Bad decision, but I think a bit of perspective is worthwhile here.
An advantage call, unlike a lot of decisions, is by very nature a ridiculously hard call to get right.
The advantage only lasts for a maximum of three seconds, during which time the referee has to mentally review the decision of the foul, confirm an advantage is there, and that by the time the three seconds ends there is still an advantage greater than the free kick, because after which, a free kick will not be awarded.
Now the third bit is where I think it all goes wrong, as I think in Hooper’s head, he’s spotted the foul ( ✅) he’s played advantage ( ✅) but because of the way Haaland has played the ball, with a curled pass, and from the perspective of where Hooper, who doesn’t have access to Birds Eye view and is relying only on his own site and ground level, has to make a split decision of whether Porro or Grealish is going to get the ball.
If he plays on, and Porro gets it, enough time has probably passed to not bring it back.
Logic at that time of the game would say let it play out, but I think this is a far harder call to make than pundits and this sub Reddit is making it sound like. It’s a bad decision, but not the egregious one everyone is crying out at
The advantage only lasts for a maximum of three seconds
Garbage. You just made that up.
has to make a split decision of whether Porro or Grealish is going to get the ball.
No he doesn’t. He can wait to see how it pans out to see if it is an advantage or not.
If he plays on, and Porro gets it, enough time has probably passed to not bring it back.
No, the time does not matter. Grealish being through on goal was the result of the action which was being assessed as to if it results in an advantage or not. That is when you make the decision, not before.
Bad decision, but I think a bit of perspective is worthwhile here.
An advantage call, unlike a lot of decisions, is by very nature a ridiculously hard call to get right.
The advantage only lasts for a maximum of three seconds, during which time the referee has to mentally review the decision of the foul, confirm an advantage is there, and that by the time the three seconds ends there is still an advantage greater than the free kick, because after which, a free kick will not be awarded.
Now the third bit is where I think it all goes wrong, as I think in Hooper’s head, he’s spotted the foul ( ✅) he’s played advantage ( ✅) but because of the way Haaland has played the ball, with a curled pass, and from the perspective of where Hooper, who doesn’t have access to Birds Eye view and is relying only on his own site and ground level, has to make a split decision of whether Porro or Grealish is going to get the ball.
If he plays on, and Porro gets it, enough time has probably passed to not bring it back.
Logic at that time of the game would say let it play out, but I think this is a far harder call to make than pundits and this sub Reddit is making it sound like. It’s a bad decision, but not the egregious one everyone is crying out at
Garbage. You just made that up.
No he doesn’t. He can wait to see how it pans out to see if it is an advantage or not.
No, the time does not matter. Grealish being through on goal was the result of the action which was being assessed as to if it results in an advantage or not. That is when you make the decision, not before.