That was never a clear penalty (personally I don't think it was one at all).
I'm for VAR but like in cricket it needs to be for black and white wrong decisions/obvious mistakes. Things like that should be "ref's call" and stay how it was given.
That was never a clear penalty (personally I don't think it was one at all).
I'm for VAR but like in cricket it needs to be for black and white wrong decisions/obvious mistakes. Things like that should be "ref's call" and stay how it was given.
But it was the ref's call to change his own decision after seeing the footage? It's not as if there is hawkeye telling him what decision to make.
That was never a clear penalty (personally I don't think it was one at all).
I'm for VAR but like in cricket it needs to be for black and white wrong decisions/obvious mistakes. Things like that should be "ref's call" and stay how it was given.
But it was the ref's call to change his own decision after seeing the footage? It's not as if there is hawkeye telling him what decision to make.
That was never a clear penalty (personally I don't think it was one at all).
I'm for VAR but like in cricket it needs to be for black and white wrong decisions/obvious mistakes. Things like that should be "ref's call" and stay how it was given.
Italian player goes to kick the ball and gets his foot stood on as he's about to kick it....not a penalty?
Some people wouldn't want a penalty given until a player is being fly kicked in the chest.
Watched the England game on TV. Wasn,t a bad game and a perfectly good way to pass the evening.
But the thought going through my head is what on earth possesses 80000 people to pay good money to actually go and watch this given a friendly is never going to be a rip-roaring game and the problems of getting away from Wembley?
That was never a clear penalty (personally I don't think it was one at all).
I'm for VAR but like in cricket it needs to be for black and white wrong decisions/obvious mistakes. Things like that should be "ref's call" and stay how it was given.
But it was the ref's call to change his own decision after seeing the footage? It's not as if there is hawkeye telling him what decision to make.
Was it? He gave a corner.
Yes. The referee gave a corner at first. Then went and looked at the footage himself and decided himself that it was actually a penalty. No-one told him to make the decision he made.
That was never a clear penalty (personally I don't think it was one at all).
I'm for VAR but like in cricket it needs to be for black and white wrong decisions/obvious mistakes. Things like that should be "ref's call" and stay how it was given.
But it was the ref's call to change his own decision after seeing the footage? It's not as if there is hawkeye telling him what decision to make.
Was it? He gave a corner.
He gave a corner and got a call from the Video Ref suggesting he take a look at the incident
Italy players themselves were busy calling for a corner rather than a penalty.
That was never a clear penalty (personally I don't think it was one at all).
I'm for VAR but like in cricket it needs to be for black and white wrong decisions/obvious mistakes. Things like that should be "ref's call" and stay how it was given.
But it was the ref's call to change his own decision after seeing the footage? It's not as if there is hawkeye telling him what decision to make.
I mean ref's call as per 'umpire's call', i.e. as it means in cricket - sticking with the original call.
It needs to be used for glaring mistakes - the Hand of God, Henry's handball, Schumacher taking out Battiston, 3 yards offside goals, that sort of thing. Otherwise we'll have refs watching replays ten times to change their mind on pretty 50/50 decisions.
That was never a clear penalty (personally I don't think it was one at all).
I'm for VAR but like in cricket it needs to be for black and white wrong decisions/obvious mistakes. Things like that should be "ref's call" and stay how it was given.
Italian player goes to kick the ball and gets his foot stood on as he's about to kick it....not a penalty?
Some people wouldn't want a penalty given until a player it being fly kicked in the chest.
Was he about to kick it? Not in my opinion, he'd lost it and was already falling/slowing down hence Tarkowski running into him.
Comments
Obviously people are upset because it's against England but that was a clear penalty that would not have been given if not for VAR.
My Twitter timeline is split 50/50 about whether or not that was a penalty. Ultimately it is still someone’s opinion.
I'm for VAR but like in cricket it needs to be for black and white wrong decisions/obvious mistakes. Things like that should be "ref's call" and stay how it was given.
Some people wouldn't want a penalty given until a player is being fly kicked in the chest.
But the thought going through my head is what on earth possesses 80000 people to pay good money to actually go and watch this given a friendly is never going to be a rip-roaring game and the problems of getting away from Wembley?
Italy players themselves were busy calling for a corner rather than a penalty.
This means that any coming together, regardless of the position of the ball or player means it’s a foul.
VAR got it right.
It needs to be used for glaring mistakes - the Hand of God, Henry's handball, Schumacher taking out Battiston, 3 yards offside goals, that sort of thing. Otherwise we'll have refs watching replays ten times to change their mind on pretty 50/50 decisions.
We'd still lose though.
And definitely not a 'clear and obvious error'.