Search results

I'd just point out that VAR was not at fault for the Brighton goal - as we know, the VAR is like any other AR and only capable of recommending something. It was Scott who viewed the footage and allowed the goal - VAR did its job perfectly.

I was about to say 'its depends on which team offends.' Long day....

VAR team have access to every camera in the ground, as do TV. TV won't necessarily show you the angles that VAR are seeing, though.

Fair enough - we'll have to disagree!

No we're not because there is no contact with the knee.

But can you really see why the AR/4O called red?

Really? I'm fortunate to work in a team frequently with the same ARs (and 4th if we have one) and if one of them told me it was a red and I saw this afterwards I'd be livid.

Are we really still doing still images to prove the merits of a decision? I think the Arsenal disallowed goal vs Leicester shows you why that's a bad idea.

I strongly disagree with anything other than yellow here. What's really bizarre as others have said is the process - the delay/lack of urgency suggest yellow before an official (4O or AR) with a better view says its red. If anything I'd expect those with a better view to recommend a yellow. For...

Just me being picky here but even if the GK could be sanctioned for misconduct its not a question of DOGSO but of Denial of a Goal.

But in that case it's not a special privilege afford by law but by the fact the GK is a different position. That's a very fatuous argument.

Yes.

I suspect they did have an angle either way (remember that broadcast pictures don't show all that the VAR has) but the time that elapses prior to the goal would discount any offence - like the equaliser Chelsea got v Palace a few weeks back. Not immediately leading to a chance.

Which was exactly my point in the OP.

They’re irrelevant because whether or not Taylor wants to issue a yellow card, red card or give the player a hug and gift him a unicorn he is obliged to follow the laws of the game. What ‘fans want’ is irrelevant. In Europe, he’d probably caution him for a ‘lack of respect for the game’ but that...

In the build-up to the goal?

But that's all irrelevant. Taylor would be wrong in law to caution. It's a stupid law and I despise it but that cannot be a caution. And I disagree, it's a good advantage - none of the WHU players wanted him to go back after the attack was fizzled out.

Very decent refereeing (in the first 29) from Taylor/team. BUT I AM SICK OF BT SPORT: On the WHU goal not being disallowed for handball Peter Walton tells us that it's not been disallowed owing to 'no clear evidence'. Wrong. It's because it didn't lead directly to a goal. 29th minute, Taylor...

As a rule, slo-mo should only be used for factual errors. ‘Did the ball hit the hand?’ ‘Was the ball over the line?’ And the same with still images. It’s possible Pawson said something along the lines ‘I’m giving it but there’s no contact.’ And the VAR said ‘hi Craig, there is contact and here’s...

I agree they've messed up but PGMOL have said (annoyingly, in that on-the-record nameless to broadcasters way they do) that Coote didn't check the penalty as was focussed on the offside. So I understand what happened even if I think its a shambles.