I reply only to correct you on so many mistakes, in the full knowledge that you will respond with yet more nonsense. This isn't debate, where two sides argue valid points with each other. It is many people trying to educate you on the errors of your ways. But your obstinacy seems to outweigh your ability to think rationally.
Your contention isn't with me here, but with the VARs and their decision-making as it relates to the criteria. As a reminder,
they looked at the situation and determined that it wasn't a denial of a GSO. So I would put it to you like this - why do you think they didn't determine that it was a denial of a GSO?
Please answer that question.
That is what I'm trying to provide clarity for - so that we all understand why the decision was made. Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not. And remember, my personal view is that it
was a denial of a GSO.
However, I am
trying to explain to you what went into
their decision and why they made it. So you can argue with me about it as if this was my decision and my criteria but that is not the case.
The disconnect here appears to be that you're interpreting it as a denial of GSO. That is certainly arguable as such but I would point out that they appear to have a very strict definition and a high bar for what they consider it to be. So it's not that you're wrong by claiming it was a denial of a GSO. It's that it wasn't an "abundantly clear" one according to their criteria and their decision-making process and that's what I'm trying to get across here.
We don't have to agree with their decision, but we should be able to understand why they made that decision. And that's what I'm trying to explain to you. If you object to it, then take it up with IFAB and VAR. Don't shoot the messenger. As you know, my view for why it wasn't a red card was through a different set of reasoning.
Irrelevant. The law doesn't say the player has to be running directly towards the goal.
It says direction of play should be considered. The direction of play was not towards the goal. The ball was bouncing wide, Haaland was chasing it wide.
Irrelevant. I pointed out to you yesterday that the law doesn't say Haaland needs to be in possession of the ball. The third point below says that consideration needs to be given to whether he could GAIN POSSESSION of the ball. He definitely would have gained possession of the ball of Henderson hadn't intervened.
Possibly, as I alluded to, but not "obviously". Not clearly. It would have needed to be clearer and more obvious in the VARs minds for them to consider it a clear goal scoring opportunity. Not on the fringes, not without possession, not moving away from goal, etc.
It's also humorous that you keep saying that all this is irrelevant, but yet the decision was made as it was, so all this certainly was relevant or the decision wouldn't have been reached. I'm merely trying to understand it and explain it to you!
Irrelevant. Haaland would have kicked the ball in the direction of the touchline, but only a few yards in front of him. Certainly within range of him being able to take immediate control of the ball and get a shot away into an empty net, with the ball in the penalty area.
At the speed he was moving at, with the height of the boot, with the direction he was running in, if Henderson doesn't put the hand out, he kicks it on towards the sideline, wide of the box. Whether or not he would have been able to collect it and take a shot into an empty net is speculative. It's possible that could happen, but it's also possible that Henderson does one of two things. He either continues to chase him while keeping himself between Haaland and the goal, preventing a shot or making it a very difficult shot from the angle Haaland would have to shoot it from, or Henderson sprints back towards goal and tries to get himself back into normal position.
It would have been a long shot from a wide angle for Haaland to shoot into the empty net. Certainly possibly but "likely"? I'm not so sure, and the VARs certainly didn't think it was so take it up with them.
Laws. It is important to follow the laws, not misquote them like you constantly do regarding having possession of the ball.
I'm not misquoting anything. I'm applying the criteria. While your points are certainly arguable they aren't as "obvious" as they would have to believe.
For some reason the VARs did not see it as you do, and the whole of the football world it would seem. But they made their decision and there are reasons why they made their decision, but you refuse to understand why.
The two criteria you rely on in a misinterpreted way are both adequately met in the incident under discussion. Haaland was denied the chance to be inside the penalty with the ball at his feet and an open goal in front of him, so the"direction of play" clause is satisfied. Haaland would have gained control of the ball, so the "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball" clause is also satisfied.
Therefore it was a DOGSO.
That's your interpretation, not theirs. It's not as if you are taking an unreasonable stance. I would submit that given their criteria, given the direction of play and the lack of control from Haaland, that it didn't satisfy their apparent strict definition of what they would consider a denial of a GSO.
That seems to be the situation here. Not that your view is unreasonable, but that they need it to be "obvious" not just arguable. As always I'm glad to help and I look forward to your response
