Mic’d Up

[Runner Ref]

My issue (and this was mentioned during the VAR discussions) is according to Law 14 the encroaching defender who plays the ball can only be penalised if it prevents the opponents from scoring, attempting to score or creating a goal-scoring opportunity. In this case the only impact was preventing the kicker touching the ball twice, which is none of the above. VAR then sees Janelt coming in behind and uses this as justification to intervene, but seems to lose track that the footage is showing Mbeumo is about to touch the ball first. To suggest Mbeumo might not touch the ball makes it a subjective decision.

This is a link to the incident as shown on Mic'd Up https://www.skysports.com/football/...ford-had-to-be-retaken-against-crystal-palace

The player and ball positions when Guehi plays the ball:
View attachment 7934

I completely agree with what you’re saying. But then later down the good book is the attached. That to me then contradicts the part you mentioned (which I do agree with)

 

[CaptainsPlease]

I completely agree with what you’re saying. But then later down the good book is the attached. That to me then contradicts the part you mentioned (which I do agree with)

I take that part from the VAR protocol as just summarising the types of incidents that can be reviewed. It does not override that section in Law 14 or need to restate the full text of it. So VAR can review it, but should only intervene when Law 14 says the player is penalised.

 

[Runner Ref]

I take that part from the VAR protocol as just summarising the types of incidents that can be reviewed. It does not override that section in Law 14 or need to restate the full text of it. So VAR can review it, but should only intervene when Law 14 says the player is penalised.

But that’s the problem, that’s how you take it. And as do I.

But it’s very easy to interpret it another way. Very easy to say bullet point 4 occurred in this example, if you just read this section.