| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) 22:45 - Mar 12 with 3593 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
|  |
| |  |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 11:15 - Mar 13 with 659 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 08:45 - Mar 13 by itfcjoe |
Yep - I'm struggling to see the controversy here. It looked like a double hit straight away and VAR must have been able to tell pretty quickly that it was.
The rule is the rule, it's not about interpretation - the ball does barely move but clearly hits both feet.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gl4hEkqXAAALkMF?format=jpg&name=900x900 |
Nah, it wasn't even a clear double touch on the replays.
This was one for the football pedants, not football fans. | |
| |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 11:26 - Mar 13 with 624 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 08:51 - Mar 13 by itfcjoe |
Here you go, they should try this angle
|
It's still not 'clear', even in close up and slowed right down. 🤣🤣
I think its the football pedant in you seeing what you want to see.
Happy to agree to differ. | |
| |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 11:31 - Mar 13 with 610 views | Vaughan8 |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 22:55 - Mar 12 by Marshalls_Mullet |
I know the reason it was disallowed, but I'm not sure why VAR intervened?
Clear and obvious error? Even the replay didn't show the double touch clearly. |
I have to say, in real time I didn't even think about it.
However, we have to get past this clear and obvious error. That was all a trick for us to believe this would be a good thing to come in. A toenail offside is not clear and obvious but are given every week.
I'll disagree with you as I think, he very slightly does hit it with both feet. Its very unfortunate. |  | | |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 11:35 - Mar 13 with 597 views | Kieran_Knows |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 23:11 - Mar 12 by Marshalls_Mullet |
This.
I don't think even the RM cheats complained. |
There was at least 3 players around the official on the half way line after the pen was taken, making the message that he hit it twice....
|  |
| |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 11:36 - Mar 13 with 590 views | Smoresy |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 09:22 - Mar 13 by DJR |
Maybe it's just me but I am still not wholly convinced from that angle that his left foot actually touches the ball (assuming that is part of the offence). [Post edited 13 Mar 9:30]
|
There is the tiniest contact of left foot with ball, 100%, but it's very quick even in slow-mo. | | | |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 11:51 - Mar 13 with 545 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 11:31 - Mar 13 by Vaughan8 |
I have to say, in real time I didn't even think about it.
However, we have to get past this clear and obvious error. That was all a trick for us to believe this would be a good thing to come in. A toenail offside is not clear and obvious but are given every week.
I'll disagree with you as I think, he very slightly does hit it with both feet. Its very unfortunate. |
Fair comment. Happy to agree to differ.
. | |
| |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 12:04 - Mar 13 with 507 views | TootingTown |
I heard that due to the automated offside tech, the ball now knows when it has been kicked. I reckon they used that data rather than just the TV replays. [Post edited 13 Mar 12:04]
|  | | |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 12:12 - Mar 13 with 488 views | HighgateBlue |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 08:01 - Mar 13 by Blue_In_Boston |
On goal decisions the words clear and obvious don't apply. It's a straight applying of the rules, he touched it twice - simple as. |
You're absolutely right that "clear and obvious" is not part of the relevant test here.
Many people get very angry because they think that a professional has misapplied the rules, despite the fact that the people getting angry don't know what the rules are.
Personally I'm gutted that the penalty was ruled out, and no advantage was gained by the second touch (if there was one, which doesn't look clear to me, as it happens), but if it is determined that there was a second touch, sadly, the rules are the rules and the goal can't stand.
And of course, if you touch the ball twice, that's your "go" over. You can't ask for another attempt. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 16:10 - Mar 13 with 386 views | BlueOura |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 08:51 - Mar 13 by itfcjoe |
Here you go, they should try this angle
|
Nope, still not seeing it. Impossible to say with certainty that the left foot touches/moves the ball to any degree before his right foot makes contact. He certainly gains no advantage even if it does ,which is surely the main point of the law anyway. It's a goal for me. |  | | |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 16:20 - Mar 13 with 368 views | rickw |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 16:10 - Mar 13 by BlueOura |
Nope, still not seeing it. Impossible to say with certainty that the left foot touches/moves the ball to any degree before his right foot makes contact. He certainly gains no advantage even if it does ,which is surely the main point of the law anyway. It's a goal for me. |
I agree, I can't tell if he's touched the ball or not so should have been a goal, probably wouldn't have affected the result but didn't seem right... |  |
| |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 19:14 - Mar 13 with 330 views | RamRob |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 16:20 - Mar 13 by rickw |
I agree, I can't tell if he's touched the ball or not so should have been a goal, probably wouldn't have affected the result but didn't seem right... |
There is a very slight wobble of the ball before he kicks it with his right foot.
Plus with his left foot sliding from under him the ball would have hit the top of his left foot as he kicked it with the right anyway
Either way it was going to be a double hit |  |
| |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 19:21 - Mar 13 with 327 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Soooo..... on what basis did VAR need to get involved there?! (n/t) on 12:12 - Mar 13 by HighgateBlue |
You're absolutely right that "clear and obvious" is not part of the relevant test here.
Many people get very angry because they think that a professional has misapplied the rules, despite the fact that the people getting angry don't know what the rules are.
Personally I'm gutted that the penalty was ruled out, and no advantage was gained by the second touch (if there was one, which doesn't look clear to me, as it happens), but if it is determined that there was a second touch, sadly, the rules are the rules and the goal can't stand.
And of course, if you touch the ball twice, that's your "go" over. You can't ask for another attempt. |
Not sure about the no advantage from the second touch bit, without it the ball was rolling about half a yard to the right…
(I know what you meant really!) |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
