Cheraw Chronicle

Complete News World

Overtime he no longer understood the VAR after Odjidja’s red card: “Isn’t that against principle?”  † extra time

Overtime he no longer understood the VAR after Odjidja’s red card: “Isn’t that against principle?” † extra time

Vadis Odjidja’s red card was one of the most talked about stages of football last weekend. In the overtime studio, no one thought the AA Gent player’s card was correct, what’s more, they couldn’t understand the interpretation of the referee’s oath.

Vadis Odjidja entered into a duel with Tapsoba during the match against Standard with his foot on his leg. After the VAR intervened, he turned red.

“This is in the walking motion,” says Peter Vandenbet. “By the way, what does Lardot explain to Ogedja when he gives that card? He’s apologizing? That’s weird, isn’t it.”

Verhein changed: “Every picture they see of a foot on one leg is red. But this is a stage that you can only judge in live broadcasts. Every picture you take after that only makes it worse.”

This explanation is only there to please us with good stats after the season. This now comes up in the column with the correct VAR interventions.

Philip Goose

After the weekend, an explanation from the judging section also follows. Referee: It was not a red card, but they expected the VAR to intervene because the referee did not witness a serious incident.

“Doesn’t that go against the VAR principle?” says Peter Vandenbett. “Surely the VAR should only intervene if he is satisfied that he is red and that the referee has not seen him? Now I’m not with him anymore. I don’t understand.”

Joos: “This explanation is just there to please us in June with great stats. That doesn’t add to the ‘oops, VAR was wrong’ moments. This is now a dash in the column with the correct VAR moments.”

See also  Queen Castells enters the UEFA Champions League with Wolfsburg | Bundesliga 2020/2021

Vandenbett: “Laforge must have thought it was red at the time.”

Joos: “If you send someone to the screen, you know that really gives a psychological indication of judgment. And then he thinks: ‘Ah, I was wrong.’ You must be very brave to face it. Go. And they are not.”

In the same match, there was also a foul by Tapsoba on Hanche-Olson. Reserved for stepping on the ankle. Vandenbempt: “A lot of red cards have already been given to this, and there’s something to be said for that.”

Was it red for Vanaken? “The difference with Vanzer is that he has the ball.”

The other notable stage was Hans Vanaken’s punch to Michael Frey. That stage passed in silence. Vanaken hostel without map.

“We hardly said anything about it in our comment because I didn’t feel that something serious had happened there or that it was an act of aggression,” says Gert Verhein. “It was definitely not red, if necessary yellow.”

Last week, there was a lot to do about Dante Vanzier’s fight. Isn’t that the same? “It was really a fist-blow,” says Gotts. “This opponent was also half-dead.”

Although there is some skepticism about the latter. Joss: “The first boxer will be unconscious until after that. Strange.”

Joss: “Yeah, it should have been yellow here too. It hits, if you stop someone, you do it with your left arm in that case. The big difference with Vanzer is he has the ball. You’re running with the ball and you don’t know where he directed that opponent.”

Goots: “I don’t think she was conscious.”