Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Premier League 25/26

1…5051535556…64

Comments

  • WattsTheMatter
    WattsTheMatter Posts: 616
    Denial of a goalscoring opportunity, ignoring that a goal was scored. 

    There has to be some flexibility in the rules, because that was farcical.
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 35,184
    lordromford said:
    Even Gary Neville (who I’m certain is paid to put a positive spin on VAR) said VAR has killed the joy of the game there.

    Newsflash Gary: VAR kills the joy every time it’s used.

    In a way, it’s a shame that decision didn’t affect the result, because there’d be a lot more people saying it’s shit if it had.
    It has knock on consequences. No VAR and Man City have another goal which helps their GD. Title could come down to that in the end. Also now Szoboszlai misses 3 games due to suspension. 
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 35,184
    O-Randy-Hunt said:
    Games gone is usually said as a laugh but it really has. Imagine if the score was 1-0 Liverpool or 1-1 and the ref does that.
    Couldn't the ref just say I've seen it back on the monitor & I stand by my decision. No need to elaborate further. 

    What is it we learnt as kids....  the reds decision is final. 

    Time refs stood up & ignored what VAR is telling them if they dont agree.
  • aliwibble
    aliwibble Posts: 28,380
    Absolutely PMSL at the end of that match
  • lordromford
    lordromford Posts: 8,161
    golfaddick said:
    lordromford said:
    Even Gary Neville (who I’m certain is paid to put a positive spin on VAR) said VAR has killed the joy of the game there.

    Newsflash Gary: VAR kills the joy every time it’s used.

    In a way, it’s a shame that decision didn’t affect the result, because there’d be a lot more people saying it’s shit if it had.
    It has knock on consequences. No VAR and Man City have another goal which helps their GD. Title could come down to that in the end. Also now Szoboszlai misses 3 games due to suspension. 
    True golfie, but goal difference and a suspension are far less significant than a two point swing. Some will say it made no difference. If Man City had only got a draw because of that, there would be uproar.
  • O-Randy-Hunt
    O-Randy-Hunt Posts: 11,155
    golfaddick said:
    O-Randy-Hunt said:
    Games gone is usually said as a laugh but it really has. Imagine if the score was 1-0 Liverpool or 1-1 and the ref does that.
    Couldn't the ref just say I've seen it back on the monitor & I stand by my decision. No need to elaborate further. 

    What is it we learnt as kids....  the reds decision is final. 

    Time refs stood up & ignored what VAR is telling them if they dont agree.
    They don't have the bollocks overruling the people reffing the game from a box in West London.
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 21,400
    edited February 8
    golfaddick said:
    O-Randy-Hunt said:
    Games gone is usually said as a laugh but it really has. Imagine if the score was 1-0 Liverpool or 1-1 and the ref does that.
    Couldn't the ref just say I've seen it back on the monitor & I stand by my decision. No need to elaborate further. 

    What is it we learnt as kids....  the reds decision is final. 

    Time refs stood up & ignored what VAR is telling them if they dont agree.
    Why would he choose not to apply the clear laws of the game?

    Szoboszlai clearly fouls Haaland preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity but the ref plays an advantage because Haaland is still likely to score. Haaland then prevents Szoboszlai from clearing the ball by pulling him back resulting in the ball rolling into the net. The second infringement clearly cancels the first advantage played.

    There are only two possible outcomes - what the ref did by going back to the first infringement, or not cancelling the advantage to Haaland and then giving a free kick to Liverpool for the subsequent foul on Szoboszlai. Allowing the 'goal' to stand was not an option.

    Neville and co are talking absolute bollocks.




  • Gravesend_Addick
    Gravesend_Addick Posts: 7,379
    I've said it so many times.......VAR is not the problem, the way we use it is the problem. 

    I watch games in European leagues & they don't seem to have a problem with VAR, but in this country we seem to overcomplicate it & the default position of officials is to automatically look for a reason to disallow a goal.


    I think officials in this country just want their 5 minutes of fame & it's killing the enjoyment of the game 
  • EugenesAxe
    EugenesAxe Posts: 4,003
    fenaddick said:
    The curve on that is incredible 
    My girlfriend said that last night.
  • Siv_in_Norfolk
    Siv_in_Norfolk Posts: 4,180
    Brighton consistently screw up opportunities to put pressure on Palace's Premier League status. Annoying 

  • Sponsored links:



  • ValleyGary
    ValleyGary Posts: 38,404
    Gravesend_Addick said:
    I've said it so many times.......VAR is not the problem, the way we use it is the problem. 

