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
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

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

load more comments (6 replies)