this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Main
139 readers
3 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
You know, when 2/5 panel members don't believe an intentional forearm to the head away from the play is not worthy of a red, it kind of takes away their credibility.
All 5 of the panel members thought it deserved a red.
There are two ways to see it though:
Either they know of the conversation between the VAR and the ref (which I highly doubt it) and they think it was not clear and obvious because the ref had seen it.
Or they don't know what was said and they are talking bullshit. Because if there is a red card, away from the play and it is not given, it is clear and obvious.
The rules are very clear, away from the play, hitting a player in the head is a red, there is not much room to maneuver here.
That is even more stupid.
"You missed a red card but don't worry about it"
"When independent experts disagree with me, they aren't independent experts"
Someone else pointed this out, but the 2/5 were saying they wouldn't have gotten VAR involved, meaning they thought it wasn't a clear and obvious error, not that they didn't think it was red card.
The whole "clear and obvious" thing is a huge issue. Ironically, it will never have a clear definition.
Ok, but if they thought it was a red, and the ref didn’t give a red, that’s a clear and obvious error by proxy. If they didn’t think it was a clear and obvious error they cannot have thought he should have been sent off
It’s just a completely pointless caveat that adds more confusion into the whole process.
Good process boys