Search results

From a cognitive point of view though, it's really not comparing apples and oranges. You don't need to be a top referee to run VAR. I would genuinely argue you don't even need to be a referee. You need to be able to analyse what's going on on a series of TV screens, correlate different...

Make it any attempt to make a deliberate move towards the ball, or to impede or attempt to impede the movement or vision of a defending player. e.g. if you're in an offside position and don't want to commit an offence, stop and put your hands up and walk away from the goal. And at the same...

Or hopefully - at the very least - career-limiting. I come back to my earlier comment about taking the VAR role off professional referees - at present they have attained that role and progressed through the ranks on the strength of their on-pitch performances. Let them go back to what they're...

No, it's literally their salaried job. There is no excuse for missing something so obvious unless they actually have a vision problem. The decision that needed checking was "is this goal offside, or not" and they woefully failed in that respect. 99.999% of footballers, fans, and referees in...

"Did not recognise the likely impact of his position" And these guys in the VAR studio are qualified refs...? Not some imposters with a white canes and golden labradors? Are we sure? Can we check?

Apologies, interfering with an opponent then 🤪 Honestly I wish they would just simplify the rules instead of making them more and more complicated to try to deal with edge cases, which just creates more and more edge cases!

The ball hitting the ref can still change the game - in particular it can break up a promising attacking sequence or fast break. It's less of an issue in chaotic defensive situations because it gives the defending team a chance to reset, and they can just punt it from the restart if all else fails!

How do you know the original offside was just based on H, and not on both of them? In real time I called them both offside, even though Enzo didn't get anything on the ball. I can accept Haaland being just onside due to Dorgu's outstretched foot, but Enzo was always offside and interfering...

Ignore me, I was replying to someone who was talking nonsense about it being a new phase due to a deliberate attempt to play the ball by a defender, and I assumed he must have been talking about Martinez who tried to get to the ball with Enzo as it was being crossed. He was talking about...

I thought his positioning was really poor. Yes he needs to be close to the action but there were a number of times (on top of the ones that actually hit him) we he was actively blocking what should have been a useful passing line near the edge of the area - for both teams. Get out of the way, man!

Apologies from Howard Webb incoming 🙄

But he's only trying to play the ball because Enzo - who was offside - is right there next to him...?

He booked Enzo presumably for simulation so presumably the ball was considered dead before Maguire pushed him. Although it was barely a push. Enzo probably deserved at least 2 cards if not 3 for simulation during the game IMO.

The USA should never, ever be allowed to host another Football tournament ever again.

Absolute waste of everyone's time.

There is no law against making yourself big. He doesn't have to shoot, dribble, or cross. He can perfectly legally choose to shield the ball.

Kane was fouled in the run-up to Norway's goal - yes the player got the ball but kicked through the back of Kane's legs in the follow through. Should have been disallowed. Haaland's push for Norway's second goal was blatant, did affect England's ability to defend the corner, and the rule...

What tiny contact there may have been did NOT make a material difference in the trajectory of the ball. It wasn't clear or obvious so VAR should stay out of it. It's not like Henry's handball in the WC Play-Off, or Madonna, or Suarez. If there was the tiniest touch it didn't make a material...

The spin of the ball may have changed ever so slightly, but I'd disagree with a swerve/direction change. But it's impossible to actually see if the fingernails or fingertips touch the ball. As I said before, you'd have been looking at a red card and penalty for the foul on Sesko a few seconds...

With the angles available it's neither clear nor obvious, and the ball would have gone in anyway. The VAR can't infer evidence of contact from ball movement only, they have to be sure. It was a correct outcome for VAR not to overturn, the only thing they did were wrong was watch the replays in...