    I watch games in European leagues & they don't seem to have a problem with VAR, but in this country we seem to overcomplicate it & the default position of officials is to automatically look for a reason to disallow a goal.


    I think officials in this country just want their 5 minutes of fame & it's killing the enjoyment of the game 
    The World Cup VAR worked on 90% of the time. Now it’s gone to domestic level it’s fucking shit.
  • Gribbo
    Gribbo Posts: 8,960
    Leuth said:
    Enough is enough. Turn VAR into a challenge system like in cricket. Team captain has 2 unsuccessful challenges per game. Can challenge anything including throws and corners. End of story 
    Be hand ball if someone catches it though....owzat
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 22,467
    bobmunro said:
    golfaddick said:
    O-Randy-Hunt said:
    Games gone is usually said as a laugh but it really has. Imagine if the score was 1-0 Liverpool or 1-1 and the ref does that.
    Couldn't the ref just say I've seen it back on the monitor & I stand by my decision. No need to elaborate further. 

    What is it we learnt as kids....  the reds decision is final. 

    Time refs stood up & ignored what VAR is telling them if they dont agree.
    Why would he choose not to apply the clear laws of the game?

    Szoboszlai clearly fouls Haaland preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity but the ref plays an advantage because Haaland is still likely to score. Haaland then prevents Szoboszlai from clearing the ball by pulling him back resulting in the ball rolling into the net. The second infringement clearly cancels the first advantage played.

    There are only two possible outcomes - what the ref did by going back to the first infringement, or not cancelling the advantage to Haaland and then giving a free kick to Liverpool for the subsequent foul on Szoboszlai. Allowing the 'goal' to stand was not an option.

    Neville and co are talking absolute bollocks.




    Why isn't there a third option where he decides that the goal stands because their tussling cancels eachother out and the ball ended up in the net?
  • fenaddick
    fenaddick Posts: 16,491
    sam3110 said:
    bobmunro said:
    golfaddick said:
    O-Randy-Hunt said:
    Games gone is usually said as a laugh but it really has. Imagine if the score was 1-0 Liverpool or 1-1 and the ref does that.
    Couldn't the ref just say I've seen it back on the monitor & I stand by my decision. No need to elaborate further. 

    What is it we learnt as kids....  the reds decision is final. 

    Time refs stood up & ignored what VAR is telling them if they dont agree.
    Why would he choose not to apply the clear laws of the game?

    Szoboszlai clearly fouls Haaland preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity but the ref plays an advantage because Haaland is still likely to score. Haaland then prevents Szoboszlai from clearing the ball by pulling him back resulting in the ball rolling into the net. The second infringement clearly cancels the first advantage played.

    There are only two possible outcomes - what the ref did by going back to the first infringement, or not cancelling the advantage to Haaland and then giving a free kick to Liverpool for the subsequent foul on Szoboszlai. Allowing the 'goal' to stand was not an option.

    Neville and co are talking absolute bollocks.




    Why isn't there a third option where he decides that the goal stands because their tussling cancels eachother out and the ball ended up in the net?
    Because the laws aren’t written that way if the fouls are separate
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 21,400
    sam3110 said:
    bobmunro said:
    golfaddick said:
    O-Randy-Hunt said:
    Games gone is usually said as a laugh but it really has. Imagine if the score was 1-0 Liverpool or 1-1 and the ref does that.
    Couldn't the ref just say I've seen it back on the monitor & I stand by my decision. No need to elaborate further. 

    What is it we learnt as kids....  the reds decision is final. 

    Time refs stood up & ignored what VAR is telling them if they dont agree.
    Why would he choose not to apply the clear laws of the game?

    Szoboszlai clearly fouls Haaland preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity but the ref plays an advantage because Haaland is still likely to score. Haaland then prevents Szoboszlai from clearing the ball by pulling him back resulting in the ball rolling into the net. The second infringement clearly cancels the first advantage played.

    There are only two possible outcomes - what the ref did by going back to the first infringement, or not cancelling the advantage to Haaland and then giving a free kick to Liverpool for the subsequent foul on Szoboszlai. Allowing the 'goal' to stand was not an option.

    Neville and co are talking absolute bollocks.




    Why isn't there a third option where he decides that the goal stands because their tussling cancels eachother out and the ball ended up in the net?

