If a West Ham player had encroached and touched the ball first, it would have been a retake.The encroachment had no effect on the outcome of the penalty apparently. So they now get to decide what encroachment is adequate. I can see us getting fucked over with that.
I mean the people, they are not fit for purpose. VAR as as process is good if administered correctly.It is. It isnt the people, its the process and VAR is the process.
Dunno, but making up Luke Walton was unnecessary too ;-)Hearing all these rules being made up or how people Luke Walton interpret stuff, it just makes you distrust the bastards/process even more. why are they so shit?
Why should it be retaken??Eh? Peter walton "yep there was players in the box, but they didnt affect the outcome so thats why its not a retake" give over peter, if theres players in the box its a retake,
....hardly any contact, as usual Lacazette throws himself to the ground...I'd be frankly deeply embarrassed if we got a penalty for that, which incidentally, we never do.initially thought was awful decision but problem was he skimmed top of the ball and had a lot of contact with player so I can see why they didn’t overturn it. Another of those you want if it’s for you.
Do they pay the coont.He literally gets everything wrong. I think they just have him on for a laugh.
Because that’s the rule.Why should it be retaken??
If an encroaching defending player clears the ball from the save then yes as he’s gained an advantage from the encroachment. If a defending player encroaches on the opposite side to where it’s cleared and had no intervention on the rebound I don’t see why it should be retaken.