Todays football

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
randomclaret2
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
Been Liked: 2742 times
Has Liked: 4314 times

Re: Todays football

Post by randomclaret2 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:59 pm

Why are Arsenal wearing blue ?

ClaretTony
Posts: 67420
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32235 times
Has Liked: 5252 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Todays football

Post by ClaretTony » Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:06 pm

wilks_bfc wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:58 pm
Liverpool have asked the Premier League to investigate the BAR decisions from today’s game

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... at-everton
They will get nowhere with this but I have to say I’m baffled as to how that winning goal was ruled out for offside. I’ve not seen the Pickford/VVD incident.

Whether right or wrong, it would set a very dangerous precedent if clubs were able to start getting decisions changed after the event.

Aclaret
Posts: 4113
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:16 pm
Been Liked: 1299 times
Has Liked: 1391 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Aclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:09 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:59 pm
Why are Arsenal wearing blue ?
Willian back in the all blue of Chelsea

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Todays football

Post by FactualFrank » Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:43 pm

Yes, they are both black - but both terrible pundits on Sky Sports now. Absolutely dreadful. Sol Campbell doesn't seem to know what day it is.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Todays football

Post by tiger76 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:55 pm

Just seen Rovers fell to an injury time defeat, that's cheered me up no end :lol:

Chelsea and Liverpool throwing leads away again, what on earth has happened to the famed Liverpool defence, it's leakier than a sieve this season, and if they don't tighten up pronto they can forget retaining the title.

Another home defeat for Bolton, and Salford suffered a reverse in Paul Scholes 1st game in charge, welcome to management Paul.

A big win for Stevie G in the Old Firm derby, but we've been here before, the question is can Rangers last the course, only time will tell on that score.

Bags of goals in all the leagues again today, this looks like being a season for the strikers to flourish, if this trend carries on we could see some PL records broken come May.

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:00 pm

Van Dijk out for the season apparently.
Meanwhile David Coote will continue unabated in the boys club that is Professional Referees.

Claretincraven
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:17 pm
Been Liked: 129 times
Has Liked: 54 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Claretincraven » Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:54 pm

Late to all this and too idle to.read all the posts. Noticed Sterling scored for Man Shitty. Why didnt he play for England mid week, was he injured or doing a Ryan Giggs?

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Todays football

Post by FactualFrank » Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:56 pm

Claretincraven wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:54 pm
Late to all this and too idle to.read all the posts. Noticed Sterling scored for Man Shitty. Why didnt he play for England mid week, was he injured or doing a Ryan Giggs?
The Ryan Giggs is now to be known as the Gareth Bale.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Todays football

Post by tiger76 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:04 pm

Claretincraven wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:54 pm
Late to all this and too idle to.read all the posts. Noticed Sterling scored for Man Shitty. Why didnt he play for England mid week, was he injured or doing a Ryan Giggs?
He was apparently injured, yet he performed a Lazarus like recovery to play and score City today, they must have some medical team at the Etihad that's all I can say.

Buxtonclaret
Posts: 16616
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
Been Liked: 3747 times
Has Liked: 7519 times
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Todays football

Post by Buxtonclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:18 pm

A penalty for that.
Pathetic.

Then
JUSTICE!

ElectroClaret
Posts: 17773
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
Been Liked: 4044 times
Has Liked: 1846 times

Re: Todays football

Post by ElectroClaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:21 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:55 pm
Just seen Rovers fell to an injury time defeat, that's cheered me up no end :lol:
Aye, just seen it on the EFL show on Quest, a rather nice deflection.
Most entertaining. :mrgreen:

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Spijed » Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:57 pm

3-1 Man U.

Bin Ont Turf
Posts: 10948
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 5154 times
Has Liked: 795 times
Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo

Re: Todays football

Post by Bin Ont Turf » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:03 pm

I might just watch Match o't Day looking at the scores today.

But not Man Utd, I'll sit in the green recycle bin when they are on.

Rowls
Posts: 13163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5065 times
Has Liked: 5124 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Todays football

Post by Rowls » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:06 pm

Flatters yoonited enormously

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Spijed » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:18 pm

Rowls wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:06 pm
Flatters yoonited enormously
At least it's a defeat for one of our rivals.

Amazed me how Saint-Maximin didn't have a good game against Luke Shaw who isn't exactly the slimmest footballer around, nor the quickest.

