this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Football / Soccer / Calcio / Futebol / Fußball
142 readers
1 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let me get this straight, they were unanimous that Havertz was a red as it was "a very dangerous challenge and the type of tackle that needs to be eradicated".
They then say that all the decisions in the Spurs game were correct so they are happy with a two footed challenge and that it didn't fall into the above category?
It's so fucking absurd now. They've overcomplicated it to a ridiculous level. Just come to the correct decision, get rid of all this "clear and obvious" shit and put a time limit on the really fine margin subjective shit whereby if you can't tell within 60 seconds something is wrong, the on field decision stands.
We were all sold VAR in the idea it was to stop shit like this being given offside, and now we're using microscopes to draw lines from players armpits to disallow goals while letting players elbow and foul each other because it's "not clear and obvious".
It's so frustrating. We have the same thing with hockey in the NHL now. Offside reviews were brought in because a guy scored a goal despite being like 8 feet offside, and now it's used to determine if a players skate was 2 micrometers offside 30 seconds before the goal was scored.
Read the fucking article before spouting drivel, literally said udogie should be off earlier
"However, the panel felt Destiny Udogie should have received a red card from the referee for his first-half challenge on Raheem Sterling, but it wasn't a clear and obvious error for the VAR to intervene on."