REPORT: Cruel end to the game costs Clarets

[ClaretTony]

Manchester United v Burnley report

See link
https://www.uptheclarets.com/cruel-end- ... ts-clarets

[CleggHall]

A good report on a disappointing day but why a game of two halves?

[HurstGrangeClaret]

Thanks for the report CT. It must have been incredibly difficult to witness that ending. I was so p1ssed off watching Merson on Sky. Must have been so much worse watching it in the flesh so to speak.

[ClaretTony]

Thanks for the report CT. It must have been incredibly difficult to witness that ending. I was so p1ssed off watching Merson on Sky. Must have been so much worse watching it in the flesh so to speak.

It happened right in front of us too and I saw nothing. But just watch Amad, if you are having your shirt pulled you don’t go down like that.

Sickening though because we’d worked so hard and played so well in that second half.

[Wokingclaret]

VAR should not have looked at that as that is reffing the game again which is against the principle

I have always believed in a review system, 2 reviews per team per game. abuse it as in Cricket you lose it. Captain to decide

[beddie]

Good report. We can all criticise var, the ref as much as we want and I’m probably one of the worst culprits but in the cold light of day Anthony should not have pulled his shirt, you’re asking for trouble in that position and it’s that which cost us. Hopefully we learn from it and move on.

[FCBurnley]

New offside rule. To be offside the attacker must have clear space between himself and the last defender. If any part of his body is level with any part of the defender then he is onside. Much easier to verify. Gives attacker a slight advantage. Makes teams think twice about playing the offside trap. If it leads to more goals then great

[Rileybobs]

New offside rule. To be offside the attacker must have clear space between himself and the last defender. If any part of his body is level with any part of the defender then he is onside. Much easier to verify. Gives attacker a slight advantage. Makes teams think twice about playing the offside trap. If it leads to more goals then great

Other than benefiting Burnley by allowing a goal against Man Utd, how would this improve anything? And how would assistant referees stand a chance of calling offside decisions correctly? Offside is offside, why would you want to change the law so drastically?

[Lord_Bob]

Wokingclaret wrote:

I have always believed in a review system, 2 reviews per team per game. abuse it as in Cricket you lose it. Captain to decide

I was with you until yesterday - would have made no difference. 1st pen, which the ref gave, Burnley would review and, as we saw, it would be overturned. Foster goal, Burnley would review as lino gave offside, and again, on review, goal would not have been allowed. Last penalty, which I think the ref did not give, United would review and VAR would have given it. So exactly the same outcome as yesterday.

I am now firmly in the "scrap it" camp, it is no better and probably worse than just letting the refs and linesman run the game.

[Rileybobs]

Wokingclaret wrote:



I was with you until yesterday - would have made no difference. 1st pen, which the ref gave, Burnley would review and, as we saw, it would be overturned. Foster goal, Burnley would review as lino gave offside, and again, on review, goal would not have been allowed. Last penalty, which I think the ref did not give, United would review and VAR would have given it. So exactly the same outcome as yesterday.

I am now firmly in the "scrap it" camp, it is no better and probably worse than just letting the refs and linesman run the game.

Teams would review whenever they conceded a goal or a penalty until they run out of reviews. Time would be wasted with spurious reviews and the spontaneity of celebrating a goal would be ruined even further. It would also result in less errors being corrected. As you say, it wouldn’t work and it’s another poorly thought out idea.

[JimmyRobbo]

Another wonderful report Tony.

I'm glad someone else spotted the actions of BF after that penalty. I thought Foster did well not to retaliate.

[Wokingclaret]

Wokingclaret wrote:



I was with you until yesterday - would have made no difference. 1st pen, which the ref gave, Burnley would review and, as we saw, it would be overturned. Foster goal, Burnley would review as lino gave offside, and again, on review, goal would not have been allowed. Last penalty, which I think the ref did not give, United would review and VAR would have given it. So exactly the same outcome as yesterday.

I am now firmly in the "scrap it" camp, it is no better and probably worse than just letting the refs and linesman run the game.

I think your right and the last sentence is perfect.

[ashtonlongsider]

Thanks for another excellent report. I've come to the conclusion that its almost impossible to referee a match at some of these global super powers. I'm convinced Barrott was reluctant to give that late penalty when he went to the screen, but the shear pressure he was under from the United fans swayed it. Not only didn't the ref give on the field but he was well backed up by the line judge who was almost on top of the incident and under tremendous pressure from Imad. Surely this should carry more weight than this football killing VAR.

[Jimmymaccer]

And the time added, principally due to VAR intervention during the match just shows how much they’re effectively refereeing games remotely. That’s ignoring the effect on celebrating goals etc………much better without VAR tho even then I’m convinced refs would still “lean” towards the big clubs……..

Never mind, as you say CT just Liverpool to worry about now, who will no doubt be able to parade their new £125m striker!

[THEWELLERNUT70]

I've said for a number of seasons now that there should be a 30 second rule on VAR. If you can't find a way to rule a goal out of change a decision within that timeframe the onfield decision stands

[dibraidio]

I agree with Tony, Anthony pulled Amad's shirt outside the box and Amad dived into the box looking for the penalty. To me that's the dark arts and I don't like to see it but Anthony was naive because there were two covering defenders and he didn't need to pull the shirt and should have let go before Amad set foot in the box.
Amazing that they bring in the 8 second rule to stop dead time in matches but still spend ages reviewing VAR decisions. They should limit it to 30 seconds because if it's clear and obvious you don't need more time than that.

[boatshed bill]

The bottom line is don't tug the shirt, it's cheating.
I think if you hold someone back who is running at speed and then let go they are almost bound to fall forward.

[dsr]

Have they shown a photo that clearly shows Anthony was pulling the shirt inside the box?

[RVclaret]

Have they shown a photo that clearly shows Anthony was pulling the shirt inside the box?

It’s in here:

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/ ... nalty-foul

[dsr]

It’s in here:

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/ ... nalty-foul

Thanks for the link.

That picture, though, looks like the shirt pull was outside the area. But the article says that as Amad's upper body was inside the area, it's apenalty. Is that right under the laws?

[ClaretTony]

Have they shown a photo that clearly shows Anthony was pulling the shirt inside the box?

He's clearly holding his shirt inside the box and it's always going to be a penalty. I'm not going to castigate Anthony for it but my word Amad made the most of it and I will seriously question why he wasn't carded for his remonstrations, fouled of not.

[ClaretOfMancunia]

Good article.

Only watched the game on telly and the manner in which we lost really put a dampener on my Saturday evening. Can imagine it was far more disappointing having been there in person.

On the penalty, ultimately it is a foul which continued into the box. Daft of Jaidon to concede it. I'm more upset about Foster's goal being ruled offside. I still haven't worked out which part of the Man U player's body Foster's sleeve is being compared against for offside.