A&H

Villa Vs Palace

A&H International
Am I right in thinking var spent age on this then recommended a review which England (I think correctly) rejected?

Pen seems correct to me. The initial miniscule scrape of the ball is irrelevant
 
I thought we'd got past the "but I got the ball" argument for a sliding tackle that wipes out the opponent.

Seemed a very odd take on "C and O" compared to many other VAR non-interventions.
 
gman1978 said:
Clear penalty, no idea why he was ent to review it but glad he stuck to his decision. Then you have the clowns on MoTD saying it's "harsh".
Click to expand...
Pundits will forever believe in the myth of “but he got the ball”.

They probably also believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Santa Claus.
 
I actually think it's really harsh on Palace, it really is not a clear incident of going through the man to get the ball and it looks a decent tackle too me.

However the fact opinion seems to be split on this one even with 2 FIFA officials goes to show how subjective it is and fair play to England for sticking with his call. This is an incident I hope we hear the audio and see why the VAR thought it was an clear and obvious error but the referee thinks he's right. I'm not holding my breath as it does not involve a big 6 club though.
 
Diaby was so far into the box I thought that if Palace had appealed they might have got a result. I think it's like line of sight OS, the GK needs to make a case to the referee the he was distracted by Diaby - otherwise no referee wants to know.
I thought VAR might get involved. Maybe Webb will cover it...?
 
santa sangria said:
Diaby was so far into the box I thought that if Palace had appealed they might have got a result. I think it's like line of sight OS, the GK needs to make a case to the referee the he was distracted by Diaby - otherwise no referee wants to know.
I thought VAR might get involved. Maybe Webb will cover it...?
Click to expand...
The Palace players in the immediate vicinity wanted it and went straight to the ref
 
He went straight through the attacker to get the ball, it's a clear penalty for me.

I think the VAR confusion is Jones has asked England did you see the touch on the ball. England has said no, but Jones would be talking about the touch after the attacker had already been taken out. Probably a good use of VAR, they have got it right at the end of the day.
 
santa sangria said:
Diaby was so far into the box I thought that if Palace had appealed they might have got a result. I think it's like line of sight OS, the GK needs to make a case to the referee the he was distracted by Diaby - otherwise no referee wants to know.
I thought VAR might get involved. Maybe Webb will cover it...?
Click to expand...
VAR doesn't get involved unless the penalty is not scored and the encroaching player gets involved in the scoring or prevention of a goal.
 
Peter Grove said:
VAR doesn't get involved unless the penalty is not scored and the encroaching player gets involved in the scoring or prevention of a goal.
Click to expand...
What about the GK being distracted? Obvs if an encroaching player was in the 6 yard box you would hope the officials would see it! But if they didn’t, in theory can VAR not act…? All goals are checked for any offense prior, no?
 
Peter Grove said:
VAR doesn't get involved unless the penalty is not scored and the encroaching player gets involved in the scoring or prevention of a goal.
Click to expand...
That's fair on borderline calls but this was a player entering the box by a yard or 2 a good second before the kick and realising what he'd done. It was refs side of the area. It really should be called live
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top