VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

CoopersDream said:
Exactly. Pretty much any sliding tackle would also consist of the tackler taking down the player in the same action. It's hard to avoid. The question is whether you manage to get to the ball first and whether the ball is cleared from danger. He both got the ball first and cleared the ball from danger. Given that it would be harsh with a penatly. I would agree it would be a free kick out on the pitch, but everything that is free kick out on the pitch will not be penalties or we would have penalties every single corner.
Click to expand...
This is something that needs to be gone from football. You can't have different rules based on where you are. There is nothing in the book of rules that says that you should judge situations that way. If you think it is freekick it is penalty. If you don''t think it is freekick it is not a penalty. It is not about pick and choose.

ManCity got ridiculous penalty against us at Old Trafford. A ghost penalty. In a situation that happens every singel game. Not once but multiple times. So why just choose that one for penalty and no other?
 
Isn’t the fourth official supposed to be paying attention to the action on the field. Pep’s bizarre rant to distract the official was very strange and inappropriate. Was he inside his technical area?
 
90 + 5min said:
This is something that needs to be gone from football. You can't have different rules based on where you are. There is nothing in the book of rules that says that you should judge situations that way. If you think it is freekick than it is penalty. If you don''t think it is freekick it is not a penalty. It is not about pick and choose.

ManCity got ridiculous penalty against us at Old Trafford. A ghost penalty. In a situation that happens every singel game. Not once but multiple times. So why just choose that one for penalty and no other?
Click to expand...
Sure, there aren't any different rules, it's just that giving a foul in the box, as the rules are today, is a much bigger decision given it will generally affect the match in a much bigger way. That way you could understand that refs allow more inside the box. It's a bit self inflicted as well as players know they can do more inside the box without a penalty being given they often push the limits. If refs were harder, then you'd certainly have less such situations as well.

I think most here would agree that the penalty City got at Old Trafford was very soft and that refs are inconsisten in their decisions.
 
I'm totally fine with the Rashford incident not being a free kick.

It is however a bit disingenuous when the ref then gives a foul to City 2 minutes later in a dangerous area when, I think Evans(?) did the tiniest tug on one of their players arm.
 
Last edited:
If the Rashford and Garnacho incidents happen with Foden and Doku at the other end there is not a single Utd fan on this forum who thinks they are fouls.
 
The Rashford one is a clear foul for me, not so much for the arm but there is a coming together of legs that causes a trip. And add the arm on top of that and it has to be a foul. Especially considering some of the soft calls that were given the other way for minimal contact.
 
90 + 5min said:
This is something that needs to be gone from football. You can't have different rules based on where you are. There is nothing in the book of rules that says that you should judge situations that way. If you think it is freekick it is penalty. If you don''t think it is freekick it is not a penalty. It is not about pick and choose.

ManCity got ridiculous penalty against us at Old Trafford. A ghost penalty. In a situation that happens every singel game. Not once but multiple times. So why just choose that one for penalty and no other?
Click to expand...

Would you say it would be fair for Rodri to be given a freekick if the incident happened in the middle of the pitch?

The punishment rarely fits the crime inside the box. Having the exact same rules apply there would be madness and ruin the game. Rodri shouldn't have been given the penalty, even though it is a freekick in the centre circle.
 
Bobski said:
If the Rashford and Garnacho incidents happen with Foden and Doku at the other end there is not a single Utd fan on this forum who thinks they are fouls.
Click to expand...

I agree, however Foden would 100% get a free kick if the Rashford incident happened to him.

You breath on a City player and they get a free kick.
 
At what point do we say enough is enough, we can’t possibly deal with anymore Liverpool favouritism? How many more times do we need to see referees carrying them to victory before something is done about it?
 
Bobski said:
If the Rashford and Garnacho incidents happen with Foden and Doku at the other end there is not a single Utd fan on this forum who thinks they are fouls.
Click to expand...
Said the same earlier and that's how I try to judge these incidents
 
If city don't go up the other end and score is there much complaint about the rashford one?
 
HappyCamper said:
Would you say it would be fair for Rodri to be given a freekick if the incident happened in the middle of the pitch?

The punishment rarely fits the crime inside the box. Having the exact same rules apply there would be madness and ruin the game. Rodri shouldn't have been given the penalty, even though it is a freekick in the centre circle.
Click to expand...
I personally don't. I do like more harder football and more tackles and actually think football has gone soft. Not every contact should be freekick/penalty. If situations today happened how I think football should be I wouldn't mind them not being freekick or penalty. Problem is that I see other teams getting those decisions and that is what makes it hard to accept. I feel that we have been really unlucky with decisions comparing to other teams.
 
