cyberman
Full Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 37,331
Touching a ball isn’t winning it. If you touch it but it’s still under the attackers control then you haven’t won possession and it’s a foul
That isn't a rule at all though.I mean that is another debate and one that I firmly think should be had at some point. The penalties where an attacker is running at full speed and just gets their toe to it before the defender or keeper and pokes it out for a goal kick shouldn't be penalties in my eyes. A penalty should be an award for the attacker being robbed of a goal scoring opportunity. Even a potential one. If the only way you could get to the ball first is to kick it wildly out of play or miles away from the goal then thats not a goal scoring opportunity.
In my books the Weghorst one wouldn't be a penalty because he simply didn't lose any advantage or goal threat from the foul even if the defender didn't get a nick on the ball. Thats where an indirect free kick might be a good idea.
Starts getting into muddy waters obviously as its still massively up for interpretation.
Could we argue that ball was under Weigy's control though? He'd kind of nicked it forwards and was running onto it, but maybe not under control?Touching a ball isn’t winning it. If you touch it but it’s still under the attackers control then you haven’t won possession and it’s a foul
Why wouldn’t they be a penalty? Defender caught napping and the opposition took the ball. Of course it’s always a foul and a penalty.In common sense i actually hate penalties like that Weghorst one where the defender is just kicking it away & the attacker puts his leg there. Problem is that it’s been given for ages now and for them to suddenly decide that this isn’t a penalty is just ridiculous. Worst bit is that they will give it for someone next week
Because common sense says that the punishment should vaguely fit the crime. In other areas of the pitch the referee uses their judgement when giving out yellow cards. They take into account things like how bad the foul was, how intentional it was, what part of the pitch it happened on, how early in the game it is, how nasty it was. When calling fouls they consider whether there was enough contact, did the player touch the ball, how much of a touch did they get vs how much of the player, did their team still have the ball afterwards ie. play advantage.Why wouldn’t they be a penalty? Defender caught napping and the opposition took the ball. Of course it’s always a foul and a penalty.
I don't see how that's the same logic at all. In both of those examples in your first paragraph the defender straight up fouls the attacker. I said that the defender getting a touch doesn't mean he has carte blanche to take the player out with the follow through. We've seen loads of examples where they give the foul in that circumstance.To follow that wisdom, getting a slight nick on the ball as a forward before the defender tackles you or when attackers smash the ball out of play completely out of control just before the contact probably shouldn't be penalties.
When they repeatedly look at VAR replays checking for contact, thats what they are doing. Seeing if the defender got a touch on the ball. There isn't any doubt that the defender took the attacker out. The question is, did he get the ball first. If he did, they don't give a penalty.
The recent fouls on McTominay and Casemiro were stone wall but I am almost certain that what I have said is the reason we didn't get that penalty. It was absolutely stone wall without the touch from the defender.
Any link to this interview by any chance?Sky were still banging on about the Bruno goal and Rashford being offside in an interview with Howard Webb last night.
There’s been a multitude of more controversial incidents since that one, yet it’s still being highlighted.
There is a definite media narrative against United and it’s affecting the referees in some unconscious way.
Our resident Sky hero G Neville keeping this one alive…Any link to this interview by any chance?
They were talking about Fabinho's and Carroll's tackles as well and Webb acknowledged that they should've been looked at. Some of you are desperate to make everything ABU.Our resident Sky hero G Neville keeping this one alive…
https://www.skysports.com/amp/footb...-var-and-manchester-derby-offside-controversy
I agree that sometimes the punishment does not fit the crime, and those moments will always feel unfair for someone. The problem is when the ref takes it upon himself to use that feeling of unfairness to alter the rules of the game to protect a narrative, like Anthony Taylor did against Arsenal. That was a perfect example on how refs shouldn't have the leeway of subjectivity, but rather be overruled by VAR with a firm consistent grip. The keeper pulled out of his action, yet took the player out without it being his intention. The situation would hugely favour Bruno, yet the keeper tried to avoid it. Harsh on the keeper, but objectively the attacker surprised the keeper and controlled the ball to a position he could have scored from. The keeper made a mistake of being late to the situation and that should be punished with a goal by the rules, yet wasn't because of the opinion or feeling that "the keeper shouldn't be punished that harshly".Because common sense says that the punishment should vaguely fit the crime. In other areas of the pitch the referee uses their judgement when giving out yellow cards. They take into account things like how bad the foul was, how intentional it was, what part of the pitch it happened on, how early in the game it is, how nasty it was. When calling fouls they consider whether there was enough contact, did the player touch the ball, how much of a touch did they get vs how much of the player, did their team still have the ball afterwards ie. play advantage.
