We all know that's absolute ****e because we have all seen refs get called to the monitor and change their decision. Inflammatory ****e for people who believe anything on twitter
Let's try that again, shall we? Mark Clattenburg on commentary saying there is a case for the goal to stand but once the referee makes the call VAR won't then overrule - confirming explicitly that the rules as written don't exist and are solely a creation of the guy on the pitch in that moment.
It is not the first time this season Hojbjerg has failed to close down shots leading to goals properly, for a supposed defensive midfielder he does not do a particularly good job of it.
Apparently we're not allowed to post things from Twitter and agree with them, even stuff which wasn't on Twitter and was instead match commentary...
Generational talent. After Hugo, get this man tied to a new and much improved deal, treble/ quadruple his salary.
**** MUSIC ALERT Once again I find myself asking a simple question: just how badly coached have we been for two years when we're getting more chipped passes from Harry Winks in one match under Conte than we did in two years under the ubermensch?
Interesting and thanks for the information. Then the problem is that the PL needs to recognize that they make a specious distinction between "factual" and other decisions. The NFL frequently rules that there isn't enough information to overturn a similar decision, like whether someone crossed the goal line. You can't get better than clear and obvious error as a criterion, IMO. A reasonable interpretation of that would be if you had three or five intelligent and unbiased people who could agree that the ruling was wrong. What do you think of this? https://www.skysports.com/football/...f-offsides-for-toenails-and-noses-this-season "Mike Riley: Premier League VAR changes will see end of offsides for toenails and noses this season After coming under heavy fire over the last two seasons, the Professional Game Match Officials Board (PGMOL) are to introduce subtle changes to an official's use of VAR this campaign; approach is a move away from 'forensic scrutiny' in attempt to have more free-flowing games"
I kept wondering why everyone was slagging off Martin Atkinson, as he wasn't involved. WRONG! He replaced Andy Madley on VAR duty, for some reason. He was down to do the same for the Watford v West Ham game and was moved. Mike Dean was also shifted onto VAR for our match against Palace, replacing Simon Hooper. How very strange...
VAR gives the favoured teams a second chance for the decision to go in their favour. That seems to be their point.
But for countless reasons we've mentioned before, they cannot possibly be "factual" given the limitations of the technology. The lines we saw today are still a function of the time that the ball has been deemed to have been played (which is subjective) and the split second at which the frame was frozen.
I think the Rugby approach where the VAR shows the ref the evidence and they discuss it is the right way. I thought the new approach was sensible until today when it seems to have reverted.
No, Diego, what is actually happening is the first five words rendered your comment pointless before you typed it Maybe read things before trying to sound clever, eh?
Apparently you didn't, since the first five words of the tweet referred specifically to match commentary...
