Never done it before but because of that Doku incident the other week and the determination on here of the likes of Yorky, Alonso, Chopper et alia to deny any dodginess I felt compelled to ask everyone around us and others at half time in concourse for their take on the three possible season defining incidents which I keep highlighting in my posts on here and which Yorky and co. keep refraining from commenting upon ie that Doku non penalty, the Odegaard non pen and the Diaz disallowed goal.
Anyroad everyone to a man felt something really stinks and then agreed with my take when I put it to them that in each instance the VAR official simply didn't want to rule in our favour for whatever reason despite the clear evidence telling them that would have been the fair and impartial call.
Not sure what it proves except that it did me a power of good to know that those twenty or so fellow matchgoers saw things along the same lines as the likes of me, Eeyore, Andy, Redley etc and most emphatically not like those who don't seem to see anything untoward but merely error and incompetence.
That’s fine and everyone is absolutely entitled to their own opinion, I can fully understand how those three decisions give the impression that something is afoot, I certainly can’t prove that view is incorrect and nor would I try to.
What I would take exception with is the idea that people are just ignoring those three incidents because it doesn’t suit their argument, I know I personally have addressed all three of them and I’m sure I’m not alone in that.
I’m not going to dredge up everything I’ve said on it but as a brief summary-
Diaz - We have an audio clip of the referee clearly restarting the match under the instruction of the VAR. the confusion apparently being that the VAR was under the impression that restarting the game meant that the goal would stand, they only realised afterwards that it hadn’t by which point it was too late to do anything because, as per the rules of the game, they can’t stop the game to award the goal once it’s restarted. Of course it’s perfectly valid to be of the opinion that this was an intentional plot to deny the goal, it’s not one that I subscribe to as I just think it would be a crazy way to go about doing that leaving them open to substantial risk. What isn’t a valid opinion is to suggest that nobody has addressed it as it has been done to death.
Odegaard - I’ve said myself that that it’s inexplicable, it’s a clear penalty and I’ve no idea why the VAR doesn’t give it, it almost feels as though they’re trying to find a reason not to do so. It’s a penalty, it’s been subsequently admitted by Webb that it should have been given and I don’t know why it wasn’t. Again, if you hold the view that it’s an example of foul play then that’s perfectly valid and you’re entitled to do so, what I would say to that is that, as with most things in life, there’s several possible explanations for something which we can’t prove either way, the obvious devils advocate point being that they’re cowardly and want to avoid big decisions in huge games. You can’t prove anything either way; and nor are you obliged to for the purposes of discussion, but again it’s disingenuous to suggest that people are deliberately ignoring it because it’s been discussed ad infinitum.
Doku - Oliver himself probably can’t see it as he’s stood the opposite side of Doku’s body to where the contact happens, people have posted a misleading angle which suggests he can which is up there with people showing different angles of a ball near a goal line to give totally different perceptions as to whether the ball is over it or not, I don’t think he can see it. Oliver tells the VAR he can see that Doku got the ball (which he did) he can see that from his angle because you can see the direction the ball moves and the angle of the player nearest to it to have a good stab at who has connected with it; the VAR confirms that he is correct in that belief and then state there isn’t enough for a review. I 100% do not agree with that, if the threshold is ‘clear and obvious error’, well, there’s been a player kicking someone in the chest and the onfield ref hasn’t even mentioned it; at the very least Atwell should be saying ‘did you see the contact’ and Oliver would, you’d imagine, say no and that should prompt a review. Again; I’m not going to go into my views on what I think the rules should be as I’ve said it tonnes and it’s all in the thread.
What I would say with all of this (and this is in no way aimed at you as I’ve no idea whether it applies or not) but I do see it a lot; is people may find that they get less frustrated about this stuff if they check what the actual rules are regarding a specific incident after the match has finished before fuming on the internet. A key example being the Stones goal, 3 weeks after the event I’m still seeing people saying it’s the same as the one Van Dijk got disallowed vs Chelsea, and, watching it live, that was my first thought as well- it isn’t the same as the Van Dijk goal was disallowed because Endo was offside, you can’t be offside from a corner. I see this on virtually every major decision, people complaining that a VAR isn’t a clear and obvious error when the current implementation of the rules don’t require it to etc etc.
Also, to play devils advocate I would say that if you ask people at half time yesterday what their views are on that subject immediately after Coote has humbled his way through another 50 minutes compared to half an hour after the game that we eventually won you may get a different answer - I know you would if you asked me anyway.
