Liverpool v Brighton (A) PL

[Exiled_red]

I think it is another VAR special where no one seems to know what the situation should be, I think if Diaz doesn't score then the ref and VAR really have a decision to make. I saw a number of people talking about the double jeopardy rule, but that is immaterial if the challenge is endangering am opponent, which I guess really has to be the question they were asking in sending it to VAR. At the very least it is a yellow for a high boot. Anywhere else on the pitch that's a red, GKs seem to be able to get away with more rightly or wrongly.

I think we need to clear up the situation as to what is a foul/penalty if a player is taken out after they have got a shot away because there have been a number of no calls on these type of incidents recently and elsewhere on the pitch they would be definate fouls and yellow/red cards.

[Zapater]

I think it is another VAR special where no one seems to know what the situation should be, I think if Diaz doesn't score then the ref and VAR really have a decision to make. I saw a number of people talking about the double jeopardy rule, but that is immaterial if the challenge is endangering am opponent, which I guess really has to be the question they were asking in sending it to VAR. At the very least it is a yellow for a high boot. Anywhere else on the pitch that's a red, GKs seem to be able to get away with more rightly or wrongly.

I think we need to clear up the situation as to what is a foul/penalty if a player is taken out after they have got a shot away because there have been a number of no calls on these type of incidents recently and elsewhere on the pitch they would be definate fouls and yellow/red cards.

I agree that this red card thing is bull****. I know they only look for the red but they should be able to give a retrospective yellow too. It's actually hilarious, it's like refs find reasons to give yellows for little niggles like shirt tugs, then they miss some in the 'orange' area. VAR decides it's not a red, so the offender gets off scot free. I don't get it.

[Norbs]

It is bull**** as a PL defender was red carded and a penalty was given yesterday

[Kenneth]

In his defence, he said he lost balance and didn't dive, and even made it clear to the ref.

So he’s a lying prick and a diving prick.

[SB]

Still gobsmacked Sanchez didn’t get a card, it’s like keepers can do no wrong. Players only have to enter their personal space at times to give away a free kick but some keepers race out and clean up players for fun with no retribution.

[ChesterDave]

Shouldn't be any confusion on the correct situation if the check was for dangerous play. Dangerous is dangerous wherever the ball ends up. Obviously if the ball went in he could not be sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity but the move was dangerous and needed to be punished.

[SB]

Shouldn't be any confusion on the correct situation if the check was for dangerous play. Dangerous is dangerous wherever the ball ends up. Obviously if the ball went in he could not be sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity but the move was dangerous and needed to be punished.

Exactly so it’s hard to work out why it wasn’t deemed dangerous. Does he have to be decapitated for it to count?

[Exiled_red]

For me there are two issues with the Diaz incident:
1. The on field ref's decision, it was at least a late challenge with a high boot, that alone should have at least been a yellow. I can see that the referee might not have seen how dangerous it was and that the deeming it to be endangering an opponent could always have come down to a VAR call, but he must have seen contact and deemed it worthy of at least a yellow card.
2. The VAR call, the VAR official deemed it not endangering an opponent, which is an odd one, as most people see that as a red card, I really wonder where the threshold for that offence is with VAR as that one yesterday wasn't given. Kane's foul on Robertson wasn't deemed to be endangering an opponent, Pickford's assault on VVD wasn't either, in the context of those previous decisions this one was at least consistent.But when those 3 challenges are reviewed by VAR and none deemed worthy of a red card for endangering an opponent it does make you wonder where the bar is. I'm sure I have seen other players in non LFC games sent off for endangering an opponent with VAR intervention but those 3 challenges were all really bad, and really guidance for VAR officials seems way off and for me needs looking at.

BTW have PGMOL come out with an explanation for this one yet...

[Buzzo]

Pretty much every pundit and commentator has called it out as being a red. It’s the least debatable red ever. Something properly sus (given who it was) in the VAR ref not even having a look at it.

It would be a red card in Rugby let alone football.

[SB]

Pretty much every pundit and commentator has called it out as being a red. It’s the least debatable red ever. Something properly sus (given who it was) in the VAR ref not even having a look at it.

It would be a ref card in Rugby let alone football.

[Doc_Piptorious]

Pretty much every pundit and commentator has called it out as being a red. It’s the least debatable red ever. Something properly sus (given who it was) in the VAR ref not even having a look at it.

It would be a ref card in Rugby let alone football.

You know it is clear cut when Gareth Crookes comes out and says there could be no good reason to not give a red card.