halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,591
I read Dale Johnson's articles on VAR decisions, and quite like them, but I do so to get the referee's angle. IMO he tries too hard to support the decisions (I suppose he has to to get input from PGMOL) but often without critically assessing the protocol that got to the decision. Just because a decision follows some protocol or other doesn't mean it's the right decision in the spirit of the game. IMHO of course.
With respect to Mahrez, there are two key differences between the two incidents. First, the ball may have been heading out of play in the original incident in Johnson's tweet. It may or it may not have been, but there is at least some doubt. Second, in attempting to charge the defender in the tackle, Mahrez puts his foot in an unnatural running position. I can accept it is likely this caused the defender's foot to come down on his foot. So I don't have a problem with it not being a penalty. It would be given as a foul anywhere else on the pitch, but I can accept that penalties require more scrutiny.
Neither of these were the case against Everton. The ball was clearly in play and he followed a normal running movement. The defender chose to attempt a tackle and mistimed it. Penalty.
Forget the exaggeration. I don't see how that can be a determinant in the decision of whether it's a foul or not. If that is protocol, then it's a stupid protocol. The referee thinks the fall is exaggerated to gain an advantage? Then book the attacker after giving the penalty. That would soon stop exaggerated falls the same way petulantly kicking the ball away stopped after yellow cards were dished out. In fact, if players thought fouls in the box were properly punished, especially after a player tries to stay on his feet, there would be no need for exaggerated falls.
Sorry for the long reply again. Just trying to get my points across clearly.