Interesting that they were confused with the keeper passing it out as we all know that you can’t interfere.Also they had to mention the Ederson throw out but like you said not a mention of the forearm into Cancelo's face that was right in front of the linesman!
I would like to say that I’m not suggesting it should have been a red card. I’m merely trying to say that if it had been given, you could make an argument for it being one.It would depend entirely on the conversation between the referee and VAR but I’d expect it to be overturned.
Remember, for it to be a red card he has to be deemed to be using excessive force, and given he was simply trying to bring a ball down while standing still and Anderson is the one who initiates contact by moving towards the ball to head it, it’s very hard to justify it being excessive.
I would expect any decent VAR to look at the fact Anderson is the one moving towards the contact and realise it’s nothing more than a foul.
Because it’s not conclusive as to whether the ball had completely left Ederson‘s glove or not. If it had, then it should be a goal and if it hadn’t, it’s a foul.Interesting that they were confused with the keeper passing it out as we all know that you can’t interfere.
MotD purposely obfuscated the rules so that the viewer thought that something was wrong.
Why?
Because it’s not conclusive as to whether the ball had completely left Ederson‘s glove or not. If it had, then it should be a goal and if it hadn’t, it’s a foul.
The referee deemed it hadn’t and blew his whistle before VAR could intervene.
Does this mean that only tackles that cause serious injury should be red card offences?
Who do? MOTD? Only the ex-striker who would do that kind of thing when playing and an ex-Palace player thought it should be given and that was without scrutinising it, as you might be suggesting.They have access to 40+ camera angles and only showed one. If they wanted to verify the decision they could easily have done so.
Be more informative of them if they referenced the top goal scorers and minutes per goal that they quote on their webpage. The articles are written so narrow.Bbc obsessed with Erlings touches this just been put on their sportspage
Is Haaland the final piece of the jigsaw ?
Article goes on to say ...
the club's opening victory at West Ham, Haaland came away from London Stadium with two goals - despite having just 32 touches of the ball.
While City won easily, against Bournemouth he was limited to just eight touches and did not see the ball for 27 minutes in the second half.
However, the problem for defenders as Palace found out to their cost, is he is capable of exploding into life at any second - his three-goal burst against the Eagles coming from seven shots and just 16 touches overall.
I think it’s PigeonhoAre you a Ric bot?
If not, you’re an arse licking twat. Please Sir, look at me.
Sure, but his answer suggested that Mané was sent off because of the injury suffered. That’s not right.It means when a player is running full speed and going studs up at someone's face, they're more likely to cause damage than a player standing still and raising a boot to try and bring the ball down.
Huge difference in force. Huge difference in risk to the player.