AustinScubaAg said:

---

Lots of slips out there.

---

zgolfz85 said:

---

that's not a pen

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

zgolfz85 said:

---

that's not a pen

---

Under the "is it a clear foul anywhere else on the field" test, it is a penalty. Struggling to understand how you overturn it.

---

Quote:

---

What happened: Atltico Madrid defender Hancko appeared to trip Arsenal's Eberechi Eze in the penalty area, with referee Makkelie pointing to the spot, awarding a penalty to the Gunners. Only for VAR and the referee to overturn the award following an on-field review.

VAR decision: Having reviewed several replays, VAR felt that there was not enough contact by the Atltico defender for a penalty to be awarded, using the rationale that any contact on Eze was minimal, adding the Arsenal attacker went over the leg of Hancko as opposed to the defender committing an obvious tripping offense.

VAR recommended an on-field review where, having viewed the replays for himself, the referee agreed with the VAR and disallowed the penalty, restarting the game with a dropped ball to the Atltico keeper Jan Oblak.

Verdict / Insight: I felt this was a penalty in real time and having seen the replays, I am still of the same opinion. Hancko was late with his challenge, making contact on the boot of Eze while making no contact with the ball, and this contact met the criteria for a careless trip.

The on-field referee had a good view of the incident and was positive with his body language and original decision.

It is difficult to understand and explain the rationale as to why there was a VAR intervention in this incident. The footage clearly shows there is foot-on-foot contact, created by a late challenge by a defender and certainly not a clear and obvious error -- this must be considered a poor piece of officiating.

Equally, once the referee is looking at the screen, he has all options open to him. I can only surmise that the VAR talked the referee out of the decision, highlighting that the contact, in his opinion, was minimal and that the attacker's motivation was to create a penalty situation as opposed to it being a foul.

In my opinion, both officials were incorrect, and Arsenal should feel aggrieved by the outcome.

---