This is illustrating my point.
...and you could make the same video of hundreds of penalties with the "giant hover penultimate step" or the "pause in the penultimate step" which are essentially doing the same thing and getting the same outcome.
That for me suggests the opposite for clear and obvious. If you can only see the handball clearly from one angle and it's the angle behind the goal, the opposite side to the referee, how can that be a clear and obvious error?
A missed penalty is a serious missed incident, it doesn't have to meet the clear and obvious.
This is illustrating my point.
The effect of Lacazette (?) feinting during his run up was to make the GK dive early. That's what happened.
You can nit-pick about which step it was or whether it was at the end or not... but the action and outcome are the same, That's why the law is soooo daft.
IMHO of course
Because (IMO) it's clearly a handball offence. That's not necessarily saying that the referee could have seen it from their position, but I think most people would agree that it's obviously wrong for it to not be a penalty. Having to factor in the officials' positions when VAR is reviewing something to decide whether they would have been able to see it or not would be farcical.
I'm not quite sure why it makes a distinction between 'clear and obvious error' and 'serious missed incident', given that it twice states elsewhere in the VAR protocols "The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a 'clear and obvious error'.", and "The referee's original decision will not be changed unless there was a 'clear and obvious error'".
Straw man isn’t it?
I suppose it also depends on what the definition of clear and obvious error actually means.
Disagree. Keepers don't dive or even move to a direction untill the run up is complete. That is, the non kicking foot is planted and the kicking foot is in motion. If they dive any earlier than that then that's just bad keeping. It gives too much time to the kicker to decide to kick the opposite direction. This is with or without the pause in the second last step.This is illustrating my point.
The effect of Lacazette (?) feinting during his run up was to make the GK dive early. That's what happened.
You can nit-pick about which step it was or whether it was at the end or not... but the action and outcome are the same, That's why the law is soooo daft.
IMHO of course
Not sure what this means but if you think it is an incorrect statement happy to see some evidence. Similar to the image I provided that supports my statement.“Keepers don't dive or even move to a direction untill the run up is complete.”
Straw man? No, not at all. I’m not arguing for a line, I’m explaining it where it came from. As others have said, until relatively recently, you could feint at the ball. The change was made to stop a very specific act. You want to disallow more feintingthan IFAB does, of course you’re entitled to that opinion. But neither your opinion nor mine is going to change what IFAB does.Straw man isn’t it?
OK, I’ll play… the GK can quite happily feint right, left, up, down, forward, back, do a somersault at any time before or after the ball is kicked.
“There has to…” no, there doesn’t
or if there is a line, make it an effing line not a smokescreen!
Of course they do that but that's not what I said is it? There is a big difference between moving about and going for a direction of save or diving. And the whole debate is about the difference between 'before the ball is kicked' (after completing run up) and before completing run up. The devil is in the details.
Yes, I would be happier with “anything goes”
