Phantom Foul Confirmed by VAR

[JH]

https://streamable.com/f2dym

 

[alexgr]

It’s hard to tell from those angles - at the speed he’s going is it possible he nicks him on the shin?

 

[RobOda]

Was a controversial one and I saw a thread on it that was very much of the mind that it was a dive.

However, I've had that sort of thing happen before; if you get a 'swipe' of the studs, you really don't need to make that much contact and it bloody hurts. Not easy to spot though imo.

 

[soccerwatch18]

It’s hard to tell from those angles - at the speed he’s going is it possible he nicks him on the shin?

If you look, his boot has moved or snagged the attacker's sock. Not saying it's nailed on, jut looks like there was at least some contact. You can see at around :05 of the video. Do we really want to be giving penalties for this? Not sure I want to be a referee of a game where this is supposed to be a pen.

 

[socal lurker]

Keep in mind that VR does not "confirm" PKs. VR looks to see if the R clearly erred in what he decided on the field. Had this not been called on the field, it seems extremely unlikely the VAR would have intervened. But in not recommending a reversal, the VAR is not saying the call is correct, just that it is not sufficiently clear that the ref erred--that is a big difference that seems to be oft overlooked in discussions on VR.

 

[Peter Grove]

Or, as the VAR protocol puts it, the question is not, "was the decision correct?" but: “was the decision clearly wrong?”

I also think that although it's a small distinction, it's significant that whereas the original VAR protocol only used the phrase "clear error," the section in the LotG regarding VAR uses "clear and obvious error," as if to reinforce the idea of just how clearly wrong it has to be, before the referee's original decision can be changed.

 

[cwyeary]

I'm fine with the VAR not getting involved on this one. I just wish this high of a standard of "clear and obvious" was used across the board.