Sure but that argument goes flying out the window if applied to Everton, Luton & Forest.I have to say I admire them for this. They're only saying what everyone knows - VAR is there for the top 6.
Other clubs should have the balls to say it.
There isn't one VAR, there is a team per game, so the conspiracy theorists will have a tough job convincing people that Attwell could manipulte the others in the team.Surely no referee with any allegiances should officiate PL matches involving their team. The only three known potential conflicts of interest are Attwell with Luton, Pawson with Sheff Utd and Oliver with Newcastle. As none of those three have on-field officiated their teams matches this season its safe to assume that VAR for some bizarre reason is exempt. Premier League/PGMOL incompetence in the extreme.
Well done Notts Forest
I'd say all three were clear pens under the current rules. If they'd been awarded, there would be no controversy. By contrast, Coventry's offside goal yesterday was as marginal as it gets, but VAR still overruled the on field decision.There isn't one VAR, there is a team per game, so the conspiracy theorists will have a tough job convincing people that Attwell could manipulte the others in the team.
How many off the incidents were clear and obvious errors?
Who says he is a Luton fan?Stuart Attwell was the VAR. Whether he has people helping him on offside technical stuff or spotting incidents it is he who makes the call and he surely shouldnt be in that position for situations such as this.
The Coventry decision was a binary, offside or onside, there are only 2 outcomes, even mark Robins accepts it was offside.I'd say all three were clear pens under the current rules. If they'd been awarded, there would be no controversy. By contrast, Coventry's offside goal yesterday was as marginal as it gets, but VAR still overruled the on field decision.
I don't blame Forest for feeling aggrieved. It will be interesting to see how the FA deals with it - if they just punish Forest without acknowledging they have a point about the decisions, they'll just provide more fuel for the conspiracy theories...
Yes - fair point about offside being a binary decision. But those penalty appeals from Forest didn't look marginal to me. We'd be livid if that had happened to us.The Coventry decision was a binary, offside or onside, there are only 2 outcomes, even mark Robins accepts it was offside.
As for the penalties, they remain subjective and open to the 'clear and obvious error' scope afforded for these scenarios. The interpretation of which is open to a multitude of opinions. This is where the authorities have muddled the whole thing, and anything that has Howard Webb's finger prints on it will not end well.
We probably would be, but the charge levelled towards Attwell is about his integrity and not about his competence, of which there is an entire back catalogue of evidence that would back up Forest had they gone down that path.Yes - fair point about offside being a binary decision. But those penalty appeals from Forest didn't look marginal to me. We'd be livid if that had happened to us.
The third one was a clear penalty. The other two would have been soft but were the kind that are often given these days.To clarify...F***** were wrong about the penalties...