But he doesn't have to go down for it to be a penalty? The ref/var will (rightly) be looking at the point of contact only. If it's sufficient to be deemed a foul, a players subsequent actions shouldn't be taken into account.Totally agree , a bit of contact in a contact sport.That in no way caused him to fall to floor in that manner. He could have easily continued playing
His balance shifted after contact was made. With no contact and he was away from Son and in a much better position.
When the two players clashed heads and both went down in the Tottenham box I imagine that was also painful. The Tottenham player didn't win the ball so I assume using your logic above VAR should have reviewed that and given Brentford a penalty.
No not at all. The pain comment was to explain why he went down as he did thats all. There was contact, I said I felt in real time it was a penalty and the slo mo made it look soft so understand why people felt it wasnât one, I think the kick on the ankle was sufficient for him to go down purely for the pain from contact. Do I think it was a penalty after everything, yes on balance but it wasnât a clear and obvious error from the ref, but I am equally sure we will see similar contact not given during the season too, this is why I donât like VAR.
I don't disagree that it wasn't a penalty. If the ref had given it straight away then no problem. For me when you review the video he did get kicked but that foot wasn't the one that gave way. He took another step (and personally I don't believe he was unbalanced at that point) and then fell/threw himself to the floor. My objection to it being awarded after VAR is it's subjective (hence the debate here), and so the referee in my opinion didn't make an obvious mistake and so should stick with his real time decision. The alternative is bin the on pitch referee and get Simon Cowell to run a voting panel in a remote studio.
I donât disagree. Refs are too weak when asked to look again, they rarely have the will to stay with their original decision, I am sure its a safety net for them that VAR referred it back. Like I said I thought pen in real time but wasnât given as nothing was clear and obvious they should have stuck with refs call. Hence my comment about not liking VAR as it is too subjective and personally I think they seem more inclined to make odd interpretations due to slo mo. He took a step yes then rolled, but that could have been the natural way the momentum was taking him anyway, the slo mo makes it look deliberate but in real time it didnât to me, but you cant be sure either way. It causes way more arguments than trusting the ref and their decision
He was completely changing his direction of travel which is what caught Son out. His momentum carried him backwards BECAUSE of the contact. He wasn't able to conclude his shift of balance after getting booted. Clear penalty and VAR got it correct.
VAR only intervenes when they think there's been an error. If they agreed with the refs call then they would just declare the check over.
If he was kicked thatâs all you need to say (apart from meeting the careless, reckless etc criteria). Nowhere in law 12 does it say âkicks an opponent, but only if you kick the foot that was the one that gave wayâ. Nor does it say âkicks an opponent, but only if you cause him to fallâ. It says âkicks an opponentâ. Thatâs the foul.
Have a feeling if it was in the other box itâd be a guaranteed United penalty.
To be fair it made Gary O'Neil very unhappy so I'm happy to let it slide
Why was VAR needed, it was blatant?
That decision confused me, wasnât there another decision over the weekend where a keeper took out a player after theyâd played the ball.
Shocking decision. It shouldnât have even needed VAR.
Agreed, but lets not blame the technology, this was the ref team in a booth somewhere, knowing that if they gave the pen it would be all over the media
