Apparently (don’t shoot the messenger) VAR checked where the contact was but not the contact, If someone can advise the protocol on this that would be great.
Not a foul for me, very minor contact foot to foot contact before playing the ball.
It was the natural follow through that caused the fall.
I believe once you are reviewing for something then the "clear and obvious" criteria doesn't apply for other things.But it’s also an artifact of the VAR system. It was clear and obvious that it was on the line, so the only possible call is a PK. Even if the “better” call may have been nothing, it was not clear and obviously not a foul. Only possible VAR result is what happened. This is nothing more than VAR working as intended.
I believe once you are reviewing for something then the "clear and obvious" criteria doesn't apply for other things.
I based that on a logical inference rather that a direct reference. If during a review a yellow card offence (which is not reviewable) is identified then the yellow card can be issued.I don’t believe that is correct. Reference?
The whole point of VAR is to correct clear and obvious errors. It is true that with VAR if reviewing X and the R sees Y the R can address Y, and that if doing a review for a red card, the R can disagree and give a yellow.
But on this play, once the position made it a PK, the VAR must review the foul, and as far as I understand, the clear and obvious standard applies to the review of the foul that resulted in the PK.