| Southampton penalty VAR check 13:05 - Nov 25 with 869 views | stonojnr |
So I remember only a few weeks back people telling us the rule is if you foul outside the box but carry on into the box fouling it's a penalty.
So can they explain why the Premier League have come out in response to queries about Southamptons penalty awarded by the ref, and not overturned by VAR.
"The referee’s call of penalty for the challenge by Robertson on Dibling is checked and confirmed by VAR, who deemed there was no conclusive evidence that the contact occurred outside the penalty area"
Why were VAR checking for evidence that contact occurred outside the box? if as we were told the rule says it doesn't matter if contact is outside the box if there is still contact in the box between the same players. |  | | |  |
| Southampton penalty VAR check on 13:09 - Nov 25 with 796 views | Crock |
They were checking if the contact continued into the box or stopped before. |  |
| |
| Southampton penalty VAR check on 13:10 - Nov 25 with 792 views | SitfcB |
It wasn’t a continuous foul, the foot of the Southampton player was on the line when he got fouled, meaning it was a penalty as the line belongs to the box.
VAR were just checking it wasn’t outside of the box. Had it been a few inches back then it would’ve been an FK. |  |
| |
| Southampton penalty VAR check on 13:11 - Nov 25 with 772 views | Vic |
I suspect it;s do do with the fact that the Soton one was a 'single' tackle as opposed to an ongoing tussle that started outside of the box but also carried on inside. Just my hunch. |  |
| |
| Southampton penalty VAR check on 13:59 - Nov 25 with 623 views | bsw72 |
Single challenge which occurred on the white line (which forms part of the Pen Area), rather than an ongoing challenge.
That's the way I saw it. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
