Palace v Man City FAC
- Thread starter ladbroke8745
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
And he’s just doubled down on thatGary Lineker just said
"Never heard them use the word obvious before for denying a goal scoring opportunity"
Whilst on the screen the little tile said consideration for DOGSO.
Linekar: on behalf of VAR they are saying it’s not denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. I know that’s not defined in the laws of the game, it’s denying a goal scoring opportunity.
You’d have thought they might have told him at half time …
Defo think its split a lot of referees from people I've spoken to since it.
Think its one of those that can go either way depending on people's interpretations of the different considerations for DOGSO, as in whether you consider them met or not.
It’s a blatant DOGSO, the kind of huge error VAR is meant to prevent
Agreed. He's going towards the edge of the goal area before the keeper illegally pushes it out wide. Don't understand how that can be perceived as not meeting the criteria of direction.
So all the experience of those making the decision at VAR counts for nothing? All of them are wrong? Of course we can’t say they were all wrong because we don’t know what individual inputs there were. Game of opinions and it’s a subjective decision to make in this instance, one that has a number of issues to consider and discern upon but still a subjective one , was it or wasn’t it and the decision makers say it wasn’t and I’m quite able to understand their doubts and support their decision.
Law 0.5
If it means spoiling the game and millions changing channel, don't make the decision, especially in a Cup Final
TBF, the game of football is flawed WRT these types of decisions. It would've killed the game as a spectacle
Of course it was DOGSO. Henderson palmed the ball away from goal. Haaland was in
I'm OK with the PK decision, very hard not to give it and very hard to overturn. I don't know if the player cheated, but probably, he did
But overall, VAR spawns more intense controversy than the Refs create themselves. It'll keep the News channels on overdrive (again), so it serves that most important purpose. I don't post on the subject quite so often these days, because I get as repetitive as VAR and the controversy itself. It's waste of effort and I'm regretting the two minutes it's taking me to type this
If it means spoiling the game and millions changing channel, don't make the decision, especially in a Cup Final
TBF, the game of football is flawed WRT these types of decisions. It would've killed the game as a spectacle
Of course it was DOGSO. Henderson palmed the ball away from goal. Haaland was in
I'm OK with the PK decision, very hard not to give it and very hard to overturn. I don't know if the player cheated, but probably, he did
But overall, VAR spawns more intense controversy than the Refs create themselves. It'll keep the News channels on overdrive (again), so it serves that most important purpose. I don't post on the subject quite so often these days, because I get as repetitive as VAR and the controversy itself. It's waste of effort and I'm regretting the two minutes it's taking me to type this
Without the handball Haaland would have had the ball at his feet with an open goal, he would score 9 out of 10 times from there.
Forgetting the handball, would anyone be saying it wasn't a red card if Henderson had just taken out Haaland with a foul in the same scenario? I can't see how they would, but whether it was a handling offence or a foul should make no difference.
Not really sure how VAR has caused any controversy here given they stuck with the referee's decision, other than the offside which was factual. Had there been no VAR there would still have a been a pile on to the match officials for one very obviously incorrect decision and another that was arguably wrong.
There's an argument to say VAR enhanced the game, as without it Palace would have scored a second goal that was very offside.
Agree to some extent but I think both the angle of the ball and Haalands run is going away from the goal, still into the box but a lot wider of an angle. He has then got to regain control of the ball before a defender gets back on the line or infront of him to make a block.
For me thats probably enough reasonable doubt for it not to tick all the criteria.
I’d agree it might give doubts at grass roots level, but at elite level the striker scores more often than not there.
Be fair. He was trying to cut the VAR some slack. If the VAR doesn't understand the law, why should a pundit?
ladbroke8745
Censorship
Dont think it's as wide as some are making. And a quality striker like Haaland, who still hasn't actually scored in a final at Wembley, should score or at least get a shot on target.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
In regards to the offside, i mentioned earlier thinking one of the officials should have seen the handball live, but the offside SHOULD have been given live. It was an obvious touch at the keeper.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
If he was through on goal, 1v1 with a GK who can use their hands, most people would still say DOGSO. This scenario is 1v1 with a defender who can't use their hands......
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
The penalty isn't as bad as the impression I got from here, as I didn't watch the game. Mitchell certainly didn't have too many complaints from what I've seen
So what is shearer saying here - the GK denied a POSSIBLE goal scoring opportunity - so no red card??!
But the angle he'd have as well to get a shot away. Not sure the odds would entirely be in his favour.
Don't think its a factual DOGSO, certainly think its open to a large amount of interpretation.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
I get assistant is not in line but the view is unobstructed....
How can you not see this being outside the area and advising of this?
How can you not see this being outside the area and advising of this?