hilts
Well-Known Member
Anyone able to explain this:
When the penalty on Rodri wasn’t given, the defence was that VAR was there to prevent ‘clear and obvious’ errors. You’ve seen those given, you’ve seen them not given. ‘I trust Michael Oliver’s judgment’ said Martin Tyler.
Okay. If, like reviews in cricket, VAR is there not to re-referee marginal calls but to avoid real howlers, then the decision not to award a penalty can be argued to be fair enough.
Two things. First, the “handball” was barely discernible in real time. Oliver didn’t spot it, the spurs players didn’t appeal for it. The ball might have brushed Laporte’s arm, but in what way was the goal overturned as a result of a ‘clear and obvious’ error? It seems that the law was applied differently in the first instance than the second, and other than the fact that in the second case the team that stands to benefit from the rule plays in light blue, I can’t see any difference.
Secondly, perhaps it’s obvious to others, but it isn’t to me. Why did the sky sports commentators not point out that VAR is only there to correct clear and obvious errors? The justification for not awarding a penalty in the first half dictated that the goal should not have been disallowed in the second. So why was there no comment about the absence of that justification in the second?
Define clear and obvious error