1. Burnley, yes it did take a long time but ultimately the correct decision was made. We all thought that the knee was furthest forward, but by taking extra time, VAR figured out the head was offside and made the correct decision. What would be helpful is automated offsides that can make these decisions in seconds

  2. Newcastle penalty. Imo it’s a soft penalty, but is it a clear and obvious error? Defender doesn’t make contact with the ball and does take down the Newcastle player. It’s soft but it’s clearly wrong as evidenced by the fact it took VAR so long

  • Tymkie@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if that’s by the rules “correct” not to intervene by var because there is no clear nas obvious error… That just means the rules are pure garbage. They purposely just make wrong decisions only to allow their pal to “be the boss”.

  • Enigma_Green@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You do realise he didn’t even touch the Newcastle player, you even have Shay Given saying its not.

    Poor decision VAR should have intervened but again said nothing.

  • BrownEyesWhiteScarf@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In regards to Wolves - Newcastle: the Wolves player does come into contact with the ball before any sort of contact with the Newcastle player. There’s nothing clear and obvious about the penalty, it’s the wrong decision

  • PJBuzz@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I didn’t watch the Burnley game, but they did not do well in the Newcastle game.

    I’m not convinced that you can make an argument that they made the right decision, but you can definitely make the argument that if the call was that it wasn’t a clear and obvious error, then it shouldn’t take 5 minutes to figure out.