Oh here we go. Read the LOTG, there doesn't need to be excessive force so it's not the key bit. Please read this part again ' Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
And whilst I agree about off the ground and out of control it's what everyone has been banging on about for many seasons. Regardless Trippier was lunging at KDB from the side, two footed and over the ball. That in my mind was endangering his safety hence the card and having given the card there was no logical reason to overturn his own decision.
What???After being told by Neville he was not offside.
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.
The ref’s initial opinion from seeing it once, at one speed, from one angle was that it was red. After a number of replays from a number of angles and speeds, he came to a much more informed and the correct decision.
One replay was all I needed to show he’d hardly touched him and there was no excessive force.
Whether or not it was a Red card is not up for debate. For what it's worth I think it could have gone either way which means it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake.That's how I saw it, other than I thought he got in front of de Bruyne's knee, and was more of a trip. If it had hit from the side, I'd be more inclined to a red card, but I don't think he did.
Much of the debate is down to not knowing the conversation and inventing a version. I'll add to that with this version - it may be as simple as:
VAR: "red card, checking. What reasoning did you give the red card for?"
Ref: "studs connecting with the side of the leg, high, Serious Foul Play"
VAR: "if he didn't contact with studs?"
Ref: "then yellow"
VAR: "okay, I think you should look at the contact again, as he didn't contact with studs"
If we're speculating on what went on between the referee and the VAR, how about...That's how I saw it, other than I thought he got in front of de Bruyne's knee, and was more of a trip. If it had hit from the side, I'd be more inclined to a red card, but I don't think he did.
Much of the debate is down to not knowing the conversation and inventing a version. I'll add to that with this version - it may be as simple as:
VAR: "red card, checking. What reasoning did you give the red card for?"
Ref: "studs connecting with the side of the leg, high, Serious Foul Play"
VAR: "if he didn't contact with studs?"
Ref: "then yellow"
VAR: "okay, I think you should look at the contact again, as he didn't contact with studs"
Except last night when they first put up the lines I thought (so did Neville) that Rashford's line was in front of the last defender. Then in a second they decided it was a goal and we never got to see the evidence again. On Saturday they spent an age looking at a Palace goal and ruled it offside, but this time there was a Villa player in the centre way beyond the Villa line as the ball was played from free kick to the far side. Lets face it, United will enjoy the benefit of any doubt and more in VAR decisions!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.
What you have to look at is the potential TV earnings for a Rag's v Dipper's title race. I know that looks impossible right now, but so did Leicester winning the PL.Except last night when they first put up the lines I thought (so did Neville) that Rashford's line was in front of the last defender. Then in a second they decided it was a goal and we never got to see the evidence again. On Saturday they spent an age looking at a Palace goal and ruled it offside, but this time there was a Villa player in the centre way beyond the Villa line as the ball was played from free kick to the far side. Lets face it, United will enjoy the benefit of any doubt and more in VAR decisions!
It's as if the rags have been given the arsenal script of starting off shit then getting in the top 4.What you have to look at is the potential TV earnings for a Rag's v Dipper's title race. I know that looks impossible right now, but so did Leicester winning the PL.
Oh here we go. Read the LOTG, there doesn't need to be excessive force so it's not the key bit. Please read this part again ' Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
And whilst I agree about off the ground and out of control it's what everyone has been banging on about for many seasons. Regardless Trippier was lunging at KDB from the side, two footed and over the ball. That in my mind was endangering his safety hence the card and having given the card there was no logical reason to overturn his own decision.