warmleyseagull
Well-known member
If it is only 62:38 as I vote on a clearly biased forum, it was stonewall.
Initially it was a coming together and 50-50 but then Milner goes beyond that and commits the foul.It looks like a coming together, no more Milner's fault than Mudryk's. Probably not a penalty. Certainly not a 'clear and obvious error'. Joke.
Music, you say?Never mind the penalty. Find the bloke with the X account and have him summarily executed for his taste in music.
My blue and white tints tell me “no chance of it being given” at the other endClear penalty- a lot of incredibly blue and white tinted specs on here tonight.
100% of those who've voted not a penalty would've been livid if that were up the other end and not given.
Voted no, as I’m biased……
But really I can’t decide.
well, yes, as per my last lineOk...
So it's not a clear and obvious error then. VAR should not have overturned it.
This is how I feel. Which isn’t really an optionProbably a penalty but absolutely nowhere near clear and obvious so the ref shouldn’t have been sent.
Would say the same if it was given by ref onfield originally .
completely disagree. defending player doesn’t extend his leg in front of the attacker. there is no overt blocking motion to stop the attacker getting to the ball. doesn’t even swing his leg into the attacking player, outside of what looks like a normal running motion in that situation. some refs may judge it as a foul, but the one we got in athens was a trip on pedro, clear as day to the VAR, not the case hereNot massively different to the one we got in Athens……..can’t really argue with the decision unfortunately
It’s one I’ll file under: I can understand why it was given. But, it was very soft.