It wasn’t Haaland’s goal.
by NDMike2001 (2026-02-09 08:40:37)

In reply to: Part of the problem  posted by wcnitz

Post Reply Return to Clark's Pitch
ADVERTISEMENT

Sometimes you can try to apply the “letter of the law” (when it’s convenient) and it defies logic.

Cherki shot the ball and it was going in. Two players were fighting after it with different objectives. Now Szobo commits a foul first. It’s a DOGSO but it’s also a clear advantage so play on.

Then Haaland’s foul just before the ball crosses the line. Goal.

So what’s the VAR check? Was it an error to give an advantage where an actual goal is scored?

So essentially you’re pretending the goal never happened. You’re saying that it’s a DOGSO except the goal actually occurred. Except it did. The only reason it may not have happened is because a foul took place, which you aren’t enforcing because a foul in the lead up took place first.

That’s all well and good but you’re picking and choosing which outcome you feel should have occurred instead of the actual one. Again, it was a goal. But you’re enforcing a rule that inherently requires a goal to have not occurred.

As for rewarding Haaland. Well he avoids red. He’s on a yellow and commits blatant misconduct that costs a goal.

Do we think in a million years if that was a match winner for City that they would have taken the goal off and ended a draw?

ADVERTISEMENT
Replies: