• farqueue2@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • IsleofManc@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Surely a vote for VAR not to intervene is the same as a vote saying it isn’t a red card

      • SOAR21@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • SwitchHitter17@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • pleaseexcusemethanks@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.