Was it a foul?

[2mufc0]

It literally did happen to us. In the same game. In the penalty area. But there’s no fuss being made so nobody is kicking off.

I think the difference here is the decision pretty much decided the result of the game hence the over analysing. Maybe there would be similar focus on that one if it did the same, but otherwise it is an irrelevant moment in the game.

But in the end just because we didn't get the foul for the Bruno one doesn't mean this wasn't a foul either. It just shows the ref is shite.

 

[Ali Dia]

Yeah I'd say it was a foul but can see why it wasn't given. Until I'd seen a specific angle, I didn't think there was contact at all. He has caught him ever so slightly and it doesn't deserve the drama around it being a risk of leaving Neves paralysed but he got none of the ball and did touch the player.

This.

You need some luck though so we take it and move on. Wolves look a pretty good side and could have beaten us easily.

 

[GifLord]

 

[Inigo Montoya]

This.

You need some luck though so we take it and move on. Wolves look a pretty good side and could have beaten us easily.

Easily beaten us not beaten us easily. They don’t beat anyone easily. Zero goals in 3 games tells you that.

 

[Ali Dia]

Easily beaten us not beaten us easily. They don’t beat anyone easily. Zero goals in 3 games tells you that.

Yes, that’s true. Neves said after the game once the first goal goes in they’ll be fine. It’s not like they are losing by lots. They were the better team for the whole first half and they had their chances in the second. They aren’t miles off us and their biggest signing is a loan.

 

[cyberman]

Surely VAR tells Dean there’s slight contact if Dean does say he saw the tackle in its entirety? So if Dean says I saw it all and no foul then what can VAR do?
They’ve also fallen in the trap of thinking VAR thinks it’s a free out as well

 

[tomaldinho1]

I thought it wasn't until I saw this image, clear foul.

Yh anyone claiming it wasn’t has lost the plot. We rode our luck all game yesterday.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Yes, that’s true. Neves said after the game once the first goal goes in they’ll be fine. It’s not like they are losing by lots. They were the better team for the whole first half and they had their chances in the second. They aren’t miles off us and their biggest signing is a loan.

Pundits keep saying that if they turn in performances like that they’ll beat teams. My feeling is that they are woefully short up
Front. Jimenez hasn’t recovered psychologically, Neto is out and Fabio Silva is useless. Depending on Traore to keep bombing forward is a short term tactic. They could go down playing like that. Good football didn’t save Fulham last season

 

[EngimaMK]

Bore off

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Yh anyone claiming it wasn’t has lost the plot. We rode our luck all game yesterday.

Making saves and goal line clearances isn’t luck; it’s part of the game. If they had hit the post a hundred times and had so many clear cut chances to score, I’d concede that we were lucky. Their keeper should also have done better with Greenwood’s shot. That’s bad keeping not luck

The foul or perceived foul is a totally different issue. It was a game changer in the whole context of the game but there was time for us to score post the goal anyway when we were the better team

 

[ROFLUTION]

Couldn't care less, considering Bruno's wasn't given

 

[Ali Dia]

Pundits keep saying that if they turn in performances like that they’ll beat teams. My feeling is that they are woefully short up
Front. Jimenez hasn’t recovered psychologically, Neto is out and Fabio Silva is useless. Depending on Traore to keep bombing forward is a short term tactic. They could go down playing like that. Good football didn’t save Fulham last season

Of course the goals have to happen and they have to come from somewhere. They are creating a lot and their defence was pretty sturdy yesterday the goal aside, their keeper could have done a bit better. If they had old school Jimenez there yesterday we were in a world of trouble in the first half. Jota and Neto are also a big miss. Trincao looks a little baller. Jimi needs to hopefully get one and he should take off again and be good for 10 goals. Fabio silva looks tiny. Next thing for him is surely a loan? I can’t see him starting games and doing damage at this level this season.

 

[R'hllor]

So 58% just taking a piss i guess.