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:48 pm

That Pickford tackle, how did the referee miss the tackle and how did the VAR miss the tackle after multiple views?
Absolutely astonishing

Tall Paul
Posts: 7170
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Tall Paul » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Bordeauxclaret wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:48 pm
That Pickford tackle, how did the referee miss the tackle and how did the VAR miss the tackle after multiple views?
Absolutely astonishing
They didn't, the ball was dead after an offside.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Todays football

Post by Rileybobs » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:54 pm

Tall Paul wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:52 pm
They didn't, the ball was dead after an offside.
Peter Walton on BT Sports said it was a definite red. If not for dangerous play, then for violent conduct. As he said, the referee blowing his whistle doesn’t give players carte blanche to do as they please.

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:57 pm

Tall Paul wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:52 pm
They didn't, the ball was dead after an offside.
The offside doesn’t matter. You can’t just t**t someone once the whistle has gone.
Might be more interesting if you could.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81

Tall Paul
Posts: 7170
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Tall Paul » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:58 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:54 pm
Peter Walton on BT Sports said it was a definite red. If not for dangerous play, then for violent conduct. As he said, the referee blowing his whistle doesn’t give players carte blanche to do as they please.
Quite possibly it should have been a red card, but I doubt it was missed by both the referee and VAR, I'm sure they saw it, reviewed it and decided it wasn't violent conduct so not a red card.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Todays football

Post by Rileybobs » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:00 pm

Tall Paul wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:58 pm
Quite possibly it should have been a red card, but I doubt it was missed by both the referee and VAR, I'm sure they saw it, reviewed it and decided it wasn't violent conduct so not a red card.
Yeah, they definitely didn’t miss it. But what an awful decision to let that go unpunished. I can’t think of many more reckless challenges than that, and if rumours are true then it’s going to cost VVD his season, and quite likely Liverpool’s.

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:02 pm

Tall Paul wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:58 pm
Quite possibly it should have been a red card, but I doubt it was missed by both the referee and VAR, I'm sure they saw it, reviewed it and decided it wasn't violent conduct so not a red card.
Isn’t that the point? They viewed it as not violent conduct?

Claretincraven
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:17 pm
Been Liked: 129 times
Has Liked: 54 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Claretincraven » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:04 pm

And I see Chilwell is playing today after crying off Wednesday. I thought they had brought in a rule to stop this shirking off internationals for no other reason other they cant be arsed.

Tall Paul
Posts: 7170
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Tall Paul » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:04 pm

Bordeauxclaret wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:57 pm
The offside doesn’t matter. You can’t just t**t someone once the whistle has gone.
Might be more interesting if you could.
I know you can't, I'm just explaining what I think was the reasoning behind the decision. I don't think it's possible to be sent off for serious foul play if the ball is dead, it has to be for violent conduct and they obviously decided that this incident wasn't sufficient to be such an offence.

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:05 pm

I could have possibly worded it better saying how could they have missed the red card offence rather than how could they have missed the tackle.

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:07 pm

Tall Paul wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:04 pm
I know you can't, I'm just explaining what I think was the reasoning behind the decision. I don't think it's possible to be sent off for serious foul play if the ball is dead, it has to be for violent conduct and they obviously decided that this incident wasn't sufficient to be such an offence.
But it’s been confirmed the card can be issued.

Bosscat
Posts: 25359
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:51 am
Been Liked: 8426 times
Has Liked: 18093 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bosscat » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:08 pm

ClaretTony wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:06 pm
They will get nowhere with this but I have to say I’m baffled as to how that winning goal was ruled out for offside. I’ve not seen the Pickford/VVD incident.

Whether right or wrong, it would set a very dangerous precedent if clubs were able to start getting decisions changed after the event.
Heres the Pitchfork Assault Tony

https://youtu.be/7aLUCCGB7eI

Tall Paul
Posts: 7170
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Tall Paul » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:10 pm

I'm honestly not sure if it was violent conduct or not.

The definition is:
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
So if Pickford was challenging for the ball it can't be violent conduct, but on the other hand the ball is dead so he can't have been challenging for the ball so it must be violent conduct.
Image
Last edited by Tall Paul on Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Todays football

Post by FactualFrank » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:11 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:54 pm
Peter Walton on BT Sports said it was a definite red. If not for dangerous play, then for violent conduct. As he said, the referee blowing his whistle doesn’t give players carte blanche to do as they please.
Nobody on BT Sport understands football. So can we please remove them from this?

