moomba
TheBrownDog
I think it was given a corner.Was it given as a penalty initially or was it given after VAR intervention? Should really be obvious if given from VAR advice IMO.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
I think it was given a corner.Was it given as a penalty initially or was it given after VAR intervention? Should really be obvious if given from VAR advice IMO.
I think it was given a corner.
I've seen it now and dont see how it could have been overturned on VAR IMO. Only because the defense is turning away from the ball and it hits his arms by his side. Not quite sure how that fits under the clear and obvious error mantra. By the same token you would expect that if it was given that it would not be reversed upon VAR advice.
Only thing I can think is it's deemed a clear error because the ref might have said he didn't see it strike the arm. In that case it's automatically a clear error (based on the assumption that it's deemed handball).
Looked out to me but I guess VAR needs categorical proof so hard to overturn.Inclined to agree with Cruyffy, that angle showed the ball was out - just, even taking the curvage into account. The problem seems to be that VAR officials wasn’t shown the angle Cruyff is talking about
I think refs are a bit unrealistic with what they consider an unnatural position. Bloody hard to jump without using your arms to some extent.
But then they forgot to use VAR with a clear clip of the heels in the 120th minute on a Roma playerGood use of VAR in the Porto game, defender thought they could get away with a sly jersey pullback. Ref didn't pick it up, VAR did, clear error & pen.
If you try and replicate the action the PSG player did, your arms end up exactly where the PSG players was.I think refs are a bit unrealistic with what they consider an unnatural position. Bloody hard to jump without using your arms to some extent.
Exactly, you can't jump with your arms down unless you force yourself to keep them down IE - unnatural position.If you try and replicate the action the PSG player did, your arms end up exactly where the PSG players was.
Fully natural position and should never had been given. If it had hit his other hand I would have a different view as that was sticking up at a weird angle
Certainly makes it very difficult for defenders. Interesting to see the three footballers as pundits said it shouldn't be a pen but the 'expert' , the former ref said it is. Think if he hadn't turned his back on it with his arm out it wouldn't have been a peno.I think refs are a bit unrealistic with what they consider an unnatural position. Bloody hard to jump without using your arms to some extent.
It's probably more of an unnatural position than most.I remember hating when players put their arms behind their back constantly when defending crosses and shots. Will probably have to be the norm from now on even though it gives an advantage to the attacking player.
But then they forgot to use VAR with a clear clip of the heels in the 120th minute on a Roma player
Staggering that wasn’t reviewed. Stonewall penalty
No doubt the Porto pull back was a penalty. If ref deemed not enough contact for the Roma one, then VAR should of had a word in his ear. There was a clip of heels which caused the Roma player to then trip over his own leg. In that instance the Roma player had zero chance of being able to keep his feet so had to be a penalty. How much more contact can there be than the 100% inability of a player to maintain there feet?I guess the ref made the call that there wasn't enough contact to give a pen. A deliberate action like pulling a player back will always be more likely to be penalised then an inadvertent coming together. Those incidents are really a subjective call.
The Porto penalty left absolutely no doubt, deliberate attempt by defender to stop the striker getting on the end of the cross. Who knows, if they clipped heels perhaps the ref and VAR may also have done nothing.
No doubt the Porto pull back was a penalty. If ref deemed not enough contact for the Roma one, then VAR should of had a word in his ear. There was a clip of heels which caused the Roma player to then trip over his own leg. In that instance the Roma player had zero chance of being able to keep his feet so had to be a penalty. How much more contact can there be than the 100% inability of a player to maintain there feet?
Fans will never understand VAR decisions. Or should that be accept?What's the go with clubs all having video screens next season in the PL? Helps with the crowd understanding VAR decisions. I know Utd & LFC are resistant to installing screens at OT / Anfield which just seems ridiculous to me. Video screeens should be mandatory at all PL venues next season.