Today's Football

[Taffy on the wing]

Clueless without him.

[tarkys_ears]

Hehehe

**** Liverpool and **** klopp

What a goal!

[quoonbeatz]

But all them points are redundant, from my point of view it clearly falls under the “serious foul play” category in the rules.

He used unnecessary force that could have resulted in harm to another player.

I think they got it right on this rare occasion

Can tell you've never kicked a ball in your life, perfect fora career as a ref.

[Rileybobs]

Can tell you've never kicked a ball in your life, perfect fora career as a ref.

The thing is though, the laws say that that was a red card offence. This is how the referees are told to interpret the laws. Anyone who has played football, and probably most who haven’t, would agree that there was no malice or intent, and that those things happen on a football pitch all the time. But I’m not sure the referee got it wrong.

[quoonbeatz]

There is no way that is 'serious foul play' by any definition.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Can tell you've never kicked a ball in your life, perfect fora career as a ref.

What are you on about?

I’m not the one that made the laws.

[quoonbeatz]

What are you on about?

I’m not the one that made the laws.

Thank goodness if that's how you interpret them.

Well for a start there's no 'unnecessary force' there.

[Rileybobs]

There is no way that is 'serious foul play' by any definition.

I don’t know. Jones went over the ball and hit his opponent flush in the shin with his studs square on. I think there’s a fair call that he endangered the safety of his opponent which is a criteria for serious foul play. It’s a 50/50 for me and I’d be happy if refs could use their judgment to take intent or malice into the equation, but I don’t think they have that privilege. And of course the VAR pretty much instructed Hooper to show a red by sending him to the monitor and presenting the most damning still image they could find.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Thank goodness if that's how you interpret them.

Well for a start there's no 'unnecessary force' there.

Of course there is. If there wasn’t excessive force he wouldn’t have followed through.

I honestly have no idea how anyone is saying that isn’t a red. If that’s against us we would be screaming bloody murder

[quoonbeatz]

I don’t know. Jones went over the ball and hit his opponent flush in the shin with his studs square on. I think there’s a fair call that he endangered the safety of his opponent which is a criteria for serious foul play. It’s a 50/50 for me and I’d be happy if refs could use their judgment to take intent or malice into the equation, but I don’t think they have that privilege. And of course the VAR pretty much instructed Hooper to show a red by sending him to the monitor and presenting the most damning still image they could find.

Every tackle potentially endangers the safety of an opponent. It's a contact sport. You're right though, it's the still image and the slow mo that has changed his mind.

[quoonbeatz]

Of course there is. If there wasn’t excessive force he wouldn’t have followed through.

Yeah, like I said, never kicked a ball in your life.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Yeah, like I said, never kicked a ball in your life.

That is a red every day of the week.

[quoonbeatz]

That is a red every day of the week.

Only if you don't understand football.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Only if you don't understand football.

[Rileybobs]

Every tackle potentially endangers the safety of an opponent. It's a contact sport. You're right though, it's the still image and the slow mo that has changed his mind.

Yes I was going to add that the wording of the law doesn’t really leave much wiggle room as multiple challenges every game endanger the safety of an opponent.

I think the Jones red was a bit of a soft one which could have gone either way and possibly shouldn’t have been interfered with by the VAR - but I don’t think it was a howler. Also it went against Klopp and Liverpool so it’s funny.

[quoonbeatz]

Don't worry, nobody ever thought otherwise about you anyway.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Don't worry, nobody ever thought otherwise about you anyway.

I love how you think your a football expert haha

[DCWat]

“Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences to the opponent and must be cautioned”

“ Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off”

Red Card:

“ SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

VIOLENT CONDUCT

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.”

It’s definitely not the second paragraph. Is it the first? He didn’t use excessive force, it was a secondary motion, his foot having slipped off the ball. Did the initial tackle endanger the player, no.

