I just hate the fact that he kicked his right shin, and somehow the guys left shin goes flying back and he falls forward..... stop over selling fouls. It's extremely annoying.
Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
Still no. This is the internet, so it's not too difficult to fact check your own words:
https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Where's the bit about any "contact" in a challenge being a foul like you said?!
Instead you've quoted what I said to you about excessive force.
Is there a single non United fan that thinks that wasn’t a pen?
I know it’s difficult when looking at your own team, and not being biased. But everything I’ve seen shows that’s a pen. We’ve got lucky tonight.
I know it’s difficult when looking at your own team, and not being biased. But everything I’ve seen shows that’s a pen. We’ve got lucky tonight.
BT sports stirring up 'controversy' over the West Brom penalty shout. Fernandes wins the ball, nutmegs the West Brom player and then after the meg their legs come together. Its not a penalty.
Yea, he got the ball first then kicked through.
hardly any contact but clearly touched the ball first. Football is a contact game and not every touch is a foul.
I'm both don't think it was a penalty but absolutely amazed /baffled that it got overturned.
No, I've emphasised the bit about 'careless, reckless'. You said "The actual rule is about 'excessive force'", when it isn't.
Everything in the list that defines a foul is 'contact with a player'. There is absolutely no reference at all to the ball.
The ref tonight?
Oh wait, you said "non United fan".
Kidding, I didn't even se the game.
Where do people get some of these things from?
What you mean is that winning the ball doesn't always mean it is not a foul, that's a very different thing from arguing that winning the ball is irrelevant.
In this case, it's absolutely essential as there is no argument whatsoever that Bruno's tackle was dangerous enough to be a foul even if he got the ball. I am however not convinced he did get it, or that he got it obviously enough to overturn the onfield decision.
Not trying to WUM but I genuinely am baffled by that decision. No idea how the replays can show that it was a clear and obvious error in need of overturning.
Given up on VAR. I know longer know what is and what isn't a pen. I thought they were both penalties
It is part of it. It's in the line you quoted above!
You've asserted that contact makes something a foul. It doesn't unless it has other caveats.
Now try and enjoy a win. They haven't been that plentiful for goodness sake!
Why aren't you on the thread arguing about why Martial didn't get a pen?
Where do people get some of these things from?
What you mean is that winning the ball doesn't always mean it is not a foul, that's a very different thing from arguing that winning the ball is irrelevant.
In this case, it's absolutely essential as there is no argument whatsoever that Bruno's tackle was dangerous enough to be a foul even if he got the ball. I am however not convinced he did get it, or that he got it obviously enough to overturn the onfield decision.
The guy is trying to argue with me saying that "contact" makes something a foul.
Where do people get some of these things from?
What you mean is that winning the ball doesn't always mean it is not a foul, that's a very different thing from arguing that winning the ball is irrelevant.
In this case, it's absolutely essential as there is no argument whatsoever that Bruno's tackle was dangerous enough to be a foul even if he got the ball. I am however not convinced he did get it, or that he got it obviously enough to overturn the onfield decision.
The rules. Should I be seriously concerned about the way people's logic works on here?
Here are the rules: https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
- A foul is 100% in context of 'contact with the player'. No mention at all to do with the ball
- Winning the ball is irrelevant, as it is literally not relevant. It's not even mentioned.
- You and others are talking about 'dangerous' when that also is irrelevant. The terms are 'careless, reckless or excessive'
I think the ref was influenced by the fact that VAR asked him to review, and so he doubted himself. At the very best, it’s subjective, in my opinion blatant, so having given it, there’s no way he should be overturning it.
I always tend to think about if the decision was for us and I would be fecking fuming if that pen was overturned for us. We got away with one today.
Did you see the Brighton - Villa game earlier today?
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/premier-league-gameweek-9.459022/page-8
No United bias.. look at the people who think a very similar incident wasnt a pen.
When you've been as crap as we have for a lot of this season just take the win mate!
But this forum is so classic isn't it.
No one's even referencing the Martial pull back that could easily have been a pen.
That's my position. If he hadn't given it initially and then reviewed it, I don't think anyone would be up in arms saying he'd made a colossal error had he stuck to his guns. I just don't see the "clear and obvious" evidence to overturn it.
Yep. I thought he'd touched it as well.
The one in the Villa game was a bit more straight forward but that was another slight touch then crunching the man.
It was not a penalty. Watch the trajectory of the ball when it drops down.
