-
it's an obvious mistake from all of the angles available to the VAR ref though, no ? is that not what counts ? or do they just take the decision from the ref's angle ? in which case... wtf, makes even less sense
cozzzzzzzz-
Naaaaah that cant be it, surely. It must mean that it can be an error from the ref but its got to be a very obvious error.
Which is, I imagine, deliberately vague. So, yeeeaaah sure the ref got it wrong but it was a real toughy so we'll let him off this time....sorta thing.
-
I think it's just one of those cases where it can't be overruled simply because there actually is contact to justify the foul. That makes it not a clear and obvious mistake. If Sterling didn't actually get touched it would be reverted.
I wouldn't have given it because of how soft it is but I see why they went with it. Kind of surprised they didn't ask the ref to see the replay though, at least from the angles we were shown on TV it didn't look obvious that he was touched.
-
Well this is VARs problem, but it's not obvious he isn't touched... And VAR is shit because this is a point of discussion instead of just what the ref saw/made of it...
And if course contact isn't necessary for foul play
Stoo61
Zebra
Backstop
Not as it's phrased in the rules no. It wasn't an obvious mistake from the refs POV.
I'm am also very anti var ,but Denmark didn't lose because of it