A&H

Senegal - Colombia

J

JH

RefChat Addict
Penalty incorrectly given, review initiated, decision overturned. VAR as intended.
 
The Referee Store
Can't help but see the similarities between this no-penalty nicking the ball and Australia v France penalty nicking the ball.
 
JH said:
Penalty incorrectly given, review initiated, decision overturned. VAR as intended
Click to expand...

Only if you believe it wasn't a penalty. It looked to me that maybe Sánchez got a touch on Mané's leg at the same time as a touch on the ball. I think it could have gone either way and I'm not sure it was a "clear and obvious error" to have given it.
 
one said:
Can't help but see the similarities between this no-penalty nicking the ball and Australia v France penalty nicking the ball.
Click to expand...
COL won the ball clearly, changing it's direction, his motion of winning the ball brought down SEN.

AUS barely nicked the ball, it carried on it's trajectory, well after his challenge to win the ball his leg tripped FRA.
 
Peter Grove said:
Sánchez got a touch on Mané's leg at the same time as a touch on the ball.
Click to expand...
Since when can't you even slightly touch a player before making a tackle? That touch wasn't a foul, the challenge that brought him down came after the ball went.
 
JH said:
COL won the ball clearly, changing it's direction, his motion of winning the ball brought down SEN.

AUS barely nicked the ball, it carried on it's trajectory, well after his challenge to win the ball his leg tripped FRA.
Click to expand...
Fairly good description. However neither description makes it a clear pen or no pen and neither should have gone to VAR.
 
JH said:
That touch wasn't a foul, the challenge that brought him down came after the ball went.
Click to expand...

If a challenge brings a player down and was a minimum of careless, it doesn't matter that it came after the ball went, so long as it's still in play. I'm not saying this definitely was a penalty but equally you can't say that it can't be a foul just because the ball has been played.
 
Comedy BBC commentary: he touched the ball so it can’t be a foul.

I also think it could have gone either way. Easy to call a careless foul even though he gets a good touch on the ball. It’s not a clear and obvious error.

I think it was against protocol.

I also think it is ridiculous to watch the referee go to the booth. It’s not credible that a ref can make an objective decision in such physical conditions, as well as the bias involved in having the VAR speak, which is effectively an accusation of an error. It’s so biased and loaded.

Just stupid IMHO
 
Peter Grove said:
If a challenge brings a player down and was a minimum of careless, it doesn't matter that it came after the ball went, so long as it's still in play. I'm not saying this definitely was a penalty but equally you can't say that it can't be a foul just because the ball has been played.
Click to expand...
So a slide tackle that gets ball and man is a foul? What?
 
Fully agree. They have thrown away the "clear and obvious" criteria on penalties and use the review system to makes sure of anything that could go either way. Rather than thinking "is the decistion clearly wrong?" They think "could the decision be wrong?".

It doesn't give you much confidence on their ability to make big decisions.
 
Mane regained possession of the ball after the touch, if he hadn't been taken out he would have been in on goal. ;)

Never a penalty, but neither was the Griezmann one.
 
one said:
Depending on how you get the man it can even be a red card.
Click to expand...
I mean a normal slide tackle that you see I don't know how many times a game, taking the man and ball. It's not a foul. They take the man, if they didn't get the ball it would be. The ball matters.
 
JH said:
I mean a normal slide tackle that you see I don't know how many times a game, taking the man and ball. It's not a foul. They take the man, if they didn't get the ball it would be. The ball matters.
Click to expand...
It really depends on the tackle. In this instance I don't think it was a foul (just) but it wasn't an obvious one. Right decision through wrong process.
 
In real time I would guess I would give no foul, and looking at the replays no foul looks a good decision. But I would also be happy with foul. Ball and player at the same time, player wiped out, foul is also OK.
 
There we go, keeper comes and wins the ball, then takes the player out, without doubt recklessly, yet no referee would dream of giving a penalty for that, because he took the ball in the same motion.
 
Now that GK challenge is a much much harder call.
An outfield player, winning the ball like that in midfield, scissors, trapping the opponent's foot, it's an easy foul and YC. But for the GK, winning the ball in his own area... funny how field position and player position has so much influence on the decision...
 
JH said:
There we go, keeper comes and wins the ball, then takes the player out, without doubt recklessly, yet no referee would dream of giving a penalty for that, because he took the ball in the same motion.
Click to expand...
No ref would give that because it's the GK... anywhere else on the pitch and...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top