Glen & the
1. "It looks like Tarkowski stands on
him but it's during the running process and he is going
down anyway," Southgate told BBC Radio 5 live.
ME: If he
was going down anyway, it was because of Tarkowski
trying to pull him back! I don't think that he was
2. Tarkowski said: "It's
never a penalty. I stood on his foot but I didn't think
a lot of it."
begs the question, 'is standing on a player's foot a
foul?' Answer: if it's deliberate. Was it deliberate? I
don't think so, but combined
with holding his arm
and causing him to fall, maybe that's enough to call it
3. "There was contact,
he's rolling around and obviously that has influenced
the referee, they've got the penalty and scored the
- Jermain Defoe, England striker on BBC Radio
ME: He was
rolling around because Tarkowski stood on his foot. I
think that we'd all do the same, it's painful!
"For me if I go through on goal, and there's
contact, I'll go down." - Defoe.
ME: Then you
should be punished (and certainly shouldn't be spouting
those views on national radio). Wouldn't it be better
for the game if no
players did that, or can we only
look at it from a striker's point of view?
5. "VAR was brought in for clear and
obvious errors. If it's clear and obvious why the hell
did it take twenty views for ref to change his mind? And
still nobody can agree if it's right or wrong" - Alan
Shearer on Twitter.
ME: It's not
all black or white. The VAR looked at it and probably
thought that it was worth a second view. It was clear
and obvious that it needed a second look, that's the
benefit of VAR. You have to take a judgement call
quickly and then confirm it one way or the other. We
have to trust these guys, not jump down their throats
with sensationalist quotes just because we have a
prominent profile and have an agenda to prove that it
doesn't work! Also, it didn't take anywhere near 20
views and it's not about everybody agreeing. It's about
what the officials think. These tools mean that they're
going to get it right, almost every time. Surely, that's
the only important thing? It's pointless trying to get
everyone to agree, when everybody's biased towards their
"It's irrelevant whether they
think it was a penalty or not. VAR is there for the
obvious howlers" - Gary Lineker on Twitter.
If a decision is reversed after viewing several replays,
surely that justifies it, even if it's more of 'I have a
strong suspicion that it's an obvious howler, but I'm
not 100% sure', or do we only protest when it's against
nobody possess the ability to look at this objectively,
without any bias? Referees will always make mistakes,
but they know the rules better than any of the pundits
or fans. There can't be a fan out there who sees his own
defender step on a striker's foot and doesn't worry that
a penalty will be given. We then rely on one man's
instant interpretation and hope that he hasn't seen it.
Regardless of who the team is, it has to be good for the
game if another official says, "Hang on, you might want
to take another look at that". The 'clear and obvious
error' thing is surely just guidance for the VAR to stop
them reviewing everything. You can only see that it was
a clear and obvious error when you've looked at all of
the evidence. Until then, it's only a suspicion.
Sorry, had to get that off my chest! One other
interesting point was that Italian players were
encroaching when the kick was taken. The VAR should have
pointed that out which just goes to prove that there's
plenty of room for improvement, but what's the
alternative? Go back to ridiculing the referee, because
we've seen the video and he hasn't?