I hesitate to start the thread but I can't believe no-one else has.
Presume you mean Dias on White? If so, then not for me, kicking out isn't an offence in itself. It would have to be for violent conduct, and for that it would need to use brutality or excessive force. I don't think it was even close to those thresholds, rather was a petulant little flick, and therefore a caution was correct.That looked like the correct decision.
I was more intrigued by the offside goal. He looked offside and I’m not sure if it’s the angle or the way the lines were drawn.
Also, there was a kicking out in the game. Isn’t that a straight red rather than the yellow given?
There was no need for any force, ergo any kick out was excessive...Presume you mean Dias on White? If so, then not for me, kicking out isn't an offence in itself. It would have to be for violent conduct, and for that it would need to use brutality or excessive force. I don't think it was even close to those thresholds, rather was a petulant little flick, and therefore a caution was correct.
Classic example of angles and point of view being everything. Many of the replays on the United States (NBC/Peacock) broadcast made me think penalty, but the first view I thought it was a foul on KDB as Partey "established position" (I know that's more of a basketball term, but I can't think of a better term to use until my coffee kicks in) and KDB did kick him.I've seen one angle where it looks like a penalty, but several angles where it looks KDB kicks Partey. Correct decision IMO and although I can the the alternative view, it's certainly not a C&O error that would warrant VAR intervention.
I think that term actually works pretty well! By getting himself between KDB and the ball Partey was always likely to get the FK.Classic example of angles and point of view being everything. Many of the replays on the United States (NBC/Peacock) broadcast made me think penalty, but the first view I thought it was a foul on KDB as Partey "established position" (I know that's more of a basketball term, but I can't think of a better term to use until my coffee kicks in) and KDB did kick him.
In any case, definitely not a decision that should be overturned with VAR.
Stop it. You don't know what my view is, and it's indeed all down to angles but I'm genuinely surprised that people think it's clear it's not a penalty (rather than not a clear error). It's the last second of the clip where Partey looks to "plant his foot" on De Bruyne's right ankle. IF he hits De Bruyne's foot before Partey's foot touches the ground, is that a penalty?How is this even a question? Oh yeah, because of a certain user and the team involved!
I was more interested in, even in the world of the Premier League and "managing the occasion", how Partey got away without a 2nd yellow for a blatant rugby tackle. Same in the Southampton vs Bournemouth game last night, fairly cynical rugby tackle near half way, no card.
But he didn't, he planted his foot and de Bruyne then clearly kicks him. It is 100% not even possibly a penalty.Stop it. You don't know what my view is, and it's indeed all down to angles but I'm genuinely surprised that people think it's clear it's not a penalty (rather than not a clear error). It's the last second of the clip where Partey looks to "plant his foot" on De Bruyne's right ankle. IF he hits De Bruyne's foot before Partey's foot touches the ground, is that a penalty?
You should have hesitated quite a lot moreI hesitate to start the thread but I can't believe no-one else has.