-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
VAR: Sponsored by Chelsea
- Thread starter Gutter Boy
- Start date
milo
Jack L. Jones
If you and I are aware that things look different slowed down, I am sure that the ref's are too.
From what I could see, the ref spent the most time looking at a 1 second clip going ofrwards and backwards at full speed over and over.
Bedfordspurs
Vinnie Samways
It is if they also watch it at full speed (they do).
Bedfordspurs
Vinnie Samways
But then slow it down and change angles...
I'd assume they're looking for different things from different views. Slow motion to confirm there was contact, full speed to check if the movement was intentional.
milo
Jack L. Jones
And are aware of how things look differently. Slomo is useful for somethings and not for others. It could be the only way of determining there was contact but you'd probably be better watching at normal speed to determine the strength of contact.
Spur of the moment
Frederic Kanoute
Defender only had a split second to react but that was enough. Watching it closely VAR showed it clear as daylight a hand to ball reflex reaction. He deliberately brought his hand down towards the ball, you even see him starting to open his hand out to deflect the ball to safety.
Took an eternity but the correct decision.
Took an eternity but the correct decision.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
So, another major fudge up and the biggest match in the world ruined
Also completely missed Pogba being offside, then interfering, for the first goal
Also completely missed Pogba being offside, then interfering, for the first goal
Not the biggest match in the world
Match wasnt ruined
Pogba wasn't offside because he didn't touch the ball or obstruct a view/path to it
Does that cover it all?
Mikey10
Jimmy Neighbour
Thought it was a penalty straight away; looking at it from umpteen angles at different speeds only confirmed that. His hand was away from his body and moved towards the ball, which was then deflected from the trajectory it would have taken across the goalmouth. Couldn’t really have been much clearer imo.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
The match was even until that point. That wrong decision gifted the game to France
Pogba contested the header with Mandzukic - pressurising him into the mistake
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
"Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm."
It's not deliberate when the ball changed direction a nano-second before it hit him.
Not a penalty in a million years
awesome dawson
Mitchell Thomas
I don't GB, he could have instinctively kept his arm there to prevent the ball from going closer to the goal. I wasn't a ball to hand situation. I think between the VAR studio guys and the referee they made the right decision.
He moved his hand toward the ball when it came in to his view, the replay shows this was clearly a case of ball to hand and sportsmen have good enough reflexes to make such actions deliberate - seen goalkeepers pull off saves (or attempt them) with less time to react than here.
Last edited:
Mandzukic didn't even know Pogba was there.
That was the only set piece in the whole match he was watching the ball instead of doing his Neymar impression
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
The ref apparently didn't see the handball. Thats fair enough.
All VAR has done is enable him to have a (good) look at a potential infringement he did not see.
All the arguing about whether it was a penalty or not is not VAR's fault.
Without VAR the only outcome was 'no penalty' simply because the ref didn't see it, which in this and many other games is not really good enough.
He could have come away from the screen and said 'no penalty' and that would have been ok as well (as he can interprete the law/offence as he sees it), but at least he had the two options available to him.
It is an enabler.
All VAR has done is enable him to have a (good) look at a potential infringement he did not see.
All the arguing about whether it was a penalty or not is not VAR's fault.
Without VAR the only outcome was 'no penalty' simply because the ref didn't see it, which in this and many other games is not really good enough.
He could have come away from the screen and said 'no penalty' and that would have been ok as well (as he can interprete the law/offence as he sees it), but at least he had the two options available to him.
It is an enabler.