The words “off the ground” and “out of control” are not in the laws of the game when it comes to red cards.As stated in other posts afterwards, it was to show that having two feet off the ground does not necessarily mean someone is out of control.
To be a red card it has to be excessive force and it clearly and obviously wasn’t. He only dinked the side of de Bruyne’s leg with the side of his toe.No, the question was did the referee make a clear and obvious mistake. You replied that you think it was a yellow so yes he did. That is simply your opinion. The referee had an opinion as well. His was it was red. He didn't send the wrong man off, he didn't ignore the foul, both of which VAR could have intervened for clear and obvious, he saw a dangerous tackle which he deemed to be red.
Your opinion it's yellow, his was its red. It uis an opinion and so cannot come under the clear and obvious rule.
It shows that you can be in control of your body with two feet off the ground.Just shows the lengths of stupidity some people will go to, to try and make their point relevant. Jumping for a ball and lunging at a player knee high is like comparing apples to oranges. Two totally different things. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. I give up with them all.
Yeah, I was trying to show(and failing/falling on deaf ears) that being off the ground in itself isn’t dangerous and why it’s not in the laws.The words “off the ground” and “out of control” are not in the laws of the game when it comes to red cards.
They are phrases made up by pundits who don’t understand the laws of the game.
You can be off the ground and out of control and make a challenge that is no more than just a few kick with no red or even yellow card.
This is a much better rule than trying to find 1mm of a shirt sleeve of an attacker being offside.Tolerance level hahahahaa they make the rules up on the spot VAR and the officials are a joke
I’ve no problem at all with this new rule at all. My problem is the angle they showed the line from. No where near side on, so how can they possible accurately work that out?This is a much better rule than trying to find 1mm of a shirt sleeve of an attacker being offside.
Fans have been calling for this since VAR’s inception - to be more lenient/giving the advantage to attackers instead of defenders, if you can’t separate two lines with the naked eye, sack off the microscopic inspection of trying to find the attacker offside - and now fans are moaning about it.
Sterling''s goal v dippers? Apparently this rule was operative last season...?This is a much better rule than trying to find 1mm of a shirt sleeve of an attacker being offside.
Fans have been calling for this since VAR’s inception - to be more lenient/giving the advantage to attackers instead of defenders, if you can’t separate two lines with the naked eye, sack off the microscopic inspection of trying to find the attacker offside - and now fans are moaning about it.
The lines aren’t random lines drawn on the screen, they take into account the camera angle.I’ve no problem at all with this new rule at all. My problem is the angle they showed the line from. No where near side on, so how can they possible accurately work that out?
It still doesn't stop the VAR operator selecting which frame they use for their 'analysis'. In fact it actually gives them a wider margin to play with if they wanted to manipulate the outcome in favour of the attacking team.This is a much better rule than trying to find 1mm of a shirt sleeve of an attacker being offside.
Fans have been calling for this since VAR’s inception - to be more lenient/giving the advantage to attackers instead of defenders, if you can’t separate two lines with the naked eye, sack off the microscopic inspection of trying to find the attacker offside - and now fans are moaning about it.