    Because the laws of the game do not (rightly) allow for tit for tat foul play.
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 36,787
    golfaddick said:
    lordromford said:
    Even Gary Neville (who I’m certain is paid to put a positive spin on VAR) said VAR has killed the joy of the game there.

    Newsflash Gary: VAR kills the joy every time it’s used.

    In a way, it’s a shame that decision didn’t affect the result, because there’d be a lot more people saying it’s shit if it had.
    It has knock on consequences. No VAR and Man City have another goal which helps their GD. Title could come down to that in the end. Also now Szoboszlai misses 3 games due to suspension. 
    A red for denying a goal scoring opportunity is only a 1 game ban.
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 36,787
    JustFloydRoad said:
    Relegation Battle is looking juicy. Come On the Albion!!

     
    Spurs could actually be in a bit of trouble. They have Newcastle at home in midweek and they've only won once at home since August. They then have 3 London derbies with Arsenal, Fulham and Palace before going to Anfield. 

    Realistically i don't think they'll go down but if they were to only pick up 2-3 points from those 5 games then things could get very interesting.
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 71,213
    3rd bottom will go down with a decent number of points this season, when compared to the last two seasons

    24/25 Leicester 25
    23/24 Luton 26
    22/23 Leicester 34
    21/22 Burnley 35
    20/21 Fulham 28
  • WSS
    WSS Posts: 25,287
    bobmunro said:
    sam3110 said:
    bobmunro said:
    golfaddick said:
    O-Randy-Hunt said:
    Games gone is usually said as a laugh but it really has. Imagine if the score was 1-0 Liverpool or 1-1 and the ref does that.
    Couldn't the ref just say I've seen it back on the monitor & I stand by my decision. No need to elaborate further. 

    What is it we learnt as kids....  the reds decision is final. 

    Time refs stood up & ignored what VAR is telling them if they dont agree.
    Why would he choose not to apply the clear laws of the game?

    Szoboszlai clearly fouls Haaland preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity but the ref plays an advantage because Haaland is still likely to score. Haaland then prevents Szoboszlai from clearing the ball by pulling him back resulting in the ball rolling into the net. The second infringement clearly cancels the first advantage played.

    There are only two possible outcomes - what the ref did by going back to the first infringement, or not cancelling the advantage to Haaland and then giving a free kick to Liverpool for the subsequent foul on Szoboszlai. Allowing the 'goal' to stand was not an option.

    Neville and co are talking absolute bollocks.




    Why isn't there a third option where he decides that the goal stands because their tussling cancels eachother out and the ball ended up in the net?

    Because the laws of the game do not (rightly) allow for tit for tat foul play.
    I thought the laws were open to interpretation (as in they are not "rules") and covered stuff like advantage etc.
  • fenaddick
    fenaddick Posts: 16,491
    WSS said:
    bobmunro said:
    sam3110 said:
    bobmunro said:
    golfaddick said:
    O-Randy-Hunt said:
    Games gone is usually said as a laugh but it really has. Imagine if the score was 1-0 Liverpool or 1-1 and the ref does that.
    Couldn't the ref just say I've seen it back on the monitor & I stand by my decision. No need to elaborate further. 

    What is it we learnt as kids....  the reds decision is final. 

    Time refs stood up & ignored what VAR is telling them if they dont agree.
    Why would he choose not to apply the clear laws of the game?

    Szoboszlai clearly fouls Haaland preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity but the ref plays an advantage because Haaland is still likely to score. Haaland then prevents Szoboszlai from clearing the ball by pulling him back resulting in the ball rolling into the net. The second infringement clearly cancels the first advantage played.

    There are only two possible outcomes - what the ref did by going back to the first infringement, or not cancelling the advantage to Haaland and then giving a free kick to Liverpool for the subsequent foul on Szoboszlai. Allowing the 'goal' to stand was not an option.

    Neville and co are talking absolute bollocks.




    Why isn't there a third option where he decides that the goal stands because their tussling cancels eachother out and the ball ended up in the net?

    Because the laws of the game do not (rightly) allow for tit for tat foul play.
    I thought the laws were open to interpretation (as in they are not "rules") and covered stuff like advantage etc.
    The advantage gets cancelled when Haaland then fouls Szoboszlai

  • Sponsored links:



  • WSS
    WSS Posts: 25,287
    I get that but there always has been a place for referee judgement which it seems has gone now. Like anything with VAR, it's the way it's applied more than anything.
  • Elthamaddick
    Elthamaddick Posts: 16,206
    O-Randy-Hunt said:
    Games gone is usually said as a laugh but it really has. Imagine if the score was 1-0 Liverpool or 1-1 and the ref does that.
    yeah I'd have liked to see them try and disallow that goal had it been 1-1...would've been a riot
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 21,400
    WSS said:
    I get that but there always has been a place for referee judgement which it seems has gone now. Like anything with VAR, it's the way it's applied more than anything.