That his foot slipped over the ball (contact with the ball first) was purely accidental. You’re interpreting the rules as someone who appears not to have played the game (at any level). There was no intent, excessive force or brutality - he got the ball first and could not help that his foot rolled off the ball. It was simply unfortunate.

[Jakubclaret]

That is a red every day of the week.

It certainly looked dangerous regardless of intent.

[DCWat]

Yes I was going to add that the wording of the law doesn’t really leave much wiggle room as multiple challenges every game endanger the safety of an opponent.

I think the Jones red was a bit of a soft one which could have gone either way and possibly shouldn’t have been interfered with by the VAR - but I don’t think it was a howler. Also it went against Klopp and Liverpool so it’s funny.

If VAR was to ask the ref to review, it should have started before the challenge occurred and at normal speed. The referee was presented with an image of Jones’ foot hitting the Spurs player.

VAR are automatically influencing referees - it’s just plain wrong.

[Vegas Claret]

PGMOL admit they were wrong with the offside goal

time to disconnect the ******* thing

[Swizzlestick]

I didn’t think a red was necessary but the hyper analysis of VAR with its freeze frames and super slo mo is making these challenges look worse than they are.

[DCWat]

PGMOL admit they were wrong with the offside goal

time to disconnect the ******* thing

There appears to be some blatant lying going on with PGMOL.

They’ve said they’d not reviewed but there was a notification in the stadium stating that it was being reviewed.

WTF is going on - it really shouldn’t be as hard as they make it.

You’re bang on, switch the ******* thing off!

[Newcastleclaret93]

“Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences to the opponent and must be cautioned”

“ Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off”

Red Card:

“ SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

VIOLENT CONDUCT

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.”

It’s definitely not the second paragraph. Is it the first? He didn’t use excessive force, it was a secondary motion, his foot having slipped off the ball. Did the initial tackle endanger the player, no.

That his foot slipped over the ball (contact with the ball first) was purely accidental. You’re interpreting the rules as someone who appears not to have played the game (at any level). There was no intent, excessive force or brutality - he got the ball first and could not help that his foot rolled off the ball. It was simply unfortunate.

Excessive force. Out of control and clearly connects with the player.

You nailed it with your own sentence (“could not help that his foot rolled off the ball”). Hence not in control

[Superjohnnyfrancis]

PGMOL admit they were wrong with the offside goal

time to disconnect the ******* thing

Makes you wonder what they are actually looking at in the var room. The whole organisation is not fit for purpose and it’s been a long time now. No professionalism.

[Leyland Claret]

That’ll be Darren England in the VAR room again….heads have got to roll

[DCWat]

Excessive force. Out of control and clearly connects with the player.

You nailed it with your own sentence (“could not help that his foot rolled off the ball”). Hence not in control

There was no excessive force - if normal momentum in the process of making a challenge is deemed to be excessive force, we might as well pack up now.

Have you played the game and put in a tackle?

[Swizzlestick]

And as for the ‘offside’….truly shocking. VAR is ruining games of football at the moment.

[Rileybobs]

If VAR was to ask the ref to review, it should have started before the challenge occurred and at normal speed. The referee was presented with an image of Jones’ foot hitting the Spurs player.

VAR are automatically influencing referees - it’s just plain wrong.

Agreed.

[Vegas Claret]

Makes you wonder what they are actually looking at in the var room. The whole organisation is not fit for purpose and it’s been a long time now. No professionalism.

makes me wonder how many they actually get wrong, I'll guess at loads

[Newcastleclaret93]

There was no excessive force - if normal momentum in the process of making a challenge is deemed to be excessive force, we might as well pack up now.

Have you played the game and put in a tackle?

I played football for over ten years. Not sure what that has to do with anything?

going over the top of the ball, studs up and clearly connecting at force with the opposition leg is a red every day of the week. What aspect of that tackle do you not think is a red? I am genuinely mind blown that anyone is arguing that

[Superjohnnyfrancis]

makes me wonder how many they actually get wrong, I'll guess at loads

I was watching it live and shouted at the TV that it was onside. Obviously the cabbages didn’t hear me

They need to bring in the automatic offside computer system so these incompetent humans are not involved in the process.

