The liverpool coach was a decoy!

Unlucky by Phillips.

Utd are going to rack up a cricket score tonight.

That penalty is being overturned.

What a surprise.

Lovely flick from Jota.

Man Us play is a bit slow.

Woof Liverpool playing well going forward.

For all the £80m lol banter it’s interesting that the last three goals Man U have let in are from set pieces.

Liverpool should be out of sight.

Carraghwr thought penalty, Neville thought penalty, Keane thought penalty, Souness thought penalty. But apparently it’s a clear and obvious error? And then how McTominay stayed on the pitch after the rugby tackle immediately after he got booked... I laugh at Liverpool fans who cry conspiracy on referring decisions but at points this season it’s been extraordinarily inept from the officials and you do sometimes wonder if it’s possible to be that incompetent.

The concept of clear and obvious error is a mess.
Just have video referees or dont.

I'm going with binning it off. VAR hasn't lessened the amount of debate on decisions it has just made it more perplexing.

But the ref goes and looks at it on the monitor and decides he's made an error, so fair enough. Not sure how you can argue against that.

I'm not a fan of the way VAR works a lot of the time, but that was it doing its job. It wasn't a pen.

JonB wrote:

But the ref goes and looks at it on the monitor and decides he's made an error, so fair enough. Not sure how you can argue against that.

I'm not a fan of the way VAR works a lot of the time, but that was it doing its job. It wasn't a pen.

No. Firstly, there are rules about what merits a ‘look’ from the ref. VAR isn’t simply this tool to be used however the officiating team sees fit and if they come to a decision they’re happy with then great. They’re not meant to be refereeing the game again from the monitors and so there is a high bar for a review. Secondly being asked to look again communicates to the on field ref that he’s made a mistake and needs to take another look - it’s very hard to go against that and it almost never happens. Thirdly, watching the same event multiple times slowed down changes your perception of the event. But not necessarily in ways that gives you a ‘more’ accurate assessment of that event. In real time it looked a foul, not because he failed to win the ball, he clearly won it, but because he did so in what appeared to be a reckless manner. Slowing it down and zooming in strips context from the event and removes most of the reasons that made it appear to be a foul in the first place. Fourthly, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the ref didn’t realise Baily won the ball and so the reason he overturned the decision was that Baily did win the ball and the reason for awarding the penalty was a clear and obvious error. But at the same time it wasn’t at all clear and obvious that the tackle wasn’t a penalty. Plenty of people think it was a penalty. So, at least potentially, the referee made the right call for the wrong reason and yet the penalty call was overturned. Shouldn’t it be the actual call that is looked at rather than the motive? Who cares how a ref comes to a decision, what matters for the sake of the game is that he gets the decision right. We’ve reached peak absurdity where it’s the referees motives and reasoning that matter most rather than the end result. This again is an argument from context. Once a call is reviewed you can’t just review the specific reasoning behind the call, you need to review the whole thing. Otherwise you end up with absurd situations where a terrible red card challenge is turned from a penalty to a free kick because it was outside the area and from a red to a yellow because it wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity but the actual foul, which merited a red card nonetheless, is ignored completely. The question should be less ‘was it a clear and obvious error to award a penalty on the ref’s basis and more ‘was it a clear and obvious error to award a penalty given the whole incident’.

FWIW that was my household’s opinion too. Ref thought Bailly’s foot had followed through and hit the guy. But replays showed it didn’t, and instead he fell over his knees / legs. Bailly’s foot was planted on ground at time of contact. Not a pen, good decision

Funkstain wrote:

FWIW that was my household’s opinion too. Ref thought Bailly’s foot had followed through and hit the guy. But replays showed it didn’t, and instead he fell over his knees / legs. Bailly’s foot was planted on ground at time of contact. Not a pen, good decision

He got him on follow through by the looks of things. Studs up, high on the shin. Brushing past in all fairness. Thing is though, why not book him or send him off originally if he didn’t think he got the ball? If he didn’t get the ball and he thinks he caught him with the way he went in it’s a booking at least right? And the way the ball moves Taylor MUST know he gets the ball. And yet he gives a penalty anyway.

The fact is we’ve had multiple pens given against us this season on the basis of VAR where the ‘foul’ was way more innocuous than Bailey’s tackle last night.

Don’t even get me started on the offside issue. That’s even frustrating when your team gets one in its favour (ie Werner against Liverpool earlier this season).