Agree, but the Red should have stood according to the PL's own rules. However, if they are going to CONSISTENTLY overturn decisions in the manner they did yesterday then I won't have a problem with it as long as they amend their published rules accordingly.That wasn't a red yesterday. The still image makes it look really bad and if you were using just that it would be a red but in reality it was just a cynical challenge to stop a break.
If a red wasn't given at first, I doubt many would have been saying it should have been a red.
hahahahaha. Harsh but funny.If that fucking spanner comes on gobbing off about VAR it will prove mine and many others point. He is here to Spam
2 feet off the ground above knee high and yet var told the ref not to give a red. Bent.
The 'out of control' bit is proved by having both feet off the ground i think.It’s hard to prove he is out of control and there was no excessive force. He went in to trip KDB to stop a promising attack. He achieved that, without injuring the opponent.
The offence you are suggesting carries a 3 game mandatory ban.
You can tackle with both feet off the floor. You cannot hit your opponent with both feet.
Walker.In theory, yes. In practice, this just doesn't happen. How many times has a referee been to the monitor and not reversed his decision? I can't remember a single one.
It's as if the VAR is the senior referee and if he says go to the monitor, you know you have made a mistake and are instructed to change your decision. It's almost like a protocol.
In hindsight, I think Dean was right not to refer Taylor to the monitor last week because that would have resulted in Taylor changing his mind and sending the Spurs player off - because that appears to be the protocol. However, Dean will have seen Taylor looking straight at the incident. He knows Taylor can't claim to have missed the incident, so it wasn't right to ask Taylor to go to the monitor because Taylor deemed the incident not worthy of punishment for violent conduct. That is a subjective decision about which two referees are entitled to hold differing views.
The Trippier incident today is the same in my opinion. The referee deemed it a red card, having had a clear view of the incident. His view wasn't impeded. There was nothing extra in the review that he didn't know without the review. It wasn't a clear and obvious error - just a matter of opinion. It's fair for other people including the VAR to have a different opinion, but it is a subjective matter, so the referee's immediate opinion was not wrong or invalid.
VAR should be correcting errors, not overturning decisions based on subjective interpretation.
FIFA's definition of violent conduct is "Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."
Trippier was not challenging for the ball. The question is, did he use excessive force or brutality. I think he did. The referee thought he did. These are perfectly valid opinions, and the referee having this opinion is not an error. The VAR thought he didn't use excessive force or brutality. A valid opinion, but having opposing opinions is not an error.
Exactly this. I don't get people saying it's a yellow at all. But yet they'd be demanding more severe punishment if Trippier put Kev out for 6 months. You can't referee a game on the outcome of a tackle. If you leave the floor with both feet you are out of control. Simple as that. Therfore endangering the welfare of an opposing player.The 'out of control' bit is proved by having both feet off the ground i think.
Is someone out of control when jumping to head the ball?The 'out of control' bit is proved by having both feet off the ground i think.
When Di Canio scored his wonder goal, volleying the ball in with both feet off the ground, was he out of control?Exactly this. I don't get people saying it's a yellow at all. But yet they'd be demanding more severe punishment if Trippier put Kev out for 6 months. You can't referee a game on the outcome of a tackle. If you leave the floor with both feet you are out of control. Simple as that. Therfore endangering the welfare of an opposing player.
If Kev was a yard slower yesterday Trippier could have caused serious damage. And I'm not in to that "he's a nice lad" shit. Tripper knew Kev was away yesterday and did what he could do bring him down. In his mind he wasn't thinking, i might fuck his knee here if I fly in knee high and catch him.
It's a red card all day long.
Never looked at it that way.Is someone out of control when jumping to head the ball?
I‘m not sure you can have a blanket rule like that.
Was he attempting to take someone out.When Di Canio scored his wonder goal, volleying the ball in with both feet off the ground, was he out of control?
No but he wasn't trying to clatter a player eitherWhen Di Canio scored his wonder goal, volleying the ball in with both feet off the ground, was he out of control?