Imagine if there were random spots on the pitch where a foul inside them would be given as a penalty. It would make no sense. It would make no sense because a penalty is basically a goal so the requirements for it should be high.
There is no reason to think that referees shouldn't use the same thought process when deciding on penalties in the box vs using something like an indirect free kick or whether to simply ignore it completely because the attacker had 0 control of the ball.
If you ask the question "why did the attacker go for the ball in the box when they had no chance of getting it under control" and the answer was "to try and win a penalty by getting a touch a fraction of a second before the defender" then it probably shouldn't be a penalty.
This is another one of my bugbears in refereeing. There are certain players who never get fouls and other who get them all the time. Poor old Dan James could be suplexed and the ref would assume he was just being weak. Harry Maguire only has to have a player within 6 foot of him for a referee to decide that he fouled them when he scores a header.I remember back where the conversation was that keepers was too protected and De Gea got manhandled and targeted in every other game and nothing was given. "There he go being weak again". We go on and loose those important points and it's never talked about again and the rules go back to normal. It's having the possibility of those narratives arriving that pokes major holes in the integrity of the game for me.
But despite that, and presumably him communicating those things to the referees, they still fail to intervene on the Weghorst situation where the defender absolutely blasts him in the leg. So what's the point in him admitting it and discussing those situations with his referees if it still doesn't lead to the desired outcomes?They were talking about Fabinho's and Carroll's tackles as well and Webb acknowledged that they should've been looked at. Some of you are desperate to make everything ABU.
I was not arguing that the refs are perfect but they are not crap only against United.But despite that, and presumably him communicating those things to the referees, they still fail to intervene on the Weghorst situation where the defender absolutely blasts him in the leg. So what's the point in him admitting it and discussing those situations with his referees if it still doesn't lead to the desired outcomes?
fecking idiot Casemiro.
Grab him by the throat? Of course it'a a red card.What
Watch it real time he trying to pull your man off who was going buck mad
You can drag him away without grabbing him by the throat. Casemiro was stupid.What
Watch it real time he trying to pull your man off who was going buck mad
Really? when Var ran the attack by ayew on Fred numerous times cumulating in the push to the throat and ignored that ?fecking idiot Casemiro.
He was grabbing the shirt around the neck, not choking him.Clearest red card you’ll see all season. Goes and grabs an opposition player by the throat ffs. What was he expecting would happen?
Anyone arguing otherwise needs to take their red tinted specs off.
Exactly this. VAR didn’t show the referee the whole context and all the angles. They cut it to show the worst angles and why they thought it was a red card. It’s once again bullshit use of the technology.Casemiro's an idiot, but the use of VAR there is deliberately misleading. From the other angle, you can clearly see he actually has Hughes' jersey, but from the angle they showed Mariner, it looks like he's got his hand around his neck. Which he really didn't.
Of course it's on the player being an idiot, but can't convince me that VAR isn't out to give a red there.
It's a clear red for Casemiro.I'm fecking sick of this shit. We're getting fecked by refs left and right this season. How is Case's case a red card while the Palace player that instigated the whole shit gets off scot free? Give me a break.
He grabbed his shirt around the collar area.It's a clear red for Casemiro.
How the feck can you not think that's a red? He GRABBED him by the throat!!