True. But for the infringement in question: "raised foot with contact" slowing down to ascertain contact was necessary. Besides at normal speed it looked like there was contact coz Dier jerked his head like he was shot or something. But the slowdown was realy to confirm he wasn't cheating us and buying the post event reaction by Dier.I know what you’re saying but refs should watch things at the monitor at real time. Slowing things down frame by frame always looks worse to make it look more serious than it actually is.
Im sure you can find the correct rule. Since you were able to find the above.Also for those confused by the laws (rules). Apologies if this is already discussed.
View attachment 171156
That's why VAR intervened. I agree its close. Had there not been contact and the ref didn't call for an indirect kick for dangerous play, VAT would not have intervened. They intervened specifically because they thought they saw contact and thus making this a potential penalty.I think the foul is a genuine grey area. Problem is on a forum is that people always want it to be black and white, Was/Was Not, purely binary.
I actually find that the decision making process is the wrong way round in this instance. I would actually have found it understandable if in real time the ref had awarded a penalty. If VAR then had the authority to call him to the monitor — but they don't, do they, in that scenario? — the proper function of VAR, in this instance would have been to get him to rescind his original decision. The slow motion makes it clear that a) he gets the ball b) barely brushes Dier. And the oblique angle between leg and head then makes the “dangerous play foot up” argument more than doubtful.
Look we should have put the game to bed before it even got to that. I hope everyone can agree on that. The major problem was there.
If there wasn’t contact that doesn’t matter according to your earlier posts and those of nearly everyone else who thinks this was a penalty. I wish you would just stick to one story, but you don’t, like nearly always.That's why VAR intervened. I agree its close. Had there not been contact and the ref didn't call for an indirect kick for dangerous play, VAT would not have intervened. They intervened specifically because they thought they saw contact and thus making this a potential penalty.
And all potential penalties demand VAR intervention.
Everything about the scenario worked correctly. Even if unfortunately against us.
I don’t blame him at all but I do think Dier was clever and knew what he was doing. Nico didn’t give away the penalty Dier won it so if the same thing happened again I’d still expect Nico to try clear it then let the ball go past him in the boxHypothetical question: if the exact same situation should occur next UCL match, would any of you who don't blame Nico for last night (not for the dropped points, just for the penalty) blame him then?
If so, what would be your reason for changing your mind?
No.Hypothetical question: if the exact same situation should occur next UCL match, would any of you who don't blame Nico for last night (not for the dropped points, just for the penalty) blame him then?
If so, what would be your reason for changing your mind?
They're the only two options then, are they?So if the ball comes inside the box , stop , take a deep breath and low your pants down?
Lots of games are won by 1 goal, you can't win every game by 2 clear goals. Last night we drew because of a very poor refereeing decision, so yes it was somebody else's fault. Don't try to over analyse the obvious.A perfect example of why one-goal leads are never comfortable.
Surely you've seen poor decisions before, or 35-yard wonder strikes, or freak deflections? If a team makes a conscious decision to protect a one-goal lead, only for one of the above to occur (against which you can definitely legislate, by attempting to stretch your lead) they've nobody else to blame.
Not everything is somebody else's fault.
Not over-analysing anything.Lots of games are won by 1 goal, you can't win every game by 2 clear goals. Last night we drew because of a very poor refereeing decision, so yes it was somebody else's fault. Don't try to over analyse the obvious.
I'm a firm believer in VAR but much much more reduced impact to the game. Its changed the game we loveSpot on. The night before they got it right during the dippers game correctly pointing out a poor decision. Here they entered into that grey area that has sickened so many and is potentially ruining the game. They indulged in needless subjective analysis which offered an alternative view to the ref but not pointing out an obvious mistake. We perhaps need VAR just an awful lot less of it.
Okey dokey. I thought Dier made the most of it given that he knew the ref has been shit all match and was likely to give it. You thought it was a pen I thought it was harsh.True. But for the infringement in question: "raised foot with contact" slowing down to ascertain contact was necessary. Besides at normal speed it looked like there was contact coz Dier jerked his head like he was shot or something. But the slowdown was realy to confirm he wasn't cheating us and buying the post event reaction by Dier.
He wasn't. It was a penalty.
If the 'injured' player is taking the penalty he can stay on.Apologies if this was answered earlier, but if Dier was actually kicked in the head - why was he allowed to remain on the pitch to take the penalty? He could easily have had concussion or even have been killed….
When I saw it in real time, I thought “Uh oh!”True. But for the infringement in question: "raised foot with contact" slowing down to ascertain contact was necessary. Besides at normal speed it looked like there was contact coz Dier jerked his head like he was shot or something. But the slowdown was realy to confirm he wasn't cheating us and buying the post event reaction by Dier.
He wasn't. It was a penalty.
If the 'injured' player is taking the penalty he can stay on.
Thanks for clarifying . So much for player well being and all that.If the 'injured' player is taking the penalty he can stay on.
Bore meIf there wasn’t contact that doesn’t matter according to your earlier posts and those of nearly everyone else who thinks this was a penalty. I wish you would just stick to one story, but you don’t, like nearly always.