 

[pratyush_utd]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[flappyjay]

It was a foul but as they say these things even themselves over a season. Bruno got fouled against Southampton and VAR didn't cancel the goal. In the wolves game someone took out Greenwood and no one batted an eye.

 

[EdWeatherall]

One thing is obvious from the poll results - that c60% of the car have never played the game!

Foul all day long

(As was the one last week on Fernandes in build up to their goal. You win some, you lose some. Will be more of these the next few weeks, and will increase inconsistency between refs)

 

[tomaldinho1]

Making saves and goal line clearances isn’t luck; it’s part of the game. If they had hit the post a hundred times and had so many clear cut chances to score, I’d concede that we were lucky. Their keeper should also have done better with Greenwood’s shot. That’s bad keeping not luck

The foul or perceived foul is a totally different issue. It was a game changer in the whole context of the game but there was time for us to score post the goal anyway when we were the better team

I don't really get the first part given you're saying you know we were lucky.

We watched a very different game on the bolded bit.

 

[UncleBob]

It's a bad tackle, and could have been dangerous if Pogba made more contact. You usually see those tackles called as a FK, regardless of contact or not.

But Dean called a 50:50, there was minimal contact in the actual tackle, disregarding the potential damage the tackle could have done. I think the negligence of VAR here is being overplayed, last season people were calling for the game not to be analysed to the nth degree using slow-mo pictures.

There was a 50:50, mistimed tackle, ref could have given a free but didn't. Play went on and we scored. I can guarantee we'll have plenty go for and against us over the course of a season. Different refs will call the game in different ways, I didn't see yesterday as poor implementation of VAR, but evidence of the light touch method that's discussed.

There's never going to be a 'one size fits all' approach to using VAR, so the less it is used for these types of decisions is a positive in my eyes. Of course, I'd be moaning if the shoe was on the other foot, but that's football.

Considering how Pogba connected with his shinpad, the margins are pretty slim. It's pretty much textbook reckless challenge, arguing how much of the ball he got and not connecting properly with Neves is pretty much besides the point when it comes to tackles like that.

If VAR doesn't intervene in those situations, then what's the point. Next week you can have the exact same situation, with a VAR that reckons the situation should be reviewed by the referee on the pitch, which it really should. Dean making a shitload of other mistakes, doesn't really justify things like this being ignored simply because the ref is a knob.

 

[GifLord]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

And the Dan James sliding challenge on Trincao - completely ignored by Var

We were lottery winner's lucky yesterday

 

[SteveCoppellFan]

Clearly a foul, Mike Dean just being Mike Dean .. nothing new.

Not sure how 58% disagree with that, if this was the other way round then those same people would be spitting feathers !

We got really lucky yesterday and came away with 3 points... onwards and upwards.

Ole really needs to up his in game management skills ... its going to cost him and United dearly unless he sorts it out.

 

[pratyush_utd]

And the Dan James sliding challenge on Trincao - completely ignored by Var

We were lottery winner's lucky yesterday

Yeah we would have scored anyway as Neves was not going to influence Greenwood shot and Neves actually passed the ball back. So not sure why there is so much hue and cry about it.

I think it was foul and Bruno one would have been penalty last season. Plus that James foul. We just got lucky that 2 decision went our way and 1 against us.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I think too many are missing the most important factor which decided it for Dean, he clearly wasn't even slightly hurt, he sees where the ball goes, stands on that foot, looks at Dean, then dives to the fecking floor.

No wonder Dean though, feck off ya numpty.

 

[sebsheep]

And the Dan James sliding challenge on Trincao - completely ignored by Var

We were lottery winner's lucky yesterday

He's off the pitch so doesn't count

 

[stepic]

C'mon guys, it's a definite foul It wasn't a leg breaking challenge but there was contact which you can clearly see from other angles and the studs were showing. Last week we got shafted, yesterday we got lucky with the decision. It's not that hard to admit.