LDUred said:
He's through on goal, running at full speed, in the middle of the pitch. Any contact will be consequential.

If you've actually played the game, a hand on your arm when your running at full tilt will affect your balance.

I don't understand at all how that can be 'deemed' inconsequential.
Click to expand...

Because you want it to be a foul. You're not arguing in good faith. Contact was absolutely minimal. The hand is on the arm for a second and people are claiming a contact on the leg which I've not been able to conclusively see.

We've seen loads of cases where there is much more of a tug on a players arm and they don't hit the deck. Rashford goes down easily and it didn't go in his favour.
 
Withnail said:
Because you want it to be a foul. You're not arguing in good faith. Contact was absolutely minimal. The hand is on the arm for a second and people are claiming a contact on the leg which I've not been able to conclusively see.

We've seen loads of cases where there is much more of a tug on a players arm and they don't hit the deck. Rashford goes down easily and it didn't go in his favour.
Click to expand...
He hits the trailing leg as he moves across a clear foul. He didn't even post match dismiss it he said he would have ro watch again and did say he put his arm up in the player as usual
Rashford running full speed is tripped and pushed yet you say he goes easy.
 
Alejandro Angel said:
He hits the trailing leg as he moves across a clear foul. He didn't even post match dismiss it he said he would have ro watch again and did say he put his arm up in the player as usual
Rashford running full speed is tripped and pushed yet you say he goes easy.
Click to expand...

The minimal contact, which I've still not seen clear evidence of is a coming together. There's no obvious trip. If you take off the red tinted glasses, do you honestly think that incident should be given as a foul, if it was against us?
 
Withnail said:
Because you want it to be a foul. You're not arguing in good faith. Contact was absolutely minimal. The hand is on the arm for a second and people are claiming a contact on the leg which I've not been able to conclusively see.

We've seen loads of cases where there is much more of a tug on a players arm and they don't hit the deck. Rashford goes down easily and it didn't go in his favour.
Click to expand...
I don't think he goes down if he's against anyone but walker. He knows walker has him for pace.
 
Bobski said:
If the Rashford and Garnacho incidents happen with Foden and Doku at the other end there is not a single Utd fan on this forum who thinks they are fouls.
Click to expand...
But we would have conceded a penalty and been one down
 
NicolaSacco said:
So that basically means don’t make a slide tackle at all. You only slide tackle when there’s an opponent very close by and you want to make sure you get to the ball first. Your opponent will be going for the same ball at a similar speed so a collision will be virtually impossible to avoid.
I’d love to know how many last ditch sliding tackles Utd defenders have made over the years, that got the ball, but also slid into another player sprinting in. It will be hundreds.
Click to expand...
It;ll be hundreds by AWB on his own!
 
After reading this last page of comments I have come to the conclusion that the CAF has a large membership of people with super sharp eyesight that can spot definitive contact that television cameras don't appear to be able to see
 
Nowhere in the laws of the game does it say fouls inside the penalty area should be treated differently to fouls elsewhere on the pitch ergo it’s a penalty for me, he was wildly out of control .
 
From watching motd I think there's enough contact at full speed that should be given by var as free kick. Thought initially it would be a soft pen as seen ederson gets ball first. But on motd saw 3 times it was replayed. Keeper slides from miles clears ball with his sole studs up. Completely out of control doing all he can to get there no matter what. Fortunately garnacho was back a little and caught by trailing leg instead of leading leg as that's a leg breaker.
 
90 + 5min said:
Today? Rashford should have freekick and they score after. Garnacho should have penalty and they score after. It can’t be more clear than that.
Click to expand...

This is like people wanting a penalty for Rashford being outmuscled by two Forrest players in the cup.

Walker puts out a hand, but not enough to send him sprawling the way he did. He really needs to be stronger there, there was less in that than there was on the one where Haaland was grappled in the box.

Ederson on Garnacho, that's just a great tackle.


For reference here's a similar tussle he had with Walker a few years ago now. Was willing to stand up to him then.

 
Oranges038 said:
This is like people wanting a penalty for Rashford being outmuscled by two Forrest players in the cup.

Walker puts out a hand, but not enough to send him sprawling the way he did. He really needs to be stronger there, there was less in that than there was on the one where Haaland was grappled in the box.

Ederson on Garnacho, that's just a great tackle.


For reference here's a similar tussle he had with Walker a few years ago now. Was willing to stand up to him then.

Click to expand...


It's quite clear he decided to go down and the gamble didn't pay off this time. It doesn't stop people trying to claim any contact at full pace will cause your legs to collapse.
 