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:14 pm

I think we’ve all just had about enough of experts.
This user liked this post: FactualFrank

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Todays football

Post by Rileybobs » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:17 pm

If you watch Bosscat's clip then you can see from the angle behind the goal that the referee doesn't blow his whistle until after the challenge, so there isn't even an argument about the ball being dead. Just another awful decision.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Todays football

Post by Rileybobs » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:21 pm

In fact, wasn’t Richarliason sent off for a similar challenge on Thiago after the referee had already blown for a previous foul?

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Todays football

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:24 pm

If that was in the Championship or any other level of English football it would have been offside, no VAR involvement, Van Dijk injured and goes off and get on with the game.
THe people running the game have created the monster by telling ARs not to flag for offside because it will be reviewed by VAR and the keeper will always try to prevent a goal, even if the offside had been a lot further away than this one was. Today it was Van Dijk who got injured, on another day it could be the keeper who gets injured, even though the offside could have been 20/30 seconds earllier.

Van Dijk can't complain because he had taken out two Everton players only a few moments before and knew exactly what he was doing and got away with it.

Too much emphasis is being put on the powers of VAR and this is undermining officials at the top level all over the world and it won't get any better!

It is a good job that VAR is at Stockley Park which is in the Borough of Hillingdon and is Boris's constituency so it won't be closed down because he doesn't wish to upset his voters.

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:28 pm

Van Dijk can’t complain. Wow. Just wow.
These 2 users liked this post: Rileybobs Stayingup

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Todays football

Post by Rileybobs » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:31 pm

Can you actually think of a worse challenge made in the Premier League over the past few seasons?

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:31 pm

Image

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:31 pm

He can’t complain. My word

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Todays football

Post by Rileybobs » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:31 pm

Bordeauxclaret wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:31 pm
Image
It always looks worse when you slow it down.
This user liked this post: Bordeauxclaret

SalisburyClaret
Posts: 4077
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:32 pm
Been Liked: 1104 times
Has Liked: 709 times

Re: Todays football

Post by SalisburyClaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:37 pm

Is this still being discussed?
Clearly Pickford should have been sent off for violent conduct-/ common assault/ Whatever you call it it, it’s clearly a sending off
As obvious as the later offside error
The mis - use of technology clearly ruined that game and changed the result of the game

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Todays football

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:48 pm

What can you complain at?

kenyon6923
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:20 pm
Been Liked: 31 times

What Manes disallowed goal clearly tells us.....

Post by kenyon6923 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:57 pm

Over the seasons before VAR there were thousands of goals scored "that weren't goals" if VAR had been around.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: What Manes disallowed goal clearly tells us.....

Post by Spiral » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:08 am

They've rushed to make the top of the arm not-handball to stop some ridiculous penalties being given and in the process have made it a playable part of the body, thus the offside for Mane's goal. A better solution would be to accept that some rules in football are a bit weird and contradictory, making the top of the arm legal when contending a penalty or free kick (handball) decision, and not-playable when adjudicating offside. That kind of contradiction is practical. Being absolutist about what part of the arm is playable has caused the problem here, and it could be addressed with a bit of a more nuance in the handball laws. This would work because offside decisions don't concern themselves with which part of the body a player eventually controls the ball with, only which parts of the body fall behind or in front of the offside line.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: What Manes disallowed goal clearly tells us.....

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:12 am

To be fair, everything was kind of ok before. You were either offside, onside ,or if it was a bit too close to tell you were level and therefore onside. I think most of us saw the can of worms that VAR would open, and it seems that every little bit of tinkering to the laws just makes the game worse.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: What Manes disallowed goal clearly tells us.....

Post by Spiral » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:18 am

Before implementation/in the early days I was never behind the argument against VAR that it would give fans in the pub etc nothing to talk about after games, because an innovation's capacity to stir gossip or chatter is no measure of its value, but I'm genuinely amazed how much more it's given everyone to talk about. Surpasses my wildest imagination. Officiating might be more accurate in a compass and protractor sense, but it has been awful and frustrating to watch.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: What Manes disallowed goal clearly tells us.....

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:22 am

Spiral wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:18 am
Before implementation/in the early days I was never behind the argument against VAR that it would give fans in the pub etc nothing to talk about after games, because an innovation's capacity to stir gossip or chatter is no measure of its value, but I'm genuinely amazed how much more it's given everyone to talk about. Surpasses my wildest imagination. Officiating might be more accurate in a compass and protractor sense, but it has been awful and frustrating to watch.
Yeah that’s true. The reason is you can forgive officials for getting marginal decisions wrong, well I can. But when they make such a dog’s dinner out of it with the evidence to hand, and what seems like a long time to make the call, it’s far less forgivable. Why wasn’t Walker’s high foot punished in the City v Arsenal game, for example?