Was no more of a penalty than the one on Martial....in fact it was less because Bruno actually looked like he touched the ball. I wouldn’t be against both being given.
no, not seen the incident, or the discussion.
I think all the decisions made today(Utd game) with the aid of VAR were correct by current laws. However 6 secs before the WBA pen Maguire pulls a man back straight through on goal, why does that not get looked at, or the possible foul before the Utd pen?
Handball was the correct decision as it is called now, but I still hate it, incidental contact with no intent at all from the defender. That might not matter in the laws but as a defender myself I think it is so incredibly harsh, the punishment of a near certain goal is too much for the offense. Pre VAR there was an understood grey area in the game where fouls in the box had to be a higher grade than outside, most people instinctively understood it.
Handball was the correct decision as it is called now, but I still hate it, incidental contact with no intent at all from the defender. That might not matter in the laws but as a defender myself I think it is so incredibly harsh, the punishment of a near certain goal is too much for the offense. Pre VAR there was an understood grey area in the game where fouls in the box had to be a higher grade than outside, most people instinctively understood it.
Not difficult for me, I don't wear rose tinted glasses. Both penalties.
It’s going horrifically wrong and is making the sport worse.
Anyone denying that has some serious issues.
I support the use of technology in sport. But I’m not going to endorse the implementation. Not even a little bit. To do so would be silly.
Hence the Trump comparison. It’s Brexit-esque.
Nobody would have voted for this shit. Promised one thing. Given a non functioning backwards step of a system instead.
All big decisions correct for me. Their overturned penalty was simulation. Bruno nicks the ball, there's minimal contact afterwards and the lad flops. There's certainly no "full pelt" kick. It looks even worse in slowmotion as you can see the delay between the challenge and the reaction. I wouldn't have been surprised if the referee stuck with his initial decision, but I think it would've been wrong. The one on Martial was similar, he feels something and reacts rather than him actually being fouled. Also not a penalty.
Definite handball by West Brom, he moves his hand upwards towards the ball. Its handball under the older rules, nevermind the new stricter rules.
Retake was justified. He lunged a yard off his line.
Luck was on our side, but we hardly robbed them.
Definite handball by West Brom, he moves his hand upwards towards the ball. Its handball under the older rules, nevermind the new stricter rules.
Retake was justified. He lunged a yard off his line.
Luck was on our side, but we hardly robbed them.
Right call to reverse. Bruno toed the ball away, doesn't matter if it was a tiny touch.
Even if we take that as a fact, in what way was that “clear and obvious”?
What the feck are these guys on BT talking about. Massive dive that pen!!
Looked a clear foul from Bruno. Ref got our pen scenario spot on though.
Yeah agree with this. With the new laws it's handball, and the keeper was clearly off his line. I just disagree with overturning the WBA penalty, especially as the standard is supposed to be "a clear and obvious" error. I find it befuddling that anyone could look at that situation and decide that there's clearly and obviously not a foul - obviously Bruno gets a slight touch on the ball, but he gets a far bigger touch on Gallagher's shinpad.
I like to think I'm very subjective about incidents against our team, but I just can't see how people think this one was a foul. It could be that I'm absolutely blind but I see slight contact with the ball followed by slight contact with his shin and his other leg going flying.
The shirt pull on Martial Looked much more like a pen, but I still didn't think that one was either.
The shirt pull on Martial Looked much more like a pen, but I still didn't think that one was either.
It's excruciating to read.
These post match posts are as dire as that performance.
BT conclude everything was a foul on West Brom and Man Utd should be instantly relegated.
Interestingly BT clearly showed a clip of the referee looking at the angle he decided it wasn’t a penalty from.
Funnily enough BT never once showed the angle the referee was looking from in their analysis. Why on earth not?
I think from the angle on the monitor the ref was looking at he’s convinced Bruno has toed the ball away and then the player after. He gets a clear view only from that angle. An angle BT never showed.
He hasn’t then deemed the tackle infringed any of the game’s laws.
Funnily enough BT never once showed the angle the referee was looking from in their analysis. Why on earth not?
I think from the angle on the monitor the ref was looking at he’s convinced Bruno has toed the ball away and then the player after. He gets a clear view only from that angle. An angle BT never showed.
He hasn’t then deemed the tackle infringed any of the game’s laws.
As per your own link:
- Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an 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
Should I be concerned about the way your logic works on reading your own links?