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

Both should have been a penalty. Cancelo’s a red card and Alexander-Arnold’s not as he didn’t stop a goal scoring opportunity despite not playing for the ball.
 
Gordyola said:
IIRC Darren England was the VAR when Erling's goal was disallowed at Anfield
Click to expand...
The thing is with Darren England across these three instances…

Foden’s goal at Anfield was disallowed by the ref after VAR asked the ref to take a look at the foul be Haaland. It wasn’t VAR that made the decision.

The referee gave the penalty and the red card to Fulham/Cancelo, not VAR.

Neither the referee nor VAR gave a penalty to Spurs.

Darren England actually didn’t make either of the first two decisions, it was the referee. Although he probably should have asked the ref to go to the screen for the Spurs incident and didn’t.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bluenova said:
There is, and I think this case is one that shows that.

If a ref gives a pen and tells VAR he saw a trip, then VAR says there wasn't one, it's a clear and obvious error. The ref gave the decision based on what he thought he saw, but he was wrong. Similarly, ref says he saw ball hit chest instead of arm, but VAR sees it hit the arm, then that's a clear and obvious error. If the ref says he saw it hit an arm, but felt it was too close/natural, then he's given a subjective decision and VAR shouldn't overrule.

With Cancelo and Alexander-Arnold, the ref can make a subjective decision- with Alexander-Arnold he could have said, that he saw the push, but didn't think it was enough for a pen - just one player being strong, or the other going nowhere and waiting for contact. Unless he said there was no push and it was 100% shoulder to shoulder, then VAR wasn't going to intervene. A little like the Haaland goal at Brighton, where it was physical, and could easily have been given as a foul, but once the ref says that he saw what happened and that he thought it was ok, then VAR won't argue.

Clearly (and obviously), we still get decisions where VAR is getting involved when it probably shouldn't, or not getting involved when it should, but the concept shouldn't be difficult. Two refs can see the same incident and make different decisions - Clear and obvious is when the refs reasoning for a decision doesn't match what the pictures say, and that they've genuinely missed something.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. You make some valid points.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
The thing is with Darren England across these three instances…

Foden’s goal at Anfield was disallowed by the ref after VAR asked the ref to take a look at the foul be Haaland. It wasn’t VAR that made the decision.

The referee gave the penalty and the red card to Fulham/Cancelo, not VAR.

Neither the referee nor VAR gave a penalty to Spurs.

Darren England actually didn’t make either of the first two decisions, it was the referee. Although he probably should have asked the ref to go to the screen for the Spurs incident and didn’t.
Click to expand...
Then why did the ref wait to give the red card after he gave the penalty? He just stood there for 15 seconds, not blinking, as he was listening to his earpiece, before he pulled the red card out of his pocket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.