A&H

Brighton v Liverpool

GraemeS said:
Agreed. The on-field indication from AT was definitely that the penalty was awarded for the second foul - we don't know if that means he played advantage or judged no foul in the first case. And I'm really unsure how far VAR credibility stretches in terms of recommending a different outcome there though.

If hypothetically the "second foul" was a legal tackle, I'm 99% sure they should carry out a VAR review in order to cancel that penalty decision, award the "first foul" penalty and then a red card is definitely viable because the OGSO was denied, it then just comes down to how O they think it is!

But because that "second foul" is in fact a foul, I'm not sure what the thought process would be. I tried typing it out but deleted it because I couldn't get it to make any sense to me!
Click to expand...
it almost feels like AT was hoping for the 2nd foul and used it as a get out to not do anything about the first foul
 
The Referee Store
For me the non RC was not just a KMI it was the game deciding decision. At 2-1 with 10 Bton lose.

Again, for me, it’s another match where VAR has failed.

In the stadium at least VAR wasn’t an issue. But now reviewing it seems it was pivotal again.
 
Am I right in thinking that “clear and obvious” here would automatically apply to both challenges as per protocol (i.e. to overturn, both must be C&O not offences)?

Or is there a case that the second challenge is C&O not a foul, the first one is not C&O either way, and therefore a VAR could recommend overturning the PK since it was given for the second challenge?
 
GraemeS said:
Agreed. The on-field indication from AT was definitely that the penalty was awarded for the second foul - we don't know if that means he played advantage or judged no foul in the first case. And I'm really unsure how far VAR credibility stretches in terms of recommending a different outcome there though.

If hypothetically the "second foul" was a legal tackle, I'm 99% sure they should carry out a VAR review in order to cancel that penalty decision, award the "first foul" penalty and then a red card is definitely viable because the OGSO was denied, it then just comes down to how O they think it is!

But because that "second foul" is in fact a foul, I'm not sure what the thought process would be. I tried typing it out but deleted it because I couldn't get it to make any sense to me!
Click to expand...
Same principle as reviewing a second booking Vs straight red.

For what it's worth, the check seemed to focus around a potential dogso, and whilst anyone can have an opinion on that I don't think it's a clear an obvious enough error to rectify given what happens, i.e. still a pen.

It should have been a yellow card at least, but VAR can't intervene.
 
JamesL said:
Same principle as reviewing a second booking Vs straight red.

For what it's worth, the check seemed to focus around a potential dogso, and whilst anyone can have an opinion on that I don't think it's a clear an obvious enough error to rectify given what happens, i.e. still a pen.

It should have been a yellow card at least, but VAR can't intervene.
Click to expand...
My view entirely. If I was observing and a referee went caution there I would support them, there's enough doubt on how obvious it was to support yellow. Obviously I'd be taking issue with them having no card at all, but it certainly wouldn't be an incorrect KMD. And at the level I observe there is much less pressure on the match officials to keep the game as a spectacle as there is on EPL referees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top