Agreed with the handball in JUV-BVB also. The way he is falling and positioning his arms is not "natural".
Something has come full circle, because this would probably be a textbook video of what "red for tackle from behind" meant heading into the 1998 World Cup. Today, it's apparently video of a clear and obvious error to award a red card: https://www.streambug.io/cv/5694ef#google_vignette This could be juxtaposed against the French SFP(/VC) card in the domestic thread. There, it's an intentional foul with no chance to play the ball. Here, I'm sure the defender thought he was making a legitimate desperate attempt to play the ball. But he's so late, the ball is so far gone, and the nature of the contact endangers the safety as the opponent cannot prepare for the impact. I wish Kovacs stuck with his decision, but I bet the lack of a lot of buzzwords and key factors led to a different outcome.
I’m actually ok with this downgrading to a yellow. Clearly from the camera angle and replay over and over, they were just looking at point/mode of contact with no consideration about the lateness of the challenge. Foul appears to be caused by the sliding right knee on the back of the right foot. But with this being an actual legitimate attempt on the ball like you said, this is significantly different from the BS France tackle which was great to see given as a red card.
Full sequence: https://streambug.org/cv/2016d1 It's a perfect decision by Kovacs (at first), Taremi has no chance to play the ball at all, and cleans out his opponent from behind. This is the sort of call which in the past would distinguish a good referee from a great referee, but now a VAR looks at the slow-motions and determines that giving a red was instead a 'clear and obvious error'.
I have that as a pretty easy overturn, much closer to careless than excessive force. The defender whiffs the attacker with his right foot, the contact is ultimately the defenders left knee sliding in to the attacker's foot. That's nowhere near enough force to justify SFP. There has to be SOME force behind the tackle for the lateness to matter, otherwise we'd be giving red cards for cynical holding fouls. It's hard to make a case for excessive force when the amount of force delivered is almost zero.
Um. Wow. I guess that is one opinion. Even thinking about this as only careless is losing the thread in my view. There are good reasons that fouls from behind are considered more serious.
Which tackle endangered the safety of the opponent more, though? With the Ligue 1 challenge, he deliberately whacks at his leg with no chance of playing the ball. But the attacker quite literally gets right back up and tries to keep playing. It's a hard foul that stings, but it's essentially just a super aggressive tripping foul. It's excessive force on what would otherwise be a simple SPA foul. To be very clear, like I said in the other thread, I want SFP there. But while those sort of fouls are gross unsporting behavior, they aren't really posing a health risk to the opponent. This tackle does. That's why it was such a focus in the 90s. Star players were losing their careers because defenders had carte blanche to go in like this without risking a red card. No, the defender in this case isn't trying to "do" his opponent. But it's the inherent risk of what can happen when you challenge directly from behind like this. Here, the trailing knee hits and bends a trailing foot. The attacker can't prepare for that. And the defender can't really control the challenge (as he can't calibrate against the pace or movement of the attacker) and you have know way of knowing or being sure what the contact will be like. You see a bit of twist in this situation. I don't know if it's 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 10 or 1 out 25... but a not insignificant percentage of these sort of tackles result in serious injuries or prompt the recurrence of chronic ones. These types of tackle endanger the safety of an opponent. The guy in France gets a bruise at worst. The guy in the scenario above risks a torn achilles, calf ligament problems and even, in the worst cases, a broken leg. The former is excessive force, but the latter is endangering the safety. That's why both clauses are in the SFP portion of the Law. It ensures both grossly unsporting acts (beyond or aside from DOGSO) and truly dangerous acts can both be punished with red cards. But the hyper-focus in the modern age on things you cite, like mode/point of contact, lead to a reality where the type of challenge we had eliminated from the game to a large extent is now back, because it's apparently now a clear error to give red cards for stuff like this.
And just to drill in on this and stress what I just typed above, there's a reason why "endangering the safety" was created. SFP used to just be excessive force (or brutality) in the Laws. The endangering the safety clause got added precisely for tackles like this where you really can't say the actual force was excessive but the threat to the player's health was still high nonetheless.
Ok, the full sequence rather than just the VAR replays shows a lot more clearly how he really had to attempt at the ball and just wanted to clean him out from behind, and a better picture of the speed with which the knee slides into the Achilles area. It’s much closer to the ligue 1 challenge than I thought
Only one angle in this clip, but still. I cannot believe this wasn't overturned via VAR: https://www.streambug.io/cv/9b8789
Remember how VAR was supposed to quell dissent? Referee gives penalty kick, VAR confirms the decision was "correct." Penalty kick is taken, the keeper shows up the referee and throws gestures at him after saving the penalty kick. No card given. It's always been a pet peeve of mine when after a penalty kick save, players, specifically, the goalkeeper show up the referee and dissent at him. I have even less sympathy when the penalty kick is right. It's one thing if the decision was clearly wrong, then you can give players some leeway there.
A card was given here after the penalty was saved, for what it's worth. But yeah, people who said VAR was going to quell dissent were selling their own wishful thinking. People advocate(d) certain things would or will happen with VAR because they just really want it to be true or think it should be true. But human nature and other factors keep getting in the way.
Video review quells dissent on objective calls as they can be proven. It can never quell dissent on subjective calls because there is never going to be complete agreement. And it exasperates it to some degree as calls can be probably wrong but not wrong enough to reverse. Totally predictable from day one how it was for going to play out.
Full disclosure I wasn’t in tune with caring about refereeing back then like now. But I just don’t remember hearing people specifically talk about dissent. But even so, I would know how ridiculous of a prospect that is since dissent hasn’t stopped with reviews in every other sport either
My faulty memory is that the "....AND, dissent will completely disappear. The play will get reviewed and everyone will be peachy keen with the result" was, if anything, MORE prominent than "fix the obvious errors like the hand of frog and the DeJong Hi-Karate". But that lens may be tainted.
I for one think there is less dissent now than there was 10 years ago. To my eye, the ref telling upset players "the VAR is looking at it" is effective a lot.
How will the CR from the Galatasaray-Liverpool match be evaluated? Had three PK decisions overturned by VAR.....
I was just going by the original match report on Livescore.....said the first PK was awarded by VAR, and that both sides later had a PK that was awarded on the field overturned by VAR. Was the match report I saw incorrect?
I already told you that what you said was false. I'm looking at Livescore right now and it doesn't say what you say it said. If your story is that it has changed in the last hour, so be it. All I know is what you shared above is false.
It looks like Liverpool did have a penalty overturned (correctly from what I can see). The other two incidents on the Livescore commentary look like formal checks that didn't go to review (one to confirm PK and the other to confirm no PK).
Right. He gave a late penalty that was overturned. Aside from that there were no VAR interventions and the first PK was called live. From what I saw (admittedly, second half of second half), Turpin was excellent and the miss at the end was unfortuntate--live, I had penalty, too (and even on the first replay; it was hard to see the defensive touch from the field perspective he had looking into the penalty area--behind the goal or from a side angle was clearer).