You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
VAR thread 2022/23
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Fair... Except that Eddie was set for the Rashford shot. His movement is triggered the moment Rashford lifts his foot. It's that precise moment Rashford interferes with the keeper (not the moment he first interferes with play - that was when he ran across Akanji preventing the challenge). Eddie is 100% focussed on Rashford and doesn't have time to set himself for the Bruno shot.Everything you've said is a fair point tbh.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
The classic and totally subjective 'not enough in it for me' get out clause.Why were the two pens not given? The first is stonewall
I might accept that with the Haaland one but not the one on Cancelo. BT never even said anything after the replay there was just dead silence.The classic and totally subjective 'not enough in it for me' get out clause.
JRockBlues
Well-Known Member
The USA Network coverage said that Cancelo moved his leg in between that of the defender.I might accept that with the Haaland one but not the one on Cancelo. BT never even said anything after the replay there was just dead silence.
Bwahahaha crazy isn’t it.The USA Network coverage said that Cancelo moved his leg in between that of the defender.
Tommy_Catons_Perm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2011
- Messages
- 2,538
I guess VAR decided there was not a clear and obvious error by the ref. This is what I don't like about this hydrid VAR system as labelled by another poster. One man's clear and obvious is another man's not very clear or obvious.This sort of bollocks makes me dizzy. All goals are checked by VAR as a matter of routine. So what is the point of discussing with the linesman and changing the on-field decision? It's the same story as last week at Anfield. Change the on-field decision to suit then VAR can claim not enough to overturn the on-field decision. It's nothing but manipulation. Two correct on-field decisions over-ruled by the ref and then allowed by VAR. Beyond a joke now.
The clear and obvious caveat is clear and obvious obfuscation to justify a decision to suit the preferred outcome.
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 37,002
Fair... Except that Eddie was set for the Rashford shot. His movement is triggered the moment Rashford lifts his foot. It's that precise moment Rashford interferes with the keeper (not the moment he first interferes with play - that was when he ran across Akanji preventing the challenge). Eddie is 100% focussed on Rashford and doesn't have time to set himself for the Bruno shot.
Yes. I said it should have been offside.
city saint
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 6,374
in about 3 months they will come out and say its one of thr very few they got wrong.too little too late attwell is not up to being a prem ref.he let them bully him into the goal.i suspect he knows the rules but wanted to get in howards good books
RobinHood
Well-Known Member
Any presence in the box is interfering as the keeper will be aware of them at least.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.