Quote Originally Posted by MadAmster View Post
Logic would see, in the minds of many, the failure to look at the van Dijk incident as a dereliction of duty. Logic would be right.

VAR is to be used only for “clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents” in four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity.

I would argue that Pickford's "tackle" was a serious missed incident which should have resulted in a penalty decision.

Was the VAR involved at all in the incident? I don't think it was as the penalty would have been given if they had used the VAR.

There has been talk of Virgil being offside and that that was the first incident so it's the one that counts. If that was true I would partially
disagree with that "decision". The ref hadn't blown so play was still going on. Pickford then made that "tackle". Had Virgil, indeed, been offside and the new advice to Assistant refs to flag late was the reason it hadn't yet been signalled then offside should have been given as that was first offence. However, that would mean that Pickford had taken Virgil out "off the ball". Still a red card offence but no penalty as the offside had already happened.

I've also seen pundits say that, even if he was offside, the penalty should have been given as it's the more serious offence. They are wrong. They may have been misled by this from Law 5.



Any offside by Virgil happened prior to the "tackle", not simultaneously. Ergo, the ref should ave awarded an indirect free kick to Everton if van Dijk had been offside and then shown Pickford the red card.
Agree with all that MA, well thought-through. I watched MOTD for the first time in years on Sat and I think you'd be a better pundit than what they have.