Premier League Games 13/14/15 April '24

[mosssideblue]

I'm not talking about overturning the foul. It is a foul. I'm talking about overturning the penalty and giving a free kick outside the box, which is exactly what they did.

Exactly my point. You said it looked like initial contact was outside, not it was outside

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Exactly my point. You said it looked like initial contact was outside, not it was outside

That's a semantic argument and not a good one.

I would also say it "looked like" Haaland's shot was going wide before it deflected in. That doesn't mean I'm guessing. It's just a turn of phrase to say "that's how it appeared to me". People are free to disagree.

 

[mosssideblue]

That's a semantic argument and not a good one.

I would also say it "looked like" Haaland's shot was going wide before it deflected in. That doesn't mean I'm guessing. It's just a turn of phrase to say "that's how it appeared to me". People are free to disagree.

My point was it wasn’t clear and obvious, and you said VAR was right to overturn it whilst not knowing yourself when contact was made

 

[halfcenturyup]

Having looked at it a few times I think VAR has to overturn it and they made the right decision.

Initial contact looks to be outside the box.

Fouls continuing into the box according to Law 12 have to be holding offences. He’s not held him, just impeded him so first contact is what matters for this type of foul.

Clear and obvious isn’t relevant here. It’s a line decision, has to be either inside or outside. Like offside it’s not considered subjective but binary. Tricky but looks more out than in so it’s pretty much the only decision he can come to.

The VAR official has just followed a simple process there and I can see why that’s the decision he had to make.

You are using the wrong argument. IFAB's VAR protocol requires all VAR overturns to be clear and obvious errors, whether they are "subjective" or "factual".

We have seen before that line decisions aren't overturned when the VAR isn't sure. They don't have to make a call on the balance of probabilities when it isn't clear and obvious.

Your argument should be that, when contact is made, the attacker was clearly outside the box (including the line). I think that is what you are saying. I'm not so sure, at that speed, and with the fps and resolution they are using, it is possible to say that as a fact. But you may be right.

 

[JRockBlues]

My point was it wasn’t clear and obvious, and you said VAR was right to overturn it whilst not knowing yourself when contact was made

Clear and obvious doesn't come into it when it's a factual decision, ie. a line call. It's either inside or outside the box and the VAR ref adjudged outside so that's the call that is made.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Clear and obvious doesn't come into it when it's a factual decision, ie. a line call. It's either inside or outside the box and the VAR ref adjudged outside so that's the call that is made.

Yes, it does.

 

[mosssideblue]

Clear and obvious doesn't come into it when it's a factual decision, ie. a line call. It's either inside or outside the box and the VAR ref adjudged outside so that's the call that is made.

You’re missing my point again, so will leave it there

 

[jimharri]

I suppose it's too much to expect one of the terrible twins to drop points this afternoon?

 

[GornikDaze]

I suppose it's too much to expect one of the terrible twins to drop points this afternoon?

I was just thinking the same. My conclusion was… doubtful. We’d be upset if we dropped any points at home at this stage, so my hopes are definitely not getting up.




But, it’s a funny old game :)

 

[jimharri]

I was just thinking the same. My conclusion was… doubtful. We’d be upset if we dropped any points at home at this stage, so my hopes are definitely not getting up.




But, it’s a funny old game :)

If Villa play like they did against us at their place (when, let's be honest, it was a 1-0 battering), then maybe a 10% chance of them getting a point?