How many points has that Wolves game cost us?

I had a chat with my brother who’s not a United fan and he said to me « the difference is that when there’s a soft penalty against United, it’s barely controversial in the sense that the refs will barely check it with VAR » and I think that’s the infuriating part for me.

Also for all the people saying « clear pen, stupid from AWB » those are the same claiming « weak player » whenever one of our own goes down in the box, « holier than thou » type of supporting I guess
 
One of the clearest, most stonewall penalties you're ever likely to see all season. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either delusional or trying too hard to be a "top red"
 
Zed is not dead said:
I had a chat with my brother who’s not a United fan and he said to me « the difference is that when there’s a soft penalty against United, it’s barely controversial in the sense that the refs will barely check it with VAR » and I think that’s the infuriating part for me.

Also for all the people saying « clear pen, stupid from AWB » those are the same claiming « weak player » whenever one of our own goes down in the box, « holier than thou » type of supporting I guess
Click to expand...

If an opposition player does something as stupid as AWB did yesterday, sliding in needlessly with no hope of winning the ball, and one of our players doesn't take advantage of it and go over, I'm screaming my head off at him and so are 99% of United fans.

Everyone knows this.
 
Chumpsbechumps said:
It doesn’t matter what people think, if it’s a clear foul it should be easy to say why. The best answers have been ambiguous.

“it was a wreckless tackle by AWB, contact does not need to be made, ” is probably the “clearest” explanation I’ve read. Wreckless is subjective and seems to have varying degrees of interpretation. Not making contact means you are making a subjective call on how the wreckless incident impacted play.

It looks like the incident looked really stupid by AWB and the default stance is moreso on a “well AWB shouldn’t have lunged like that so he deserved to be punished” kind of sentiment.

None of that clears up the objective challenge of what the foul was. Being stupid is not a foul nor should it play any bearing on the objective clarification of why a foul is a foul.


This is the thing though, I can see why it was given I just don’t know what the actual foul is. Sounds contradictory, I feel its more a foul because simulation is accepted as part of the game (particularly attackers moving their feet in a way that finds contact) moreso then it actually being a tackle that had any meaningful impact on the shooter in any physical way.
Click to expand...
Well, having looked up the laws of the game again (used to be a ref, long since), I see your point. Because the letter of the law specifies that contact is necessary for a direct free kick from tackling or tripping up. Without contact is specified as an indirect free kick (hardly see those anymore…).

So if Elliot runs into AWB’s leg, it’s a regular direct ergo penalty kick, whereas if he jumps or stumbles trying to avoid it, it should be an indirect free kick. As it is, he starts to fall before contact, which makes sense that by the letter it should have been overturned by VAR to an indirect fk. I would still have been almost shocked to see yhis happen, so it points to in-between praxis losing contact with the actual rules.
 
Grande said:
Well, having looked up the laws of the game again (used to be a ref, long since), I see your point. Because the letter of the law specifies that contact is necessary for a direct free kick from tackling or tripping up. Without contact is specified as an indirect free kick (hardly see those anymore…).

So if Elliot runs into AWB’s leg, it’s a regular direct ergo penalty kick, whereas if he jumps or stumbles trying to avoid it, it should be an indirect free kick. As it is, he starts to fall before contact, which makes sense that by the letter it should have been overturned by VAR to an indirect fk. I would still have been almost shocked to see yhis happen, so it points to in-between praxis losing contact with the actual rules.
Click to expand...

I would have been shocked too, particularly if it was given as an indirect free kick. Thanks for clarifying , I was beginning to think I was going a bit nuts as so many people have accepted it as “a stonewall” peno without explaining the foul clearly.
 
Oscar Bonavena said:
If an opposition player does something as stupid as AWB did yesterday, sliding in needlessly with no hope of winning the ball, and one of our players doesn't take advantage of it and go over, I'm screaming my head off at him and so are 99% of United fans.

Everyone knows this.
Click to expand...
We’ve had harder fouls not given to us and the majority reaction here was « our players are weak, never a pen » so your argument doesn’t really work
 
I dont understand this thought that well he shouldn't have done it so I'm not surprised its a pen. Its either a pen or not. Its like saying if you never got drunk and walked home you wouldn't have been arrested. Well yeah but if you never did anything its still not a crime. Both Chelsea pens should have been yellow cards to the Chelsea players for diving. We need to stop this cheating and saying its acceptable to have any little touch and throw yourself on the floor. I get from the refs view it looks like a pen but VAR should have overturned them. With the Wan B pen. He didnt make contact with the ball or with Elliot. He did put his leg in front of him and he intentionally or otherwise tripped on it. Is this a pen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.