Atletico Madrid vs Real Madrid

Isn't VAR meant to be for a 'clear and obvious error'?

This was far from clear and obvious
Exactly. You just cannot disallow that goal. Scandalous. It’s like accidental hand ball. You don’t do it on purpose. They should change the rule. The rule was so you can’t pass it to yourself and score. That is different.
 
Last edited:
I think you are all looking for the ball to move before he hit it with his right foot. What they are saying happened is that he hit it onto the end of his left foot with his right foot.

Either way, it’s a harsh decision. Im glad VAR wasn’t around when we were in the Carling Cup Final.
 
They are saying that the semi auto VAR picked up 2 hits as there is a chip in the ball to record hits for offside.
They are incorrect. There was a chip in the ball for the world cup but the champions league don't use that technology.

They do have 25 cameras for the semi auto VAR so you could assume they have a better angle than we've seen via broadcast but they don't have the chip in the ball.

I was adamant he hadn't touched it twice, but the BBC showed it from a different angle and you can see it hit his standing foot. It certainly isn't obvious.

Is it this one? I don't see it there either.

I'm not claiming he definitely didn't touch it just that I can't see that he definitely did and so it shouldn't have been overturned (unless they've got a better angle). Seems very harsh and he decision was arrived at quickly so they must have been pretty certain.
 
Isn't VAR meant to be for a 'clear and obvious error'?

This was far from clear and obvious
No, that's only for subjective calls, such as whether a particular challenge was a foul or not. When it's factual (such as whether a second touch has occurred) the 'clear and obvious' clause doesn't apply.
 
They are incorrect. There was a chip in the ball for the world cup but the champions league don't use that technology.

They do have 25 cameras for the semi auto VAR so you could assume they have a better angle than we've seen via broadcast but they don't have the chip in the ball.



Is it this one? I don't see it there either.

I'm not claiming he definitely didn't touch it just that I can't see that he definitely did and so it shouldn't have been overturned (unless they've got a better angle). Seems very harsh and he decision was arrived at quickly so they must have been pretty certain.
I can’t see the penalty on your link - The BBC showed it from behind the player and slowed it down frame by frame and then froze it on the two touches. By doing that you could see it hits his standing foot.

It is impossible to see it in normal time and for me should have been allowed. It is not an obvious error. It certainly wouldn’t have been disallowed the other way round.
 
Back
Top