I genuinely don’t know anymore, I’d like someone to challenge and ask what would then make it a foul?
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Johnny Foreigner going down easy mate. Neville is a xenophobic wanker
Robbed again, but apparently he fell over. Christ.
Dean is just a Liverpool fan. Doesn't add any referring insight.
It’s a definite foul, crazy that they had Neville and Mike Dean on commentary immediately dismiss it. Makes me feel like they’re trying to gaslight the viewers. It’s an absolute stonewaller.
Refs are taking the piss
We get yellows for « dissent » if the refs thinks one of our players looked at them funny, while defenders can literally toss our players in the box without it being a penalty
We get yellows for « dissent » if the refs thinks one of our players looked at them funny, while defenders can literally toss our players in the box without it being a penalty
Never a pen on Garnacho for me
You’re allowed to have two hands around a players waist while not challenging for the ball and pull them back?
So you can grab a player in the box now then? Except if you are United playing City I guess
I was thinking this.
So often the discussion is reduced to: Is it enough for him to go down. Nowhere in the rules does it mention bringing the player down. If I smack someone in the face on a football pitch, it might not be enough to 'make him go down' but it is a foul.
Grabbing in football is a foul. Garnacho throws himself to the floor to bring attention to what was happening. However, what was happening was a foul.
Never knew you can hold players and pull them with two hands.
I've seen it thousands of times. Never given as a pen and definitely not when the player falls like he was taken out by a sniper
What would have been needed for it to be a foul for you? Would he have needed to toss him over his head and to the ground in a suplex-like move, or at what point does “holding a player around his waist from behind with two hands, preventing him from going forward” become a foul move in the game of football?
I get where you’re coming from? But is it a foul outside the box? Ignore garnacho going down just the hands holding him back.
its a clear pen.
That fact that even Freddie Ljungberg thinks so just makes it clear.
That fact that even Freddie Ljungberg thinks so just makes it clear.
Its a foul
That's exactly what I mean, we all know the way fouls are judged inside and outside the box is different. A pen given when a player is held like that, is too rare of an occurrence to realistically expect it.
I get the point that what happened didn’t lead to Garnacho going to ground…That being said there’s no way that is given without Garnacho going to ground. I’m not surprised it wasn’t given but it’s 100% a foul. He’s got two hands around his waist and literally restraining him from going to he ball which is in open play.
Given as a pen for City against us, for far less
I didn't say it wasn't a foul, just not a "foul" enough to be given a pen.
And how did we react ?
Both a pen and a dive but if he doesn't throw himself down the ref definitely doesn't give it
If it was legal to literally wrap your arms around a player and prevent him from moving, it wouldn't be possible to play football at all. You could just do that every time and stop all play dead in its tracks. People saying that wasn't a foul are completely out of touch with reality.
If its a foul its a pen. Definition of a pen is a foul in the box
Sums my thoughts up better than I did above
Doesn’t matter how we reacted, it was given.
So it should be given today as well.
And the contact against City was far far less impacting than this one
What the feck are you on about
In reality it doesn't happen like that though, we do know the level of severity is rarely the same
Yes because referees are inconsistent. A foul in the box is a pen that is the rule
It's easy to understand, if you don't get it or disagree, It's all good
If bearhugging a player to prevent him from fecking playing football isn't a pen, nothing is. It would be impossible to attack at all if that was allowed.
We all know with 100% certainty that it would have been given at the other end, as it should be every time that happens.
Bentancur scores. After booting the ball away in first half, getting booked then berating the referee for a minute afterwards. Seeing as Dalot's red wasn't rescinded and no apology yet from PMGOL, we can expect asking for our game to be replayed now because of the mistake of not sending Bentancur off?
You can see in the replay garnacho physically can't run towards the ball. Whistle still hasn't gone so he eventually goes to ground as history has taught a lot of fouls don't get given unless player goes down. How var looks at jota being brushed by dubravkas arm and decides enough contact for pen but not this sums up why var shouldn't be in use
That's more like it, I would agree with that. Garnacho didn't help his case even if I see why he did it
Can't decide if this is sarcasm or not.
There are no certainties in these imaginary scenarios tbh, referees are too inconsistent to be sure of anything
What is he supposed to do when someone a lot bigger and stronger is holding him back from getting to a ball, this is exactly the sort of thing that var was brought out for, you shouldn’t need to fall to the ground to get a free kick for you generally do
Does anyone have a single other example of a similar penalty being given? Honestly can't think of one.
But your stance is “never a penalty for me” because referees are inconsistent and often don’t give that foul as a penalty.
That defies logic. It’s a clear penalty, its a clear foul in the box, yet you’re making your personal judgement that it shouldn’t be given as a penalty because referees are inconsistent in giving it.
If you think it was a foul in the box, you think it was a penalty. Referee’s regularly getting it wrong shouldn’t factor into your objective view of the incident.
