If you slide in you have to win the ball. If the attacker wins the ball first, as Moses did, then you are on the ground and impeding the attacker's ability to maintain possession without jumping over you.
So having seen close-up replays from every angle, there are still people who think it was a pen and people who think it wasn't.
Can anyone who believes we should stop the game to allow for video evidence explain how a video ref would have made a "better" decision in that instance?
If you slide in you have to win the ball. If the attacker wins the ball first, as Moses did, then you are on the ground and impeding the attacker's ability to maintain possession without jumping over you.
So at the most it should be obstruction and an indirect free kick. If that - he could have easily carried on but chose to dive.
So having seen close-up replays from every angle, there are still people who think it was a pen and people who think it wasn't.
Can anyone who believes we should stop the game to allow for video evidence explain how a video ref would have made a "better" decision in that instance?
Presumably the guy with the video would be a qualified ref, rather than a few blokes on the internet.
So having seen close-up replays from every angle, there are still people who think it was a pen and people who think it wasn't.
Can anyone who believes we should stop the game to allow for video evidence explain how a video ref would have made a "better" decision in that instance?
Presumably the guy with the video would be a qualified ref, rather than a few blokes on the internet.
So we would all be arguing about *his* decision instead of arguing about the ref's? Is that how it would work?
So having seen close-up replays from every angle, there are still people who think it was a pen and people who think it wasn't.
Can anyone who believes we should stop the game to allow for video evidence explain how a video ref would have made a "better" decision in that instance?
Presumably the guy with the video would be a qualified ref, rather than a few blokes on the internet.
So we would all be arguing about *his* decision instead of arguing about the ref's? Is that how it would work?
If you slide in you have to win the ball. If the attacker wins the ball first, as Moses did, then you are on the ground and impeding the attacker's ability to maintain possession without jumping over you.
So at the most it should be obstruction and an indirect free kick. If that - he could have easily carried on but chose to dive.
He simply continued running in his normal stride for the ball as he had every right to do.
If you slide in you have to win the ball. If the attacker wins the ball first, as Moses did, then you are on the ground and impeding the attacker's ability to maintain possession without jumping over you.
So at the most it should be obstruction and an indirect free kick. If that - he could have easily carried on but chose to dive.
He simply continued running in his normal stride for the ball as he had every right to do.
Does he jump over players onto the floor in his normal stride then?
If he had carried on his normal stride he'd have been tripped and it would have been a penalty. But he didn't, and it shouldn't have been.
So having seen close-up replays from every angle, there are still people who think it was a pen and people who think it wasn't.
Can anyone who believes we should stop the game to allow for video evidence explain how a video ref would have made a "better" decision in that instance?
So having seen close-up replays from every angle, there are still people who think it was a pen and people who think it wasn't.
Can anyone who believes we should stop the game to allow for video evidence explain how a video ref would have made a "better" decision in that instance?
I doubt video refs would over rule a decision like that. More a case of another pair of eyes for the ref and assistants.
Comments
Wasn't a pen though.
Can anyone who believes we should stop the game to allow for video evidence explain how a video ref would have made a "better" decision in that instance?
If he had carried on his normal stride he'd have been tripped and it would have been a penalty. But he didn't, and it shouldn't have been.
Here's the correct application of the law, I believe. For when a player is impeded without contact.
An indirect free kick inside the area.