@DaleJohnsonBBC If you set the threshold for intervention very high and then also allow people to apply subjectivity questions on top, its going to be very rare for a majority to vote in favour. Thence 3:2 for VAR intervention is not close on the question of ether this was a bad error.
@The_Mighty_Mojo It should be but the high bar for intervention ( a concept designed to maintain referees status ahead of any sporting integrity consideration) makes it possible to see a refereeing error but deem it not egregious enough for an intervention.
@DaleJohnsonBBC 3:2 when there is already a high bar for VAR review suggests itβs far more clear cut than you can admit. The subjectivity is down to that fact that without absolute certainty (almost impossible save for a Diaz v Spurs issue) some panel members will not support intervention
@DaleJohnsonBBC Hilarious - the panel votes that it should have been a penalty on the field and that VAR should have intervened. Yet Dale wants to draw attention to the minority view with which he agreed. Why cant you just accept it was a bad error?
@PMMacNamara@PhilBlundell Thats literally what happened with Trent. Nobody needed security, just a lot of online fulminating. It does prove Carraghers point about the food chain though.
@PhilBlundell Quality still matters though. Salah scored a lovely goal against Watford a few years ago, aiming outside the goal and letting the wind bring it back on target.
@XolidCity Nonsense- there is a guilty verdict handed down by an independent panel. Thats how verdicts are reported on all court and arbitration cases. An appeal is not a replay/do-over etc, it is merely an avenue to challenge a guilty verdict in a very limited manner.
@Ray_Devlin@BlueClayton1964 Agreeing to play by a set of rules ( which is what separates sport from a free for all) and then covering up the fact you are not abiding them is cheating, no matter how hard you try to obfuscate the facts. That demands severe sanction.