Hilarious seeing all of the arguments that our 1st goal shouldn't have stood and was "ridiculous".
The Sheffield United player touched the ball, not the ref. Not sure why that's "ridiculous"
Compare that to VAR's claim of a "handball" on Laporte early in the season that "led" to Jesus scoring and was taken back against Spurs was wrong as well, or no VAR needed to take away Sane's goal against Liverpool in CL or VAR then to take Raz' away against Spurs in CL as well.
Which is more "ridiculous" again?
Also read the ref "obstructed" the goal...what?
Obstruction? The ref? The ref can't "obstruct" anything as far as I understand. That can only be an opponent. The ref tried to get out of the way and he did as he didn't hit the ball. The ref is part of the pitch otherwise. It's annoying, I know and somewhat unfortunate, but hardly a devine tragedy compared to other decisions I see every week.
The ball hit the Sheff United player's boot and then bounced away to City as the player reached for it. If the ball hit the ref then you have an argument. Otherwise I'm a bit lost.
I realise if the ball hit the ref then the goal would have been taken away, but it didn't as he tried and did move out of the way. So, he should just stand there and allow the ball to hit him? He made a genuine effort to move. It's just bad luck.
