contact. Now I don't know if you are supposed to (by Law) use slow motion to see whether a leg was locked or the downward angle of the challenge, but I'd have a hard time separating that from the point of contact if I was reviewing the play for the point of contact. So as a VAR, I could use slow motion to see that the point of contact was definitely above the ankle. I'm sure I would then see the locked leg and how the force was downward instead of horizontal. That would probably send the alarm bells ringing in my head about this becoming a SFP send-off.
I appreciate the reasoned and fair discussion on this.