I can only assume because in his head, he justified why he was right.
I really do want to know what his thought process is though. This one is just stonewall for me, that I'm really struggling to understand why he hasn't give it.
I can only assume because in his head, he justified why he was right.
It is probably one of those times where the ref has a brain freeze and convinces himself he has made the right decision. So if he is convinced then VAR is not going to change his mind.
I read a transcript (not sure how accurate) I think he kept saying it was 'normal football contact' and 'what could the goalkeeper have done', terms I wouldn't expect a top flight referee to use...I really do want to know what his thought process is though. This one is just stonewall for me, that I'm really struggling to understand why he hasn't give it.
My initial instinct is that the ref might have thought the GK got the ball, but that is a factual issue, is clearly not the case on VAR so can't justify him sticking with the initial decision.Right or wrong, the common practice in the PA for many referees when a careless foul happens after a shot (or a touch) has been taken freely and stuffed up is to ignore the foul. I must admit, in full speed I thought this was normal sporting contact. Only after slow-mo I realised it was a foul.
I could give a full transcript of the video if that's what people want. VAR and his companion do agree it's a pen, and the prior comment by JH is accurate.
Okay, I'll get to it later tonightThat would be good.
I’d be happy with that in one of my games, player has cut across him. No foul for meNot worth a whole new thread but here's one from Burton last night: https://www.mancity.com/citytv/match-highlights/2019/january/burton-v-man-city-extended-highlightsv2 (at 6.00 on the video)
A City fan later came up with "VAR - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing..." though (from the end of the terrace to the right) my son and I both thought "no chance" (a grass-cutting no chance) when it happened. Mind you, by then our eyeballs had frozen...
Yep.
I believe that's why the Dutch referee's boss has commented on it publicly, saying that it should have been a penalty.
Interesting, on the twitter thread there were a few references to 'intent' and one 'it was a collision as a result of challenging for the ball, so it's fine', which I completely disagree with on both counts.
Not worth a whole new thread but here's one from Burton last night: https://www.mancity.com/citytv/match-highlights/2019/january/burton-v-man-city-extended-highlightsv2 (at 6.00 on the video)
A City fan later came up with "VAR - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing..." though (from the end of the terrace to the right) my son and I both thought "no chance" (a grass-cutting no chance) when it happened. Mind you, by then our eyeballs had frozen...
Not a PL ground, so no VAR there was there?
For whatever reason, there was - could perhaps have been because of the late stage of the competition. Commentators said VAR was in a van outside the stadium rather than the usual Stockley Park, though
Apart from the comedy value, never worth reading fans' opinions of referee decisions!