Im not asking Vat to ignore clear and obvious mistakes.
I am. I'm asking them to ignore those because they've made it perfectly clear that they don't have a flipping clue what clear or obvious is. They need to learn what that is first before being allowed to do anything on it. Redefined technical jargon has caused them to think that the referee made a mistake when he in fact did not. Typically in normal football the ref often ignores a foul that leads to a goal if a goal is scored, because the goal could seen as punishment enough, or he could decide to caution or issue a card. It is entirely up to him. This is apparently not the case under VAR. And in this case it revealed a big glitch.
Pawson saw everything and made a decision. He then bottled it under pressure from Var.
Par for the course. He made the natural decision, the only decision he feasibly could in that situation. Only to be told that he bottled it, when he actually didn't, as in letting the goal score and ruling it a goal. The punishment for the foul is another story.
The trouble is that according to the VAR protocols, they apparently can't let the goal stand and send off the Liverpool player, or even card him. That's how bent VAR is. They are working from a framework (the VARs) that require them to chalk off the goal in order to punish the fouling player. Here's why. They have observed what they have decided was a denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Even though a goal was scored, despite it being scored largely if not entirely
because of the dual fouling in this case, rather then the fouling stopping a goal from being scored as it were, which is the logic behind this application, they are compelled to apply this logic anyway to disallow the goal so they can punish the player. This is how hamstrung they are by the reinterpretations that were put in specifically for VAR which are causing havoc to the normal standards.
It actually prevents them from making the appropriate decision here, which may have been for the goal to stand and the player carded, either with a yellow or a red or no card. As a City fan what's more important for the season, the goal or if a Liverpool player was sent off. Clearly the goal is important. In this case *apparently* Erling's retaliation ended the advantage.
This only further reinforces how problematic and warped the concept of denial of a goal scoring opportunity is and how it's being applied to situations in ways they haven't designed it for. There are large gaps between the scenarios that they designed VAR for and the ways it's actually being used.
Pre-VAR, here the referee could of course allow the goal to stand and after the goal is scored issue a warning or a card to the fouling player, at his discretion. He could have a discussion and explain that he played advantage for his foul. But this referee wasn't allowed to take any kind of a stand on what happened. He was just given his marching orders, and essentially treated as if he had bottled it when it hadn't. It was the VARs who were bottling it as usual. There might be a discussion over if a yellow or a red card would be appropriate, but not at the expense of the goal being counted. We do not have to choose between the goal or the 'Pool player being sent off. We can have both. We can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. But VAR can't apparently!!
There's an argument that Erling could be punished to a lesser degree than the Liverpool player for his retaliation but in a way that's putting the cart before the horse. As I understand it, the logic here was that the ref did play advantage but then Erling's retaliation ended the advantage before the goal crossed the line. Or that he never played advantage to begin with but just didn't blow his whistle right away. At this point, I'm not sure if the referee himself even knows if he played advantage or not because apparently no one's sure what it is anymore.
What decision do you think Liverpool would prefer, the common sense one or Vars ?
They were probably thrilled to not concede the 3rd goal, I'd imagine. Having a player sent off that late means almost nothing besides a game off for that player, which isn't always a negative. Apparently the understanding post-match was that it would be 3 games, but now it's been reduced to 1. No one, and I mean no one, involved in football, has a flipping clue what is going on anymore.
