Audio for Gyokeres penalty at Newcastle.

Watching live we were pretty much surprised it was given, then
surprised it was overturned.

Ref didn't see goalie get to the ball, so explains clear error.


They more than made up for it with astouding hand ball
not given.

Arsenal played well, just about deserved victory, no
matter how gutting it was.

Ref and assistants were consistently dreadful

Also missed a red card.

when pen wasnt given why wasnt it a corner ?

Play restarts according to the Laws of the Game, which means play resumes from the exact point where the initial incident took place.

If VAR reveals a clear and obvious error in a foul call, and there was no foul at all, the game restarts with a dropped ball.

Turn stuff around a bit.

Gykores is in his own box, Gordon gets a touch on the ball
with his foot planted on ground, and gykores crashes into him
it's a pelanty to Newcastle.

IMO it was still a penalty, the keeper has taken the player out, so what if the keeper has had a slightest touch on the ball.

That and the Brentford non sending off result in another bad day for VAR.

No gykores has taken the goalie out.

They've released an audio of one they reckon they got right, now let's hear the Brentford one!!!!!

Good tackle.

Indeed Duffy.

They have clear justification under the laws to show
how brilliant var can be.

Maybe they fluked a correct decision here.

They got plenty wrong in same game.

Newcastle were refused a blatant penalty late on in that match ffs, came off the players leg and hit his own arm, blatant.

The thing is though, even if you accept that the keeper got a slight touch on the ball, although you can literally say that an error has occured, i wasn't a clear an obvious one so the decision on the pitch should have stood.

Webb said that VAR will not re-ref the game, this is re-reffing the game.

If it hit his leg, and onto his arm it's not a pelanty by the laws.

I cannot see where it's supposed to have hit his leg.

Some suggest he played the ball onto elengas foot, and it hit him
after that, but that's a pelanty.

If goalie gets a touch and referee thought he did not
then it is by definition a clear error.

If goalie gets a touch and still fouls gykores it can still
be a pelanty, but, because goalie has foot planted he is clearly
not committing a foul having got a touch.

When you put it that way, I suppose I'm suggesting the same as what they have in Cricket, umpires call, very often they prove an umpire wrong on a LBW but stick with his decision if the ball isn't hitting plum centre. I suppose I'm saying that an acceptable mistake by a ref which in this case would be, and it's still not clear to me, should be stuck with.

In cricket think of an lbw and snickometer

Any snick off bat onto pad and lbw is cancelled for not out.

Goalie needs any touch given his position and lack of motion.

With an LBW, if the umpire gave not out and then ball tracker shows the ball would have hit the outside of the stumps it stays with umpires call of not out, only if it would have hit the middle stump is the decision over turned, and vice versa.

Yeah half a ball is cut off for ball hitting stumps as
they cannot be absolutely certain on ball tracker.

For a factual decision such as did he hit it, then an absolute
decision can be made thanks to snicko.

As Pope is not moving we need a factual did he get contact on ball.

It was a pen all day long and we were lucky to get away with it.I thought the challenge on livermento was cowardly and a definate caution at least.in rugby he would of been off for tackling man in air without the ball.the 2 smacks in the face evened themselves out but to be fair both cold/should of been reds,which one came first?

the biggest one for me was the handball,his hand was in the air,unnatural position as they say.It hit his foot first then went to his hand they say so no pen.So if his hand was in air and it didnt hithis foot it was a pen? yes? but he didnt put his hand up because he knew it hit his foot,he put it up to stop the cros**** his foot was incidental.

cross hit