    Judgement is fine when applied to grey areas - was there movement towards the ball, was the player's arm in an unnatural position, was there sufficient contact to award a penalty etc...
    The events yesterday were black and white.
  • Elthamaddick
    Elthamaddick Posts: 16,206
    to disallow that goal I think the ref has to blow his whistle as soon as Szoboszlai pulls back Haaland and give the foul 
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 35,184
    sam3110 said:
    bobmunro said:
    golfaddick said:
    O-Randy-Hunt said:
    Games gone is usually said as a laugh but it really has. Imagine if the score was 1-0 Liverpool or 1-1 and the ref does that.
    Couldn't the ref just say I've seen it back on the monitor & I stand by my decision. No need to elaborate further. 

    What is it we learnt as kids....  the reds decision is final. 

    Time refs stood up & ignored what VAR is telling them if they dont agree.
    Why would he choose not to apply the clear laws of the game?

    Szoboszlai clearly fouls Haaland preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity but the ref plays an advantage because Haaland is still likely to score. Haaland then prevents Szoboszlai from clearing the ball by pulling him back resulting in the ball rolling into the net. The second infringement clearly cancels the first advantage played.

    There are only two possible outcomes - what the ref did by going back to the first infringement, or not cancelling the advantage to Haaland and then giving a free kick to Liverpool for the subsequent foul on Szoboszlai. Allowing the 'goal' to stand was not an option.

    Neville and co are talking absolute bollocks.




    Why isn't there a third option where he decides that the goal stands because their tussling cancels eachother out and the ball ended up in the net?
    Or even more pertinent......

    Why was a red card for stopping a certain goal introduced in the first place?  It came about after Willie Young fouled Paul Allen in the FA Cup final when he was through on goal. At that time all Young received was a yellow card, which everyone felt was unjust.

    So Szobaszai fouled Harland to stop him reaching the ball. But If neither player had been there the ball would have crossed the line anyway (which it did). So why not just penalise the first foul but not bring back play. Use the "play on" rule for what happened after that. 

    Yes, Harland did commit a foul but only because he was pulled back. Why are we denying a goal due to an earlier foul. VAR are telling lino's not to flag for offsides & if a goal is scored earlier infringements will be looked at. 

    In this case I say 2 wrongs DO make a right. 
  • stackitsteve
    stackitsteve Posts: 12,221
    Feels like the ref had the right idea and VAR told him off.

    i get the whole “you can’t give advantage and then not give the foul” or whatever but ultimately,

    Liverpool have had a player sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity, and the goal was scored.
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 21,400
    Elthamaddick said:
    to disallow that goal I think the ref has to blow his whistle as soon as Szoboszlai pulls back Haaland and give the foul 

    Nope.

    What would have happened if Haaland hadn't fouled Szobaszai and he then managed to clear the ball (highly likely). Play on? Or go back to the original foul? The only treason the ball crossed the line was because of the second foul.

  • fenaddick
    fenaddick Posts: 16,491
    stackitsteve said:
    Feels like the ref had the right idea and VAR told him off.

    i get the whole “you can’t give advantage and then not give the foul” or whatever but ultimately,

    Liverpool have had a player sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity, and the goal was scored.
    But it wasn't scored by the player who was denied
  • Elthamaddick
    Elthamaddick Posts: 16,206
    bobmunro said:
    Elthamaddick said:
    to disallow that goal I think the ref has to blow his whistle as soon as Szoboszlai pulls back Haaland and give the foul 

    Nope.

    What would have happened if Haaland hadn't fouled Szobaszai and he then managed to clear the ball (highly likely). Play on? Or go back to the original foul? The only treason the ball crossed the line was because of the second foul.

    then you go back to the original foul and it's a red
  • stackitsteve
    stackitsteve Posts: 12,221
    fenaddick said:
    stackitsteve said:
    Feels like the ref had the right idea and VAR told him off.

    i get the whole “you can’t give advantage and then not give the foul” or whatever but ultimately,

    Liverpool have had a player sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity, and the goal was scored.
    But it wasn't scored by the player who was denied
    Yeah I get that. It’s just all so counter productive. 

Categories

“Marketplace”