This one was so clear whoever was on var should be losing their job.

[NottsClaret]

VAR has taken so much away from the game and they’re getting really basic, obvious stuff like offsides wrong.. how many others have they got wrong?

We’ve gaslighted ourselves into thinking ‘well, they must have got an angle we haven’t got’ even when we can see it’s blatantly wrong with our own eyes.

Just bin it off.

[DCWat]

I played football for over ten years. Not sure what that has to do with anything?

going over the top of the ball, studs up and clearly connecting at force with the opposition leg is a red every day of the week. What aspect of that tackle do you not think is a red? I am genuinely mind blown that anyone is arguing that

But he didn’t go over the top of the ball. He connected with the ball, his foot rolled over the ball and the rest is history.

Going over the top of something implies not touching it.

The relevance of playing the game is that you’d know that this sort of thing happens. It’s not intentional, brutal or excessive. At worst it’s an accident that shouldn’t be a red - a yellow at worst.

The ref got it right at the outset. That concerns me more because he wasn’t willing to trust his own judgement, instead being influenced by a freeze frame that looked really bad.

[Newcastleclaret93]

But he didn’t go over the top of the ball. He connected with the ball, his foot rolled over the ball and the rest is history.

Going over the top of something implies not touching it.

The relevance of playing the game is that you’d know that this sort of thing happens. It’s not intentional, brutal or excessive. At worst it’s an accident that shouldn’t be a red - a yellow at worst.

The ref got it right at the outset. That concerns me more because he wasn’t willing to trust his own judgement, instead being influenced by a freeze frame that looked really bad.

All I know is if that tackled happened to me or any Burnley player I would expect a red.

[quoonbeatz]

I love how you think your a football expert haha

Know, not 'think'.

[THEWELLERNUT70]

But wait we've been lead to believe by PGMOL that a VAR offside is factual and exact and not open to interpretation. This shows that statement to be utter ******** and makes you question how many more "mistakes" happen in a round of fixtures.

Which manager the other week claimed they had got the offside wrong only to be rebuffed by PGMOL

[Vegas Claret]

But he didn’t go over the top of the ball. He connected with the ball, his foot rolled over the ball and the rest is history.

Going over the top of something implies not touching it.

The relevance of playing the game is that you’d know that this sort of thing happens. It’s not intentional, brutal or excessive. At worst it’s an accident that shouldn’t be a red - a yellow at worst.

The ref got it right at the outset. That concerns me more because he wasn’t willing to trust his own judgement, instead being influenced by a freeze frame that looked really bad.

not sure some people have a grasp of physics, it's an attempt to trap the ball, the ball rolls and results in contact. It's not a red card. I've gone from having the most enjoyable experience watching Burnley play all last season and falling back in love with football to absolutely hating it within 6 weeks because of the officiating and numb rules.

[Claretnick]

That’ll be Darren England in the VAR room again….heads have got to roll

Just seen this on Twitter/X apparently DARREN ENGLAND was the VAR for Spurs v Liverpool. Seems like he is a one man campaign trying to destroy the game with the way he uses VAR to influence the on field ref.
Should have been dismissed after his VAR decision to rule Berge had deliberately handled in the build up to our second goal at Forest...

https://x.com/SamMcGuire90/status/17082 ... 47205?s=20

[KRBFC]

Truly appalling decisions, the offsides have never been correct imo, you can draw wonky lines all you want, I’m not having offside when the camera angle isn’t directly in line with the defensive line.

[Vegas Claret]

This is mental, from an ESPN journo

So the VAR, Darren England, checked offside thinking the onfield decision was "goal."

It was a quick offside check because it was clear Diaz was onside, so he told the referee "check complete".

