Sunderland v Brighton DOGSO

[DJIC]

Interesting this, where does everyone sit, clear & obvious for VAR?

Then appealed, panel have agreed an error so no one match ban.

Could have been worse, Brighton could have scored after the offence & play being stopped by VAR intervention, which would have chalked goal off.

The resultant free kick was taken a long way from the offence & could have been scored.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cv4g18gk8xzgo

 

[Paul_10]

Seems I'm in the minority but this looks like a DOGSO too me, the keeper was not running towards the ball and the ball was much closer to the attacker when the foul happened.

If the keeper was running towards the ball then fair enough but for me the attacker was most definately getting to that ball if the defender didn't foul him.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

This did not meet the VAR threshold, but the sending off was a justifiable decision so overturning it is usurping the role of the referee.

 

[one]

This is getting ridiculous. VAR is rerefereeing the game and the appeals panel is rerefereeing the rerefereeing.

There is enough arguments for this eather way. It sits right in the middle of obvious/not obvious for me. I would have had no issue if the referee had decided DOGSO without the VAR. But VAR should not have intervened no mater what the decision was. And for the same reason the appeals panel should have left whatever the outcome was alone.

 

[Paul_10]

This is getting ridiculous. VAR is rerefereeing the game and the appeals panel is rerefereeing the rerefereeing.

There is enough arguments for this eather way. It sits right in the middle of obvious/not obvious for me. I would have had no issue if the referee had decided DOGSO without the VAR. But VAR should not have intervened no mater what the decision was. And for the same reason the appeals panel should have left whatever the outcome was alone.

Think the issue was that the referee did not even award a foul so there's a clear and obvious error and that foul in the VAR mind was a DOGSO hence the review.

I really don't see the debate here though, if the defender did not foul the attacker, he would of regained the ball and have a shot at goal because the ball was nowhere near the keeper(who was largely static and was not running towards the ball) and was only a few yards away from the attacker.

 

[RustyRef]

I don't think the attacker had a cat in hell's chance of getting to the ball before the keeper, so a big mistake for VAR to get involved. I was very confident their appeal would be successful on this. I think the independent panel will go to town on this one and say 5-0 that the original decision was correct and 5-0 that the VAR intervention was incorrect.

 

[wazztie16]

Having watched it, looks like a coming together to me. Though I could potentially understand it being given at low levels on one view of it at the time. But with all the evidence available, I'm leaning towards no foul.

 

[one]

if the defender did not foul the attacker, he would of regained the ball

There is a good argument that this is a very likely outcome but not an obvious one. And that is the issue.

VAR can't intervene because not calling the foul is a clear and onvious error. They can only intervene if not calling a DOGSO is. So not calling the foul shouldn’t have any impact on VAR intervention unless it was a missed (unseen) incident.