Search results

Yet for an innocuous accidental handball on the edge of the PA a penalty is "expected"

Given the result, who cares, but if the game had swung the other way, I think this would go down as a second cup final when City should have been playing against 10 after DOGSO. This is where the foul started... Look at the video and there's a case for Kepa initially just impeding but if...

What people wanted was not what they got. The "clear and obvious error" criterion is a mistake (or an error). It means mistakes are not corrected. It means very similar incidents have very dissimilar outcomes (even within the same match - or between what a referee gives one week and what he...

Without having watched it more than once, I concur.

I'd usually defer to your understanding of the protocol but I'm not sure that's right. "A potential ‘clear and obvious error’" includes "attacking team offence in the build-up to or scoring of the goal (handball, foul, offside etc.)" Factual is for where on the arm the ball touched: "For...

5 minutes for VAR to be sure of whether the ball struck an arm... How can that possibly be C&O?

But you're still disallowing the goal despite the push. Thinking out loud now, but in the common (original) understanding of seeking to gain an advantage by being IOP (rather than what it's been restricted to in the laws now) players IOP at a FK are seeking to gain an advantage even before the...

Then, in the case cited (just to put a player offside), you're giving a penalty for a trifling offence in the context of players* being pushed, pulled and rugby tackled at corners with impunity. Can of worms - what's a push, was it just pushing back, and for VAR another whole dimension: offside...

So "the onfield decision is a foul" is addressed not to the player in front of him but to VAR, and (cut) "it's a clear foul, end of" to the players? So in the end I've put 2 and 2 together - based on a cut made by PGMOL...

Well, you've taken that wrong. I was admitting that's wasn't how I'd taken it. Which means it wasn't clear.... Is that what referees with VAR say to players? "The on-field decision is...."

The wording of law 12 allows a push or a trip etc that is not careless or reckless or with excessive force. If "careless" is now interpreted as something "more than trivial" then the use of hands to push or hold is entirely subjective, but may be the difference between a foul and a goal. Why is...

. 6

I see. I had taken it as part of the dialogue with VAR...

"End of" is "end of discussion". Would that be a useful addition to the VAR protocol as code for "Don't bother recommending a review"?

So, does saying "End of" mean VAR won't bother with a review?

That just means perpetuating inconsistencies, and there are still inconsistencies in what VAR (really VARs) consider clear and obvious.

I spend a lot of time there explaining offside... A mission to explain. (Or else to complain about Spurs' recent equaliser v City being allowed when this was chalked off.)

I meant I'd heard that that was what PGMOL had said, not that I'd heard the whistle! Just looking for some consistency in when VAR intervenes.

And - I heard - VAR didn't review it as whistle had gone before it went over the line... Really, compared to what Arsenal have been doing at corners, it was soft.

It's been debated before here on how far back from the line you can take a throw. Obviously from that position the ball could be thrown so that it entered the FOP a long way from where it went out. I thought this was between "smart" and "cheating" as the defence was geared up for a long throw...