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: What Manes disallowed goal clearly tells us.....

Post by dsr » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:37 am

kenyon6923 wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:57 pm
Over the seasons before VAR there were thousands of goals scored "that weren't goals" if VAR had been around.
Not quite. The point of VAR is that the law has changed. The old rule introduced 30 years ago said level was onside, and the guidance to referees specifically said that level was to be judged by the human eye - if the man looked to be level, then he was level. In other words, fractions of an inch didn't count. (That law still applies at most matches.)

I don't know whether the current law makers have changed this on purpose or if they are too stupid to realise they have changed it at all, but changed it they have. All they need do to put it right is to stop drawing lines on the screen and look at the picture with a linesman's eye. Was Mane level? Yes he was. The goal stands. It's quick, it keeps the law the same as it has been for 30 years, and it fulfills the original aim of the rule change in that it gives the forward an extra half yard to play in.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: What Manes disallowed goal clearly tells us.....

Post by Spiral » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:42 am

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:22 am
Yeah that’s true. The reason is you can forgive officials for getting marginal decisions wrong, well I can. But when they make such a dog’s dinner out of it with the evidence to hand, and what seems like a long time to make the call, it’s far less forgivable. Why wasn’t Walker’s high foot punished in the City v Arsenal game, for example?
Or Pickford's legs-akimbo finisher move on Van Dijk's knee? We're told that the phase in play was offside, and so subsequent offences don't count (or that everything that happens after the offside movement doesn't count, or something...I don't know anymore, because the flags don't go up right away), but if in a lull in play in between the whistle a player jumped into another's knee like that he's be gone. He wasn't spared a red because it wasn't a red card challenge - it was - he was spared because the refs somehow had it in their heads that offences outside the whistle don't/can't happen, or something. It wasn't a tactical foul, it was reckless play.
Last edited by Spiral on Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: What Manes disallowed goal clearly tells us.....

Post by dsr » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:44 am

Rileybobs wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:22 am
Yeah that’s true. The reason is you can forgive officials for getting marginal decisions wrong, well I can. But when they make such a dog’s dinner out of it with the evidence to hand, and what seems like a long time to make the call, it’s far less forgivable. Why wasn’t Walker’s high foot punished in the City v Arsenal game, for example?
Unless I'm wrong and the commentators are right, dangerous play is still only an indirect free kick. The commentators were so determined that it ought to be a penalty that I thought the law must have changed, but I've checked and it appears not; it was just the commentators being appallingly unprofessional.

But that means VAR wouldn't be relevant because VAR doesn't assess indirect free kicks unless the possible offence immediately leads to a goal.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: What Manes disallowed goal clearly tells us.....

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:46 am

Spiral wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:42 am
Or Pickford's legs-akimbo finisher move on Van Dijk's knee? We're told that the phase in play was offside, and so subsequent offences don't count, but if in a lull in play in between the whistle a player jumped into another's knee like that he's be gone. He wasn't spared a red because it wasn't a red card challenge - it was - he was spared because the refs somehow had it in their heads that offences outside the whistle don't/can't happen, or something. It wasn't a tactical foul, it was reckless play.
However the referee didn’t actually blow his whistle until after Pickford’s challenge. So how can they deem the challenge to be unpunishable. Wasn’t Richarliason sent off in the same match, by the same referee, for a challenge that took place after the referee had blown for a foul?
Last edited by Rileybobs on Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cheshireclaret
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 338 times
Has Liked: 20 times

Re: What Manes disallowed goal clearly tells us.....

Post by Cheshireclaret » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:48 am

dsr wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:44 am
Unless I'm wrong and the commentators are right, dangerous play is still only an indirect free kick. The commentators were so determined that it ought to be a penalty that I thought the law must have changed, but I've checked and it appears not; it was just the commentators being appallingly unprofessional.

But that means VAR wouldn't be relevant because VAR doesn't assess indirect free kicks unless the possible offence immediately leads to a goal.
Exactly. Things have become so complicated and coloured by regulation that they lose sight of common sense. If that challenge happens in the midfield area by an outfield player, it’s a straight red. If, after an offside whistle Pickford were to jump up and punch van Dijk it’s a straight red. The ball being dead is irrelevant around a player being out of control. He was out of control and could have snapped van Dijk in half.

Maybe it’s because it was Pickford and Southgate had a word and reminded them, he is in fact the second coming of Christ?

Post Reply