It was a penalty and I’m not complaining about the decision.
VAR is only supposed to come in play when it’s a clear and obvious error. It’s a fine line when it comes to discussing incidents.
People can argue that yes it was a clear and obvious error because robertson made contact with welbeck and therefore it’s a penalty. However other people can argue that the referee saw the incident and felt that the contact made by robertson was not enough to warrant a penalty so it’s not a clear and obvious error from the referee and that’s why VAR shouldn’t have been used.
When VAR was first introduced, the FA and premierleague were very insistent that the referee would still control the game and that he would make the majority of decisions. VAR was only supposed to be used, presumably, if the referee had missed something.
It’s got the point now where every decision the referee makes is looked at by VAR and quite often over ruled by VAR - and that’s why there is debate about the penalty yesterday.
He wasn't overruled. He might have been last year, but this year he went to the monitor, took one look at the replay and that's all he thought he needed. Looking at the replay from behind that goal, Robbo really has no defence. I don't want it to be given, but under the rules it's a straightforward call. It was a clear and obvious error, and/or a "serious missed incident" which also comes under a remit of a VAR.
We had multiple angles available to look at the incident, in real time the ref had one, and when he saw what we saw, he made his decision. If that's outside the box, the ref gives the free kick and we move on. It's inside the box but the same rules apply. I've never been a big believer in the "not enough of a foul" claim. A foul is a foul is a foul. There are 20-30 fouls per game. They vary in severity but they still have to be acted upon.
Logged
