A&H

City v Atalanta

R

Ryanj91

Well-Known Member
Bravo sent off because of a classic Harry Kane dive.

Atalanta player dived over him and did the Kane leg to try and make contact.

How has VAR allowed such a clear and painfully pathetic dive stand?!
 
The Referee Store
1573081735805.png
You're right, the attacker initiated contact clearly from the replay. However, I suspect the fact that Bravo has gone with his boot quite high may have swayed the decision. Remember, you don't need contact for a foul.

EDIT: Angle matters!
1573081959582.png
Not as bad as I first thought, this is why positioning is so important!;)
 
I would have to ask why on earth would the attacker dive there? He's round the keeper with no defenders, it would have been an open goal.

As a keeper if you come that far out and don't get the ball you are in serious, serious trouble.
 
This is the Pires dive, not the Kane dive...

I'm torn, if the player doesn't instinctively hurdle the keeper he get's wiped out and we all agree penalty.
I've always said a player shouldn't have to leave a leg in to get whacked to win a free kick.
Having said that I'm not sure I could bring myself to give this one.
 
RustyRef said:
I would have to ask why on earth would the attacker dive there? He's round the keeper with no defenders, it would have been an open goal.

As a keeper if you come that far out and don't get the ball you are in serious, serious trouble.
Click to expand...
Either of two cases, the touch was heavy and he wasn't sure if he would get there OR it was premeditated so no matter what he was going to look for contact and go down.

Fully agree with the second part, if the keeper left himself in a vulnerable situation the attacker is going to exploit it.
 
The other big controversy was the penalty overturned because VAR said the holding was outside the area. It looked like the defender still had a hand on Sterling as he crossed the penalty area line.

But why then wasn't the YC converted to a DOGSO red?
 
bloovee said:
But why then wasn't the YC converted to a DOGSO red?
Click to expand...

No attempt to play the ball means no downgrade in card colour. The ref didn’t deem it DOGSO inside the box or he’d have sent him off when giving a penalty. The VAR deemed it a supportable decision likely as they had questions about Sterling’s ability to gain possession. Don’t think VAR would’ve overturned a red there though either.
 
Having looked at the replays, I don't think it's a foul at all, but a very clever bit of simulation.

I'd have probably given it live though depending on the angle.
 
Strikers have been doing this for decades and most referees know about it but give the foul anyway. Australia lost to Italy in 2006 world cup this way. It depends on your angle, not viewing angle but the thinking angle.

There is argument for a foul as, if the defender commits a careless act (stick a leg out, or hand for keeper, without the ability of getting the ball), even if the striker has a clear choice of avoiding contact but he doesn't, a careless foul is not nullified.
 
bloovee said:
The other big controversy was the penalty overturned because VAR said the holding was outside the area. It looked like the defender still had a hand on Sterling as he crossed the penalty area line.
Click to expand...
Looked like a classic example of holding, starting outside the area and continuing until the player was inside, to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top