Have seen a LOT of mentions all over of the Rodri "handball" apology recently - despite the angle not actually being clear, and the fact that if they'd decided it was a penalty, they would probably have checked the offside for Richarlison, and so ruled no penalty, I was curious about something else...
Pep made a comment saying they'd given offside, and he seemed to have suggested this was the Richarlison offside. However it's not. The ball went out for a throw and the offside came from the subsequent play.
What struck me, given last week's incident, is should VAR even have been allowed to consider the potential handball. If the ball goes dead after an incident, then VAR is supposed to ask to pause the game. Once the game has restarted, VAR isn't supposed to have the power to conduct a review - as we've found out just this week.
I realise this has now changed, but it looks like they did exactly what they said couldn't be done in Liverpool's case.
Pep made a comment saying they'd given offside, and he seemed to have suggested this was the Richarlison offside. However it's not. The ball went out for a throw and the offside came from the subsequent play.
What struck me, given last week's incident, is should VAR even have been allowed to consider the potential handball. If the ball goes dead after an incident, then VAR is supposed to ask to pause the game. Once the game has restarted, VAR isn't supposed to have the power to conduct a review - as we've found out just this week.
I realise this has now changed, but it looks like they did exactly what they said couldn't be done in Liverpool's case.