In both cases the keeper cleaned the attacker out while the defender headed the ball away. As a keeper, I don't really think either should be a penalty, if you go for a ball in the air around that area, you're fair game and you might get smashed. It's part of the game, if you're going to give them for that, then you have to give them for players mistiming headers as well.
He was standing next to it and said no penalty . VAR told him to
To be fair to Oliver, he WAS going for the ball(s)
One of the big differences, of course, being the Ederson gets cleaned out just as much as he cleaned the attacker. Which obviously is not true at all for the Onana one. Another one is that Onana punches (or whatever you want to call it) the Burnley player in the face, which also doesn't happen here. A third one is that it's fundamentally a different situation as the Burnley player engages with the defender and Onana arrives a second late, whereas the Forest player engages with Ederson in case the defender doesn't get the ball and they clatter together with roughly the same force. It's only similar if the only thing you're looking for in this situation is "keeper colliding with attacker after ball was cleared by defender".
In one of the stills it looks like Oliver has the body language of someone who has just seen a man kicked in the nads. There is no way he can have missed that. Maybe he didn't believe it.
It's a contact sport, so if it's a foul or not depends on level of contact.
Ederson didn't clean out the attacker, the attacker doesn't clean out Ederson. They're both jumping towards each other before the ball is cleared. If the defender didn't clear the ball it would be a case of who gets the ball first, Ederson or the attacker, in order to decide who fouls who.
Yeah you guys are 100% right, they are not similar at all.
Is this an official rule?
Yet Coventry were award a penalty for the exact same thing at Wembley...
What? I'm just explaining how the situations differ.
If true, does that mean conspiracy against United as the poster was suggesting... ?
There is no rule, Jarred Gillett is Australian and was a referee there for nearly a decade before moving to England.
Almost undoubtedly
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Bollox that's a tussle. The forest player plays the ball and the defender comes through the back of him. What a bizarre interpretation that is.
I think ‘comes through the back of him’ is hardly an accurate way to describe it. But I’d also say ‘tussle’ is wrong. Tussle implies upper body to me, if it’s foot on foot contact then it’s not really a tussle.
Well, fair enough, but I mean he attempts to get the ball and kicks the attacker foot Israel instead..
I think it's a funny one, because Anthony Taylor says that he (Young) plays the ball, so does the assistant ref.
If there is now clear evidence that the guy in the chair has no idea what the hell is he looking at then surely he should be in some intense training programme before he is allowed to impact the outcomes of other games moving forward. Or is that too much to ask?
Yeah. It is a really really poor decision by VAR and Atwell should really be taken off it or given training due to that but still not buying the conspiracy stuff.
There is a tussle though. Separate to the foot contact. Look at the way they link arms. That could be construed as Young dragging the Forest player to the ground but the VAR guys is making it clear that it’s just a 50:50 tussle to get to the ball.
It would be fun to hear the audio from the last situation.
Have they ever fully put a referee or VAR official on blast though? They've said they'll not be used but don't recall them every going in on them.
Jesus, you should warn people when your link contains Michael Owen.
What exactly did he see? I think me might be blind if he thinks the defender touched the ball first. Must be the only guy on the planet who would get that utterly incorrect.
