• Living_a_Dejavu@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • aure__entuluva@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • chrismikehunt@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Khaglist@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s just a completely pointless caveat that adds more confusion into the whole process.

      • Living_a_Dejavu@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.