Villa - Leicester! Keeper (Schmeichel) pinned the ball against the ground after a rebound, and it was kicked in... but the goal was taken away due to the definition of keeper controlling the ball. For me, I'm happy for keepers to be protected in these instances; I don't think you should be at all able to kick the ball out of the keeper's hands, so this should fall under the definition of "keeper control". That justifies the decision for me, but that said it was quite controversial going by the pundit/twitter reaction. Either way, Villa end up winning -- 9 pts from 12 for Stevie G! Not too Xabi.
Everton-Arsenal. Richarlison scores on a cross, but he was a foot behind the defense. VAR takes away the goal, it's the right call. Arsenal score like 5 minutes later. Rafa having a real rough one with Everton this season... 8 matches without a win. Won't be long in the job at this point.
Excellent example in EVE-ARS of how the margin for error on the offside calls doesn't wholly solve the issue with close offside calls... Richarlison again goes in on goal, and scores, and this is much, much closer than the previous call. His toe is just behind last defender and is just outside the MOE which has been implemented to try to allow more goals from being taken away as close offsides. It's really close, but judged to be just offside. And it's obvious he is just behind, but not by that much. Goal is taken away by VAR. That's 2 Richarlison goals taken away by close offside VAR calls in 20 minutes of gametime.
City - Arse. 1. VAR review gives penalty to City... looks 50/50, especially with the new interpretation taken by PGMOL that penalties should cause the attacker to fall over. That said, Xhaka did extend a leg, there was contact, it did impede the attacker. Seems a fair decision, overall. 2. Red card on Gabriel for hands to the face wasn't overturned -- was immediately spotted by the ref who was literally a few yards away. Don't think this is ever getting overturned, it did look more towards a 50/50 kind of decision to me though. West Ham - Palace. Palace handball on the edge of the box, VAR review gave ref good view of it, took a little time and was a little after the play, but did give the pen after taking a look. Pretty clear decision IMO.
Ridiculous analysis. (There was contact) Not with that leg there wasn't. Nor did it have anything to do with him falling over, Talk about seeing what you want to see??? There is no leg contact. He extended/planted a leg, that if he had left it there might have caused a foul. He then removed it whilst instead engaging in wrestling with Bernardo who then went down. Try watching the slow motion with your eyes open .... Hey - I'm fine with refs giving penalties with such causative fouls, IF they really want to be calling fouls on about 40-60% of the resulting action from corner kicks. I don;t think they or anyone else wants that. Rotten decision.
its a weak decision - but it’s actually ok here. Xhaka is getting punished more for the tug than anything else. And also his history of being a walking red card.
Leicester - Watford FA cup match. Linesperson missed a good offside goal and flagged it off, VAR gives it back. Foxes 3-1 up and cruising because of the correction.
Long check in the United - Villa FA cup match, took about 3:30 to verify the set piece. - Initial kick to back post was onside - Initial header down across goal looks like Ings is offside - 1st player is in DDG's eyeline and makes a play on the ball, but might not have touched it - Ings is there in the end and heads down off his thigh and in, but was probably checked to see if it hit his hand/arm Think ALL of that has to be checked, hence the long period of review. Apart from that, looks like the right call -- Ings is slightly ahead of the ball and beyond the 2nd to last defender. Anti-VAR people will dislike this call, because a normal crew of refs are probably never ruling this out, but according to the rules he looks off to me.
Yeah, his shirt was tugged on in the box. This isn't even close to controversial. Anyone who does this in the box puts themselves in a position to have a pen called, obviously.
Apparently it wasn't chalked off about that in the end anyway. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...aston-villa-live-score-fa-cup-latest-updates/
That's interesting, but unfortunately that has nothing to do with "clear and obvious". Either way I just rewatched it and I don't think either Ings or the other "interfering" attacker are offside. So I don't know why this was ruled out. And I don't know if that journalist responsible for that linked article knows either.
I found the explanation. Again a pretty clear breakdown of why this isn't allowed, with citation of the law: So:✅Jacob Ramsey is standing in an offside position✅He interferes with the movement of Edinson Cavani (steps to the right into his path, too)✅Impacts on the ability of the Cavani to challenge for the ball with the player who created the goal pic.twitter.com/DDRmupiHbo— Dale Johnson (@DaleJohnsonESPN) January 10, 2022 None of this excuses the ~3:30 taken to make the call, but by the laws it looks like the right call. Which should matter, regardless of whether it benefits United or not.
Oh you are right, that's my bad. Sorry. Clear and obvious still is irrelevant to that decision though. So I got distracted by that... Time taken for a review has exactly nothing to do with clear and obvious, from everything I've read. So I don't know what the article means or is trying to do by referencing "clear and obvious".
LOL wow the Spurs attacker literally tripped himself to try to sell a pen on a fairly clean looking slide from Rudiger in this league cup semifinal. He fooled the ref, but I think VAR is going to take it away... And it does. VAR grants the free kick, for some slight contact outside the box on the initial slide. Definitely not a pen, for me. Good catch.