There was not enough evidence to disallow Fernando Llorente’s goal… you cannot be sure unless you have a Snickometer
- A controversial Fernando Llorente goal sunk Manchester City on Wednesday
- One camera angle shows the ball striking his arm before going in the net
- Mark Clattenburg says there is not enough evidence to disallow the goal
What does it tell us when one angle suggests the ball did brush Fernando Llorente’s arm and another angle suggests it did not?
It tells us that the possible infringement was not clear and obvious and there was not enough evidence to disallow what proved to be Spurs’ tie-deciding goal at Manchester City on Wednesday night.
I have studied and studied the new angle from behind the goal which has since come to light, and I can’t be 100 per cent sure the ball hits Llorente’s arm first. Unless you have a Snickometer, as in cricket, then no-one can be sure.
There was controversy as another camera angle showed the ball hitting Llorente’s arm
The goal ended up being crucial in Tottenham’s win over Manchester City on Wednesday night
Mark Clattenburg says there was not enough evidence to overturn the decision with VAR
The angles are inconsistent and, therefore, the goal had to stand. It was the right decision. I thought that at the time and have not changed my mind.
- Snickometer is a technology introduced to cricket in the 1990s where the viewer can analyse the sound and video of a replay in order to determine whether the ball has struck the bat.
- It can be used to check whether a batsman should have been given out or not, in the cases of controversial LBW and caught decisions.
- Umpires also use Hot Spot, an infrared imaging system, when the Decision Review System is called upon.
Listen, the fact we are still debating it the following day proves that it was not clear and obvious, so the goal stands.
What I am concerned about is that this was not why VAR was introduced. VAR is intended to reverse the scandalous decisions – the Thierry Henry handball against Ireland in a World Cup play-off, where everyone knows the officials have made a glaring error.
Now, it seems we are trying to take VAR down a different avenue, where every decision is scrutinised to the extent whereby we’re discussing a player’s skin rippling! These minuscule details are not clear and obvious and not what VAR should be used to determine.
However, let us argue that the ball did brush Llorente’s arm first. It would have been the faintest of touches and not deliberate or in any way gaining an advantage. But after that, the ball clearly goes into the goal via his upper thigh, not his arm. In this case, the goal should still stand.