Baffled

Soz, didn't realise you were still talking about Mane.

No worries. Having re-watched the Mane one it was more impactful that I remembered (mainly because the players were both running at full pelt) but I think the basis of the two incidents is the same. A player sticks his foot at a dangerous height in an attempt to control the ball without realising an opposition player is coming in to the challenge. Mane's us clearly worse but Haaland is still studs up into the head of an opponent and for me that should be a red for endangering an opponent.

No chance that’s a red card.

He’s fully in control, there’s no excessive force and it’s little more than a high boot. Yellow card at most.

VAR Review: A caution for Haaland was the best outcome here, because the City striker's challenge was reckless. It's surprising that England didn't produce a yellow card considering he had a very clear view of the incident.

Remembering that VAR cannot advise the referee to show a yellow card, it didn't reach the threshold for a red. Haaland was not off the floor and out of control in his challenge, there was no force involved and Andersen was also stooping to head the ball.

It's very different than the red card Sadio Mane received against Manchester City in September 2017. The Liverpool striker was completely off the floor and jumping toward Ederson when he caught the City goalkeeper in the head with his studs, clearly endangering the safety of an opponent with force in the challenge.
----------------------------------------
VAR Review: As referee Darren England had blown his whistle before Ayew scored, the VAR has no recourse to award a goal. Play stops at the moment the referee blows his whistle, and anything after that point cannot be reviewed. It would have been better for England to allow the ball to enter the goal before stopping play.

It's worth explaining the decision itself, as it confused many supporters.

Law 12 states than an indirect free kick should be awarded if a player:

- prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it.

This is exactly the kind of situation the law is intended to cover. You cannot block the goalkeeper at the point he releases the ball -- be that if he is throwing it or kicking it out of his hands. He must be allowed to complete the release.

Ederson hadn't completed the release of the ball, so even if the referee had given the goal, the VAR would have advised it should be disallowed. It was a simple decision.

Of course, people will ask when has the ball actually been released? It's not specifically defined in the laws in terms of distance, but guidance to referees clearly states that a goalkeeper must be able to release the ball without being challenged. Edouard obviously made an attempt to play the ball as the goalkeeper was in the process of releasing it.

We have a perfect example of when the ball has been released from the 2018 Champions League. Karim Benzema scored when he blocked a throw by Loris Karius, and while the Real Madrid striker was close to the Liverpool goalkeeper, there is clear space in which the opponent can legally block the ball.

VAR will continue to present situations that highlight the intricacies of the Laws of the Game. Last season, Aston Villa saw a Jacob Ramsey goal correctly disallowed when Leicester City goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel had the ball under his control.

Most fans were not aware that having one hand on the ball while it is on the ground means the goalkeeper cannot be challenged.
Remembering that VAR cannot advise the referee to show a yellow card, it didn't reach the threshold for a red. Haaland was not off the floor and out of control in his challenge, there was no force involved and Andersen was also stooping to head the ball.

It's very different than the red card Sadio Mane received against Manchester City in September 2017. The Liverpool striker was completely off the floor and jumping toward Ederson when he caught the City goalkeeper in the head with his studs, clearly endangering the safety of an opponent with force in the challenge.

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/english-premier-league/story/4731882/the-var-review-mctominay-handballhaaland-red-carddisallowed-palace-goal

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
VAR Review: A caution for Haaland was the best outcome here, because the City striker's challenge was reckless. It's surprising that England didn't produce a yellow card considering he had a very clear view of the incident.

Remembering that VAR cannot advise the referee to show a yellow card, it didn't reach the threshold for a red. Haaland was not off the floor and out of control in his challenge, there was no force involved and Andersen was also stooping to head the ball.

It's very different than the red card Sadio Mane received against Manchester City in September 2017. The Liverpool striker was completely off the floor and jumping toward Ederson when he caught the City goalkeeper in the head with his studs, clearly endangering the safety of an opponent with force in the challenge.
----------------------------------------
VAR Review: As referee Darren England had blown his whistle before Ayew scored, the VAR has no recourse to award a goal. Play stops at the moment the referee blows his whistle, and anything after that point cannot be reviewed. It would have been better for England to allow the ball to enter the goal before stopping play.

It's worth explaining the decision itself, as it confused many supporters.

Law 12 states than an indirect free kick should be awarded if a player:

- prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it.

This is exactly the kind of situation the law is intended to cover. You cannot block the goalkeeper at the point he releases the ball -- be that if he is throwing it or kicking it out of his hands. He must be allowed to complete the release.

Ederson hadn't completed the release of the ball, so even if the referee had given the goal, the VAR would have advised it should be disallowed. It was a simple decision.

Of course, people will ask when has the ball actually been released? It's not specifically defined in the laws in terms of distance, but guidance to referees clearly states that a goalkeeper must be able to release the ball without being challenged. Edouard obviously made an attempt to play the ball as the goalkeeper was in the process of releasing it.

We have a perfect example of when the ball has been released from the 2018 Champions League. Karim Benzema scored when he blocked a throw by Loris Karius, and while the Real Madrid striker was close to the Liverpool goalkeeper, there is clear space in which the opponent can legally block the ball.

VAR will continue to present situations that highlight the intricacies of the Laws of the Game. Last season, Aston Villa saw a Jacob Ramsey goal correctly disallowed when Leicester City goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel had the ball under his control.

Most fans were not aware that having one hand on the ball while it is on the ground means the goalkeeper cannot be challenged.
Remembering that VAR cannot advise the referee to show a yellow card, it didn't reach the threshold for a red. Haaland was not off the floor and out of control in his challenge, there was no force involved and Andersen was also stooping to head the ball.

It's very different than the red card Sadio Mane received against Manchester City in September 2017. The Liverpool striker was completely off the floor and jumping toward Ederson when he caught the City goalkeeper in the head with his studs, clearly endangering the safety of an opponent with force in the challenge.

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/english-premier-league/story/4731882/the-var-review-mctominay-handballhaaland-red-carddisallowed-palace-goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair enough. I think it is a danger to an opponent to hit them in the face with your studs but that's a reasonable argument.

You don’t understand what endangering an opponent refers to.

The way you interpret that rule could be applied to dangerous play, which is why you are wrong. Again.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
You don’t understand what endangering an opponent refers to.

The way you interpret that rule could be applied to dangerous play, which is why you are wrong. Again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Endangering an opponent refers to putting an opponent into a position where they are at risk of a serious injury. I would say it's a fairly reasonable position that studding someone in the face can do this. Its fine if you think it isn't dangerous to stud someone in the face.

And the same could be said of a high foot, which is regarded as dangerous play and is proof that you don’t understand the laws of the game.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
And the same could be said of a high foot, which is regarded as dangerous play and is proof that you don’t understand the laws of the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes a high foot that connects studs first with the face of an opponent could be said to be endangering that opponent and could therefore easily be a red card. Glad you agree.

I don’t agree, because you’re wrong.

You’re interpreting the law incorrectly.