A&H

Southampton vs Man City

J

James P

Well-Known Member
Thoughts on the challenge and Laporte?
Also, both VAR checks took a long time, and as well as frustrating fans, they seemed to stop City’s momentum as they were both in quick succession.
 
The Referee Store
"Glancing blow lacking the intensity for a red card" PGMOL tell Match of the Day. Not enough stitches needed then...
 
Can understand why VAR don’t overturn that. Doesn’t look like a “clear and obvious” overturn for SFP from the replays I saw on MOTD as its hard to tell if he makes contact or not.

Can understand why it wasn’t overturned, but I don’t agree with it. It’s a red for me, and the injuries Laporte got make it clear it should have been a red
 
Joshref said:
Can understand why VAR don’t overturn that. Doesn’t look like a “clear and obvious” overturn for SFP from the replays I saw on MOTD as its hard to tell if he makes contact or not.

Can understand why it wasn’t overturned, but I don’t agree with it. It’s a red for me, and the injuries Laporte got make it clear it should have been a red
Click to expand...
I'm confused. Clear it should have been a red but not a clear and obvious error?
 
bloovee said:
I'm confused. Clear it should have been a red but not a clear and obvious error?
Click to expand...
You are confused because you are changing his words. He said "it's a red for me" which is no review, you think he said "Clear it should have been a red" which is a review.
 
one said:
You are confused because you are changing his words. He said "it's a red for me" which is no review, you think he said "Clear it should have been a red" which is a review.
Click to expand...
Now you're confused. It was a direct quote.

Is anyone seriously defending the VAR reason for its not being a red?
 
Only seen briefly but for me, between everybody, nobody could tell pk or not, so, tossed a coin

Armstrong is a red, bewildering someone can sit watching a replay of that and not deem it serious foul play.
It looks a red first view, it can only be a red on review.
 
bloovee said:
"Glancing blow lacking the intensity for a red card" PGMOL tell Match of the Day. Not enough stitches needed then...
Click to expand...
Even the slightest of glancing blows from studs can cause a cut. The presence of a cut or the nature of it doesn't necessarily make it a red card
 
Nothing to see here... I agree, the injury means nothing. By chance, City and VAR have been very good acquaintances all season long. As soon as something goes against them, it's the usual fandom drama.
 
bloovee said:
It wasn't a glancing blow though, was it?
Click to expand...
We are back in the outcome vs action debate again here.
"He got a cut it must be or that makes it a red card."
I haven't seen this tackle, but the presence or absence of a laceration are not what make the challenge serious foul play but the action of the player in the challenge.
 
Thought both big VAR situations were wrong. KDB was clearly fouled on the penalty area line. So the protocol should have been 1) Foul happened on the line, so then it becomes a possible penalty, then 2) it's a clear and obvious error to not award a penalty.

The foul on Laporte is a red, and for me it's clearly a red. Locked leg, high contact, and definitely more than a glancing blow. I don't care about the cut. It's a send off.
 
JamesL said:
We are back in the outcome vs action debate again here.
"He got a cut it must be or that makes it a red card."
I haven't seen this tackle, but the presence or absence of a laceration are not what make the challenge serious foul play but the action of the player in the challenge.
Click to expand...
It's not that bad. SFP very supportable, but I wouldn't strongly oppose a Caution either. Not C&O IMO. Typical of the VAR unsolvable subjectivity
 
Amazed it wasn't overturned to a red. Top of the thigh, leg outstretched and certainly well beyond a "glancing blow". Was astounded it wasn't overturned to a red.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top