That had to be the worst VAR decision ever Luton equaliser

Trafford had comfortably taken crosses all game. The first one he doesn’t take, ends in an equaliser. Regardless to whether or not he was fouled, “that’s football”.
The Ref’s on-field decision at the time (even if VAR wasn’t available) was a goal.
Rightly or wrongly, VAR agreed with him.
VAR makes a mockery of the game, but on the other side of the coin, would we be complaining if VAR had been at Boro on Tuesday and awarded us 2 penalties. The old adage of swings and roundabouts me thinks.
 
I think it was a foul. The attacker knew the keeper was there and blocked him off for me. So an incorrect first instance decision for me.

But the tv pundits didn’t think it was at first (even if they changed their minds five minutes later) and about 3 in 10 here don’t think it was either. Is 7/11 enough for clear and obvious? Not really. Far from being the worst VAR decision ever I’m not even persuaded it was wrong not to overturn.

Even if you disagree it’s an opinion call. The worst VAR decisions ever aren’t opinion calls they are those offsides, of which there have been several, that they got objectively wrong by drawing the line in the wrong place, on the wrong player, for the wrong incident. This one isn’t even close.
 
The VAR referees have stated " It was not a foul, It was a coming together" Where in the rules of football is there a classification of a "coming together" WTF
 
Defender 4x4 said:
The VAR referees have stated " It was not a foul, It was a coming together" Where in the rules of football is there a classification of a "coming together" WTF
Click to expand...
To me, it’s pretty obvious the keeper made a movement to go and play the ball whilst the Luton lad made a deliberate movement away from the ball to block him. If he’d stood still and the keeper collided with him then fair enough, but it looks a clear and deliberate foul to me.
 
I've just watched it for the very first time.

No free kick. I don't seen an offence by the Luton player. In fact, the Burnley keeper initiates the context by moving towards the Luton player who turns his back. You could describe it as a coming together, a phrase I've heard used in the past by the Refs.

There is no law in football protecting goal keepers, but it seems that within the game as soon as a keeper is touched, challenged in the box or slightly impeded an automatic free kick is given. This has always been wrong for me.
 
Paulroddam7 said:
To me, it’s pretty obvious the keeper made a movement to go and play the ball whilst the Luton lad made a deliberate movement away from the ball to block him. If he’d stood still and the keeper collided with him then fair enough, but it looks a clear and deliberate foul to me.
Click to expand...
So the Luton player should stand stock still? Or even make sure he gets out of the way of the keeper?

The keeper has no devine right in this instance you know.
 
The problem with the decision last night is not if it was a foul or not, but that we've become indoctrinated to see any contact with the keeper as a foul.
I'd say that Adabayo deliberately blocked the keeper and that Trafford made a meal of it because he had misjudged the flight of the ball slightly and was struggling to get there. Had Adabayo not turned , looked at the keeper and moved towards him then I'd be 100% behind it not being a foul. For me, that's where the debate comes into it, much the same way as when a defender makes an attempt to tackle and an attacker elaborates the contact and goes down. We hear the calls that "I've seen them given" when players exaggerate contact in an attempt to force a decision.
Will we see consistency this weekend in other games? We know the answer to that.
 
Laughing said:
No attempt to play the ball, eyes only on the keeper and he moves away from the ball and towards the keeper. It was a foul.
Click to expand...
In your opinion, he backs in (which is allowed in football) isn’t looking at the keeper and uses his body well, Trafford needs to be a lot stronger.

No foul for me.
 
Quicksilvera said:
In your opinion, he backs in (which is allowed in football) isn’t looking at the keeper and uses his body well, Trafford needs to be a lot stronger.

No foul for me.
Click to expand...
It's a foul, foul, foul and I think you will find that process my point.
 
Tryasize10 said:
So the Luton player should stand stock still? Or even make sure he gets out of the way of the keeper?

The keeper has no devine right in this instance you know.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say move out of the way, he has a right to his position on the field. You can clearly see he moved towards the keeper to block him though.
 
Goalkeeper played for it from my point of view. He runs 7/8 yards out of his goal and makes contact with the Luton player. Saying that the Luton player then turns his back and nudges into the Goalkeeper.

I can see why no matter what decision was made one set of fans were going to feel hard done by.
 
"Luton deserved a point"
You sound like a commentator now.
That has nothing at all to do with the decision as to whether it was a foul or not.
The reason I say it is corrupt is you all know that goal would definitely be disallowed against a lot of teams in PL.
 
davidmills said:
"Luton deserved a point"
You sound like a commentator now.
That has nothing at all to do with the decision as to whether it was a foul or not.
The reason I say it is corrupt is you all know that goal would definitely be disallowed against a lot of teams in PL.
Click to expand...
So Luton are now an elite team🤭

Look the ref gave a goal and yes we’d be fuming if given against us, but I’d much rather we stick to the on field decision rather than constantly re-reffing the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top