Sep 19, 2021 -- 10:02AM, olddesperado wrote:
Absolute crazy decision by w ham though.On a different note while I prefer this version of var I think they are using it to control the narrative. You wouldn't say the hand ball was clear and obvious with shaws proximity to the kicker yet they deemed yesterday's city decision a clear and obvious despite it being a clear penalty and was originally given.I don't trust it.
clear and obvious only applies to the VAR (a person). A VAR is not asked to re-referee the incident, he is asked whether the ref made a 'clear and obvious error' which is something different. But when a ref goes to look at the monitor, he is not reviewing his own decision like a VAR does, he is re-refereeing the incident from scratch with the benefit of replays and there is no need for him to establish a 'clear and obvious' error, just a simple error will do.
The VAR will only ask the ref to go to the monitor when he feels the ref has missed something material like Shaw's handball, Ramsdale's touch on the ball or a possible foul by the Southampton player coming thru the back of Walker when Walker had got himself into position to get to the ball first and would have had the player not come thru the back of him.