Kusi Asare Penalty (AI VAR decision)

[Cambridge Away]

Gentleman Jim says "Not for me" in the commentary and it would have seemed a harsh penalty, but the rules of the game say that is a penalty. We have had much worse than that go against us with VAR.

Summary of the Incident
•   Fulham's Kusi Asare reaches the ball first in the penalty area, moving his body in front of the ball to shield it, making him the player in effective possession.
•   Manchester City's O'Reilly tries to play the ball first, but ends up second and tackling from behind/side-on.
•   Asare skims the ball as he goes over the top of it and the ball changes direction marginally.
•   O'Reilly may get a slight touch through Asare's legs. It could be debated he doesn't.
•   What is clear is that O'Reilly's challenge goes through Asare, and the contact causes Asare to trip and fall.
•   The referee did not award a penalty.
________________________________________
VAR Interpretation
1. The key factor is the foul, not the ball touch
VAR does not require a "clear and obvious" touch on the ball by Asare.
VAR only needs to determine whether there is a clear and obvious foul that the referee missed.
2. A defender cannot go through an opponent who has gained position
Even if O'Reilly gets a slight touch on the ball, he cannot make a challenge that goes through Asare and causes him to fall.
3. If the trip is clearly visible on replay
Then the referee missing the foul is considered a clear and obvious error, which is exactly when VAR should intervene.
________________________________________
Final Conclusion
•   Asare gets to the ball just before and legitimately moves in front to protect it.
•   O'Reilly, arriving second, makes a mistimed challenge that causes Asare to trip.
•   The referee misses this.
•   If the trip is clearly shown on the replay, VAR should recommend an on-field review.
•   In most cases, after seeing the replay, the referee would give a penalty.

[fancyfeet4]

There is no way they can call that a penalty. If the shoe was on the other foot, how would you feel?

Players cannot be rewarded for that type of play in the box where they cut across a player and throwing themselves in the way of contact trying to draw a foul...especially if the ball is running out of play.

There is subjectivity on a lot of calls during a match and I do think (even though some individual decisions are wrong) that the Prem is trying to call less touch fouls in the box.

[SP]

Sounds exactly like the penalty Sunderland got on Saturday?

[Super Mick]

Definitely a penalty! When are City getting punished for all these breaches?

[H4usuallysitting]

I was about to say the same - Sunderland penalty was identical.....think we've had them called against us in the past

[Jules]

I thought it should have been reviewed pitch side by the ref. Seen them given a few times but maybe VAR checked it was for us against City and decided against it.

[Cambridge Away]

think we've had them called against us in the past

We have!.. Bobby De Cordova Reid in front of the Putney end a few seasons ago and Harrison Reed on Joao Pedro against Brighton in the 98th minute 8 months ago. These two (that went against us) were more harsh because both times our players couldn't even see the opposition player coming!
Harrison Reeds is 2:26

[Hugh Janus]

Penalty all day long. Am I surprised we didn't get it? Nope.

115 charges. Yawn.

[bencher]

We've had so many of these called against us. Diop on Nunez at Anfield also comes to mind. I'm against these types of penalties where the defender can't even see the attacker, but they are given. In this case O'Reilly could totally see JKA. It comes down to whether the ref thinks there was enough contact from O'Reilly to bring down JKA, and I think he concludes the contact is not sufficient. We've seen these given, and we've seen them given by VAR. It was just our misfortune that it wasn't.

[Thailand Mick]

I'm like most people on here,, it's never a penalty and nor are probably 30% of penalties given where the forwards have conned the ref. Remember KDB at the Etihad flopping to the floor to win the game for city so if that had been given we would have received some karma.

[EN1 FFC]

Thing for me is we saw an identical penalty given in the Sunderland v Bournemouth game for Sunderland by the on=field Ref, ours wasn't given and the VAR went with his on-field decision as not being an obvious error.

Can't say I'm a fan of giving penalties for when a player just puts his leg in front of a defender getting the ball without any contact on the ball or having the ball under control and gets a penalty.

[Lordedmundo]

Thing for me is we saw an identical penalty given in the Sunderland v Bournemouth game for Sunderland by the on=field Ref, ours wasn't given and the VAR went with his on-field decision as not being an obvious error.

Can't say I'm a fan of giving penalties for when a player just puts his leg in front of a defender getting the ball without any contact on the ball or having the ball under control and gets a penalty.

Ours wasn't a penalty and neither was Sunderland's (VAR should have told the ref to go to the monitor). If either of those are given against a Fulham played I would be livid.