How did the VAR ref confidently proclaim that the ball did not come off her foot when it is clear? That's the problem, even when confronted with the clear view they tried to justify their original claim of hb.
1:15 This is an offence because the circumstances (opponent deliberately taking a shot) don't justify that arm position, which therefore makes her body unnaturally bigger. If the VAR (AVAR?) thinks this prevented a goal, why not recommend a red card for DOG? Would he not recommend a review if the shot had been going wide? All this to say I hope this VMO doesn't really think the trajectory of the ball has an impact on whether a foul was committed.
I'd call it SPA rather than DOGSO because it doesn't meet all 4 criteria for DOGSO: there's at least one additional defender between the offense and the goal in addition to the GK.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 I agree: it's always (at worst) just SPA, and likely won't be soon with upcoming changes to the Laws. I'm just pointing out the problem with reasoning about whether or not a foul occurred using this logic, especially when your voice is being recorded with the possibility of publication. People with a bone to pick might latch on to this, or refer back to it when a decision doesn't go their way.
@@probaddie456Agreed. @josiasroaach5601 Deflections are no longer automatically no handling. This isn’t handling because, as @probaddie456 says, the ball was going away from the goal or any attacking players.
The same VAR official made the same mistake calls for this one. Insisting rather than just having the referee make the decision
How did the VAR ref confidently proclaim that the ball did not come off her foot when it is clear? That's the problem, even when confronted with the clear view they tried to justify their original claim of hb.
It doesn’t matter. Deflections no longer negate handling.
1:15 This is an offence because the circumstances (opponent deliberately taking a shot) don't justify that arm position, which therefore makes her body unnaturally bigger. If the VAR (AVAR?) thinks this prevented a goal, why not recommend a red card for DOG? Would he not recommend a review if the shot had been going wide? All this to say I hope this VMO doesn't really think the trajectory of the ball has an impact on whether a foul was committed.
So its not DOGSO bc the keeper had a chance to make a save here. If you take the keeper out of the picture then it would be DOGSO
I'd call it SPA rather than DOGSO because it doesn't meet all 4 criteria for DOGSO: there's at least one additional defender between the offense and the goal in addition to the GK.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 I agree: it's always (at worst) just SPA, and likely won't be soon with upcoming changes to the Laws. I'm just pointing out the problem with reasoning about whether or not a foul occurred using this logic, especially when your voice is being recorded with the possibility of publication. People with a bone to pick might latch on to this, or refer back to it when a decision doesn't go their way.
He even said it hit her foot first but reviewer tells him no.....
So? That doesn’t negate handling.
The last one hits her foot first this shouldnt be a penalty
And PRO agrees with you, though it's important to note that it hits the arm while outbound, which makes the difference.
@@probaddie456Agreed. @josiasroaach5601 Deflections are no longer automatically no handling. This isn’t handling because, as @probaddie456 says, the ball was going away from the goal or any attacking players.
Ppl up in NAR are trying to do too damn much which stops the flow of the game, the first one yeah but the other two nay