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
I read it as they were split 3-2 on whether VAR should have intervened. It's not clear what the split was on the actual incident itself
Surely a vote for VAR not to intervene is the same as a vote saying it isn't a red card
That’s not how anything works. Lots of legal cases are dismissed or lost on pure procedure and not the actual objective truth.
Process is a part of justice as well.
The worst part for me is that the ref on field didn't even see it when it happened, because it was after the ball was gone. So they decided not to intervene on the reasoning that the ref's on-field decision not to call it a foul wasn't a clear and obvious error when he never actually made that decision (because he didn't see it). What kind of logic is this? They missed a call, have him go look at it ffs. Why does VAR have to be so complicated in England? It's really not like this in other countries, certainly not at this rate at least where we have 3-4 baffling decisions every matchday.
And no I'm not claiming conspiracy, just incredible incompetence.
That doesn't make it any better lol. How could anybody think that VAR shouldn't intervene? It's violent conduct pure and simple. Semantics aren't going to change that.
That's still ridiculous.