In telling the ref "check complete" he is saying the onfield decision was correct.

So the "human error" by the VAR team is getting the onfield decision wrong. Not by failing to draw lines etc.

The lines were drawn and Diaz was clearly onside.

The huge, quite unbelievable error was misunderstanding the onfield decision.

As soon as Spurs take the free-kick for the offside, which they were set up for, the decision cannot be rolled back.

Can only imagine the VAR room when that free-kick was taken....

[Middle-agedClaret]

I can only hope that the Liverpool decisions today may stop some of our fans permanently whinging on about “corrupt” officials making judgements deliberately to our detriment, while bleating about every advantage being given to a “big” club.
People make mistakes.
Stuff happens.
To everyone.

[Nonayforever]

This is mental, from an ESPN journo

So the VAR, Darren England, checked offside thinking the onfield decision was "goal."

It was a quick offside check because it was clear Diaz was onside, so he told the referee "check complete".

In telling the ref "check complete" he is saying the onfield decision was correct.

So the "human error" by the VAR team is getting the onfield decision wrong. Not by failing to draw lines etc.

The lines were drawn and Diaz was clearly onside.

The huge, quite unbelievable error was misunderstanding the onfield decision.

As soon as Spurs take the free-kick for the offside, which they were set up for, the decision cannot be rolled back.

Can only imagine the VAR room when that free-kick was taken....

I've read that 4 times. I haven't got a clue what it means.

[yTib]

another nail in the coffin for var?

yeah right. they absolutely love it.

footy has now officially overtaken the circus for silliness.

[Superjohnnyfrancis]

This is mental, from an ESPN journo

So the VAR, Darren England, checked offside thinking the onfield decision was "goal."

It was a quick offside check because it was clear Diaz was onside, so he told the referee "check complete".

In telling the ref "check complete" he is saying the onfield decision was correct.

So the "human error" by the VAR team is getting the onfield decision wrong. Not by failing to draw lines etc.

The lines were drawn and Diaz was clearly onside.

The huge, quite unbelievable error was misunderstanding the onfield decision.

As soon as Spurs take the free-kick for the offside, which they were set up for, the decision cannot be rolled back.

Can only imagine the VAR room when that free-kick was taken....

Can’t have been watching the game then as the Lino flagged for offside. Probably watching porn on his phone or something.

Sounds like the var room needs monitoring as well as the match

[Taffy on the wing]

That’ll be Darren England in the VAR room again….heads have got to roll

Just the 10 yellow & 2 reds from Darren today.......madness!

[kentonclaret]

Commentator on MOTD when Tom Lockyer scores the opening goal “Luton are the first newly promoted club to take the lead in a PL match this season”.
Surely, Burnley scored in the 4th minute to open the scoring at home to Tottenham?
The BBC also make the occasional bloomer not just VAR.

[Swizzlestick]

Commentator on MOTD when Tom Lockyer scores the opening goal “Luton are the first newly promoted club to take the lead in a PL match this season”.
Surely, Burnley scored in the 4th minute to open the scoring at home to Tottenham?
The BBC also make the occasional bloomer not just VAR.

He said ‘the first time the newly promoted side have taken the lead’ as in, Luton’s first time.

[fidelcastro]

Commentator on MOTD when Tom Lockyer scores the opening goal “Luton are the first newly promoted club to take the lead in a PL match this season”.
Surely, Burnley scored in the 4th minute to open the scoring at home to Tottenham?
The BBC also make the occasional bloomer not just VAR.

As do posters on here

[RammyClaret61]

another nail in the coffin for var?

yeah right. they absolutely love it.

footy has now officially overtaken the circus for silliness.

The tail is now officially wagging the dog!!

VAR is completely changing the game, and not for the better. I firmly believe that less mistakes, or unavoidable mistakes were made prior to VAR.

VAR killing the beautiful game one decision at a time.