Not under the current rules. If Bruno’s wasn’t a foul then this definitely wasn’t

 

[Eplel]

Is there contact? Definitely

Did the contact force Neves to misplace the ball? No.

Therefore in my opinion it should not be given. If contact is all you need to give a foul, then there's at least 10 instances in every game not given, but the media want to wank this off because we scored.

 

[UncleBob]

Not under the current rules. If Bruno’s wasn’t a foul then this definitely wasn’t

https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

[Maticmaker]

No, it was not a foul because Ref saw it (couldn't have had better position) and said no, and he didn't see fit to change his mind, even to look at VAR. Its possible the Ref didn't see any contact, or thought what contact there was it was insufficient to give a foul. Was it dangerous play? The Ref didn't think so. Did the players delayed reaction mean he's honest? No, if there was contact it seemed to be a glancing contact on the shin-pad and after looking at the ref, the player decided to go down. Mike Dean doesn't like to be eyeballed...ever!

Whether we like it or not Ref's are there to make decisions, with or without the aid of VAR, on this occasion I liked the decision.

 

[The Brown Bull]

Don't need to as I both know what I saw and the rules.

The rules say it was a foul.

 

[Coleyoscar]

Since all the United-haters online seem to believe that Mike Dean consistently does us favours, maybe we should voluntarily agree to never have him referee one of our games again. I'm sure we would all be prepared to suffer that great loss in the interest of fairness.

 

[TheReligion]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I'd forgot about this! Didn't even get looked at or mentioned in the slightest.

 

[ManUnitedCanuck]

I think it’s a foul, however the way Dean was running the game, he did not give fouls on a few occasions for very similar situations.

 

[r1z3mu]

100% foul:
1. Studs up.
2. Made a contact with opposing player's shin.

We got lucky, that's all. And very often it goes both ways.

 

[pratyush_utd]

I'd forgot about this! Didn't even get looked at or mentioned in the slightest.

Coverage that I got at my place had Ince as pundit and he looked disappointed that foul wasn't given. Was almost about to cry. Tim Sherwood was much more interested in talking about game but Ince just wouldn't let go. They discussed that for entire post match review show

 

[TMDaines]

Probably, but I didn't think it was a foul in real-time, and don't think it was at the threshold for VAR to intervene and overturn it. I don't think the referee would have been sent to the monitor at the Euros, for example.

 

[Red_toad]

And the Dan James sliding challenge on Trincao - completely ignored by Var

We were lottery winner's lucky yesterday

Don’t think Trincao was on the pitch when James smashed into him. So wouldn’t have been a penalty.

 

[House Mkhitaryan]

Never a foul. The slightest bit of contact didn't impede Neves at all. He then took 2 steps looked at the ref and threw himself to the ground when he realized he wasn't going to be able to break as the ball was out of his reach. IMO, yellow for simulation, yellow for excessive whinging and he should have been off.

 

[TMDaines]

Don’t think Trincao was on the pitch when James smashed into him. So wouldn’t have been a penalty.

Still a penalty if it happens off the pitch and if the nearest point of the pitch is in the penalty area.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Was a free kick given for this?

 

[youmeletsfly]

Never a foul. The slightest bit of contact didn't impede Neves at all. He then took 2 steps looked at the ref and threw himself to the ground when he realized he wasn't going to be able to break as the ball was out of his reach. IMO, yellow for simulation, yellow for excessive whinging and he should have been off.

Considering the new rules, its kinda a foul because there's contact.

Considering some common sense, as you said, Neves wasn't impeded by the contact, both players went in, one of them arrived earlier.

 

[pratyush_utd]

Was a free kick given for this?

No nothing. After like 30-40 second of play with Wolves going nowhere, they kicked the ball outside so that Bruno could receive medical attention which he didn't need

I see some people claiming why we didn't kick the ball out on Reddit/Twitter but we scored I think within 5 seconds of the original incident so don't think Neves would have even mattered.