VAR Watch

So they instantly spot the Sterling dive, come back and analyse it to confirm it's a dive, then don't give it?
It leads directly to the Romero red. Should've been a free-kick to us and a yellow for Sterling.

 

I dont think they are allowed to give the dive under the terms of the VAR Law. Even if they did Romero still gets a Red.

 

Ignore the rest of the move for a minute and assume that the ball gets kicked out of play.
Sterling goes over, there's clearly no contact and it goes to VAR.
What decision do they give? What would happen if Oliver gave it as a penalty?

As for the Romero red card, I'd agree if that was the on-field decision, but it wasn't.

 

Not giving a free kick for a dive can't be a clear and obvious error because they are hardly ever given.
If the penalty was given for the dive it would be overturned.
The VAR Law specifically says that disciplinary sanctions that have or should have been given remain. So I think the Red is justified.

 

So Bissouma shouldn't have been sent off for a dive, because other dives aren't given?
It's a clear and obvious error that the VAR officials spotted immediately. Sterling dived.

The red wasn't given. I'm not seeing the bit about "should have been given".

 

No...they should routinely give Yellow Cards for diving but they don't so not penalising one can't be an obvious error.

"... after an incident which is then reviewed, any disciplinary action taken/required during the post-incident period is not cancelled, even if the original decision is changed...."

The word 'required' can only mean that VAR can review it.

 

I don't think that your first sentence tracks at all.
Most refs don't punish dives because they're unsure whether there's been a dive or not.
Sterling's dive is absolutely 100% a dive, though. There's literally no contact of any sort.
It's a clear and obvious error, even if Oliver's view of it isn't good enough to make that decision.

I don't see how you've decided that the passage quoted refers to VAR, either.
I think it relates to things like taking your shirt off following a goal that's then disallowed.
It's still a caution, as Richarlison's disciplinary record can attest.

 

It's perfectly possible to fall over in trying to avoid a tackle. The fact that the VAR team never discuss if it was a dive suggests they don't have a remit to decide it.
What circumstances would require the word 'required' in that law. We agree that if action is taken then the red or yellow card stands. If it is 'required' but not taken then surely that must have been identified by a VAR decision.
If the VAR can't identify serious foul play after a review because the opponents had committed a foul first that would lead to dangerous play being unpunished.

 

He didn't fall over, he dived. It's a blatant, obvious dive. Come on.

Players shouldn't be punished for incidents that the officials miss that should've gone their way.
Cautions for overcelebration that stick despite goals being offside penalise the offending side.
One team committed the infringement (offside) and the same team gets the caution.
Things like berating the officials should be punished regardless, so that's fine.
Not getting the free-kick for a blatant dive and then being punished twice (red/penalty) is ludicrous.

 

From that Twatter clip alone, I would not call a dive.
If I had further footage (at the same resolution)
beyond the non-tackle, then I would say yes or no.

That aside, what would your resolution of the events be ??
IMHO the best you could have got under the current regime was :

1. Yellow card for Sterling (diving) .

2. Red card for Romero (potential leg breaker) .

3. No penalty (due to 1) .

 

How is it not a dive? There's no contact, yet he drops to the ground like there was.

I'd give an indirect free-kick for simulation and book Sterling. That's it.
Romero's tackle is a result of the play not being stopped for an offence which VAR has to check.
It wouldn't apply outside of the area, as you can't VAR yellow card offences alone.

 

So if you know there has been a foul against you that VAR will pick up you can break someone's leg with impunity?

 

I don't think that players are going to risk that sort of thing, but I'd say it's into violent conduct territory.

 

A charisma void interviews a useless, blind twat:
https://www.premierleague.com/news/3990215

"For example, we don't want a goal scored at the other end and then having to take that away as well."
Yeah, you made that perfectly clear, Mr Webb...

Anyone that listens to that Everton/Forest VAR audio and thinks that it's fine is mental, frankly.
He's simply not watching that footage or he's never seen a game before. Crazy.