What's the difference between Cancelo's foul and TAA's 'challenge'?

I thought it was a clear and obvious error by the referee not to give Spurs a penalty. But the VAR must have decided it was not a clear and obvious error.

This illustrates a fundamental flaw in the VAR process. There is no such thing as a clear and obvious error. It's subjective. The concept of a clear and obvious error is just an excuse to justify a decision.
Darren England thought the on-field referee HADN'T made a clear and obvious error in not penalising TAA for the same kind of challenge HE awarded a penalty for and sent the player off only 24 hours earlier?

I know that will be the excuse from the PiGMOL sympathisers on SSN this morning but I'm not buying it.

It f*cking STINKS!!!
 
Cancelo ran at Wilson and took him out. Trent was more cute and managed to get a bit of his shoulder alongside the Spurs player, who went down easily. In that situation you need to be level with the player to make it a shoulder to shoulder contact. Cancelo tripped and wiped out Wilson, coming from the side and behind. Trent managed to get almost level and kept his run straight rather than across and into the player.
Who the f*ck is Trent?
 
I think there's a clear difference in that Cancelo makes contact with the leg in his barge, and Alexander-Arnold, or this one below, is 100% shoulder/arm.


Here's where Cancelo makes contact with his leg to the leg of the Fulham player, but it is actually very clear on a decent quality replay.

View attachment 60247

Alexander-Arnold's challenge is entirely shoulder/arm and fits the accepted should to shoulder contact, like this one, and loads of others posted today.






It would be great if referees or PGMOL would come out and actually give explanations like this though.

I think the only difference is Citeh get nothing then review for changing the decision. Where as Dippers get the benefit first. Then the review to try and back up the decision. Standard stuff.. Same old same old.
 
This is why we use videos and not photos, because if you had a reverse angle of the Liverpool/Spurs challenge you'd see TAA's arm is extended and making contact with Sessegnons arm and shoulder.

And you've taken a pathetically biased photo of Cancelo's tackle.
TAA pushed him in the back, it wasn’t shoulder to shoulder, fucking clear as daylight.
 
Yet again the club needs to write to PGMOL and ask for an explanation. Cancelo's was a foul and due to making no real attempt at playing the ball it had to be a red although there is a small argument that due to Eddie being on top of the player plus he didn't have control of the ball then there was no goal scoring opportunity. That said no arguments with the penalty or red card.

I am baffled as to why the ref thought no penalty yesterday. It wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity so no chance of a red but it was a push in the back and anywhere else on the pitch it would be a free kick. Having not awarded a penalty why didn't VAR suggest a look at the monitor with the instruction that the exact same incident the previous day was a penalty and regardless it was a shove in the back. What conversation took place?
 
Cancelo ran at Wilson and took him out. Trent was more cute and managed to get a bit of his shoulder alongside the Spurs player, who went down easily. In that situation you need to be level with the player to make it a shoulder to shoulder contact. Cancelo tripped and wiped out Wilson, coming from the side and behind. Trent managed to get almost level and kept his run straight rather than across and into the player.
Wiped him out? Ffs,
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.