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

[cheekybids]

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.

I agree with this, Cancelo was slightly late so it’s not side on.

 

[bluenova]

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.

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.

 

[City Hobgoblin]

TAA was a bit more sly

 

[Ohrodneyrodney]

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.

What's with all this "Trent" stuff. Weird you use his first name and a City players surname.

 

[york away to this!]

The only thing here that is "clear and obvious" is that the ref that gave fulham a pen and sent cancello off, is the same chap reviewing a very similar incident 24 hours later...

 

[St.Pauli support]

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.

I agree, but it also means elbow close at your side!

Spurs player slows down for ball control and TAA is pushing his back with his elbow. That's shouldn't be the original idea of shoulder to shoulder, on level.

Penalty for being stupid, that Trent fucker.

 

[Stephen230]

It was a blatant push from behind from TAA, it's a clear and obvious foul. If that doesn't fall under their definition of clear and obvious, I've no idea what does. There's no debate, it's a penalty all day. Incompetence or worse are the only reasons it wasn't given.


Cancelo one was just as clear of a penalty, however I'm not really buying the red card.

He's given a red card under the "no attempt to play the ball" rule but a shoulder barge is a perfectly legal action, he's attempted a shoulder barge and got it wrong, if the shoulder barge is a fair and successful one, he gains control of the situation and the ball, therefore you cannot say there was no attempt to play the ball.

A fair shoulder charge is an act to win the ball and specifically can not be done for the intention of knocking a player over. Cancelo clearly checks his run for the ball and makes a deliberate move towards the player. The ball also isn’t in playing distance when he barges him over, which is another requirement of a fair shoulder charge. It’s a red card all day long mate.

 

[aguero93:20]

spurs got beat and we we won!

Rags lost too, good weekend overall really

 

[Nellies left peg]

It’s a common trait with dipper players if an opponent is running near the touch line to give a little shove and help them over the hoardings.complete snidey cunts

 

[Love_Each_Day]

Arnold and Van Dijk were getting away with most games in the second half of last season, can't be arsed running back any more so shove from behind. They know nothing will come of it unless the forward is about to tap into an empty net. Fair enough to let the odd one go but something's not right to be completely immune to a certain type of foul. The Cancelo one made me think more of Matip on Gordon at Anfield though.