Seriously if he fecks things up for Arsenal at the weekend I’m going full Alex Jones
 
Withnail said:
It's quite clear he decided to go down and the gamble didn't pay off this time. It doesn't stop people trying to claim any contact at full pace will cause your legs to collapse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he's just looking for a foul and yes sometimes they do get given.

If that's a player through vs Utd and he goes down like that and it's given as a foul, we'd all be calling it as a dive.
 
arnie_ni said:
If city don't go up the other end and score is there much complaint about the rashford one?
Click to expand...

Probably still some, we didn't seem to get a free kick all game, I cant be bothered looking it up but there were very few.

I think it would have been a soft free, but equally think that if rashford did the same contact and walker went down, the ref would have blown. I think overall, the ref had a poor game and his officials did too - it looked as if 4 fans had won a competition to ref their teams game by the way they were engaging with city players and guardiola. It was a bit embarrassing.

All in all, I would say league wide this has been by far the worst officiated season in my football watching life, by a distance, with the next worst being last season. The standards are awful, though i dont think played a key part in why we lost yesterday, but overall, with my most impartial hat on, I think United have had a very very raw deal overall with officials this season.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
I'm totally fine with the Rashford incident not being a free kick.

It is however a bit disingenuous when the ref then gives a foul to City 2 minutes later in a dangerous area when, I think Evans(?) did the tiniest tug on one of their players arm.
Click to expand...
Or City's penalty at Old Trafford earlier this season?
 
Bangor_Red said:
From watching motd I think there's enough contact at full speed that should be given by var as free kick. Thought initially it would be a soft pen as seen ederson gets ball first. But on motd saw 3 times it was replayed. Keeper slides from miles clears ball with his sole studs up. Completely out of control doing all he can to get there no matter what. Fortunately garnacho was back a little and caught by trailing leg instead of leading leg as that's a leg breaker.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we see players get booked all the time because their trailing leg cleans someone out. It's mad the way so many pundits/fans seem to think that so long as a player gets clean contact with the ball then they can't possibly foul someone. Every time someone goes to ground to make a tackle they have a responsibility to make sure they are in control of their body and not putting another player in danger. If Garnacho's foot was planted when Ederson's trailing knee catches him then he's snapping his leg like a twig.
 
Oranges038 said:
This is like people wanting a penalty for Rashford being outmuscled by two Forrest players in the cup.

Walker puts out a hand, but not enough to send him sprawling the way he did. He really needs to be stronger there, there was less in that than there was on the one where Haaland was grappled in the box.

Ederson on Garnacho, that's just a great tackle.


For reference here's a similar tussle he had with Walker a few years ago now. Was willing to stand up to him then.

Click to expand...

I think I was pretty clear that I actually want harder football. I think football have gone soft in lot of ways. In my kind of football that is not free kick or penalty. But when you see them given in other games for other teams you expect them to be given to us. That is why I say it should been penalty and free kick.
 
90 + 5min said:
I think I was pretty clear that I actually want harder football. I think football have gone soft in lot of ways. In my kind of football that is not free kick or penalty. But when you see them given in other games for other teams you expect them to be given to us. That is why I say it should been penalty and free kick.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see your point and agree. I don't think either should ever be a foul, but like everything else it might not be given yesterday but next week a different referee will it. If it were the other way around and Rashford does similar to Walker, it's 100% being given as a freekick.

It's just the way it is and I don't think we'll ever have total agreement or consistency across the board.
 
You know the world is mad when it falls to Garth Crooks to speak sense.

"As for the controversy surrounding referee Paul Tierney and where the game should have restarted. The referee made a mistake, however once the ball was back in play it was incumbent on Forest to defend their goal regardless of the referee's decision. They had numerous opportunities to clear the danger and failed.

As for former official and now Nottingham Forest analyst Mark Clattenburg, asking to see the referee after the game was an interesting request. What was he intending to do - compare career mistakes?"
 
B20 said:
You know the world is mad when it falls to Garth Crooks to speak sense.

"As for the controversy surrounding referee Paul Tierney and where the game should have restarted. The referee made a mistake, however once the ball was back in play it was incumbent on Forest to defend their goal regardless of the referee's decision. They had numerous opportunities to clear the danger and failed.

As for former official and now Nottingham Forest analyst Mark Clattenburg, asking to see the referee after the game was an interesting request. What was he intending to do - compare career mistakes?"
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with this.

Why I'm never bothered about wrongly awarded corners. Just defend the fecking thing properly and there's no problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.