City's keeper was really poor for both goals, came for the ball twice and missed twice.
First was a pen, nothing to do with Ederson.
He came for the ball and didn't get there which caused Ederson to dive in as his keeper was committed and the goal open. It was a rash challenge even so.
City's keeper was really poor for both goals, came for the ball twice and missed twice.
First was a pen, nothing to do with Ederson.
He came for the ball and didn't get there which caused Ederson to dive in as his keeper was committed and the goal open. It was a rash challenge even so.
It’s entirely on Nunes, that first goal. The keeper closed the angle, Dias went to the line, there was nobody running into the box. Nunes just hacked him down when they weren’t in that bad a state.
I would disagree, a keeper coming that far out has to reach it first as he leaves the goal exposed if he doesn't, there's no closing an angle that far out. The player should have just got in the middle however but panicked as the goal was exposed.
I for one, and I don't think I'm alone, wish that referees would have the courage to stand by their original decision a bit more often when asked to review an incident by VAR, but surely this was not the time to do so:
The idea that we need a monitor for the ref to review any decision is a pointless aspect of VAR. We have the on field ref that takes decisions and allows the game to flow, as we could not have every call made by VAR, then we have the VAR studio to ensure big decisions are correct. That's it in my view.
Each decision follows a route. 1. The ref calls it as he sees it 2. VAR review it with the aid of their replay, slow motion and angle change. They then confirm the decision or change it. 3. On occasion it is genuinely too marginal to call decisively for VAR then the on field decision stands.
We don't need a fourth stage which is 'oh we don't know, we can't decide', would you have a look for us on that moniter?
I think the whole thing is to protect a vanity for referees that I imagine most don't even possess, the idea they are in charge. I suspect most view their role as ensuring the match is called properly so the best team wins and feel that VAR is a valuable aid in helping them do that. A good ref wants the correct decision and will happily accept the help of VAR, linos and fourth officials.
I haven't got an issue with the ref having a second look tbh. Imo, the VAR would be much less likely to refer incidents (obviously not offsides which are a matter of fact, supposedly) as it would automatically be saying that their colleague had made a mistake. Far better to give the ref a second chance to arrive at the correct decision himself.
Too many mistakes would go uncorrected to protect their mates onfield imo, such as when useless Mike Dean as VAR didn't tell useless Antony Taylor to have a look at the hair pull on Cucarella as Taylor was having a difficult day (mainly because he's useless). If the VAR completely over-rules the onfield ref automatically, then fewer mistakes would be corrected imo.
Maybe a 'just result' is a better term than best team!
But if the match is called properly more times than not the best team will have won as there will be no decisions leading to goals that should not have been allowed, so a just result according to the rules will have been achieved. There will of course be odd matches where the best team doesn't win as there are examples of a team peppering a goal and just missing time again, whilst the other team gets one attack and scores, but generally over 90 minutes the best team wins most football matches when it's called properly. Even in the above example you could still call the team that won the best team as they would have scored more goals ( which is the aim), than the team who had 20 chances and missed.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/videos/c140egd287ro
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/videos/c24nl848j9po
Each decision follows a route.
1. The ref calls it as he sees it
2. VAR review it with the aid of their replay, slow motion and angle change. They then confirm the decision or change it.
3. On occasion it is genuinely too marginal to call decisively for VAR then the on field decision stands.
We don't need a fourth stage which is 'oh we don't know, we can't decide', would you have a look for us on that moniter?
I think the whole thing is to protect a vanity for referees that I imagine most don't even possess, the idea they are in charge. I suspect most view their role as ensuring the match is called properly so the best team wins and feel that VAR is a valuable aid in helping them do that. A good ref wants the correct decision and will happily accept the help of VAR, linos and fourth officials.
Too many mistakes would go uncorrected to protect their mates onfield imo, such as when useless Mike Dean as VAR didn't tell useless Antony Taylor to have a look at the hair pull on Cucarella as Taylor was having a difficult day (mainly because he's useless). If the VAR completely over-rules the onfield ref automatically, then fewer mistakes would be corrected imo.
It is not the referees role to ensure the best team wins.
But if the match is called properly more times than not the best team will have won as there will be no decisions leading to goals that should not have been allowed, so a just result according to the rules will have been achieved. There will of course be odd matches where the best team doesn't win as there are examples of a team peppering a goal and just missing time again, whilst the other team gets one attack and scores, but generally over 90 minutes the best team wins most football matches when it's called properly. Even in the above example you could still call the team that won the best team as they would have scored more goals ( which is the aim), than the team who had 20 chances and missed.
And then the Spuds get one back, despite VvD's predictable whining.