Thing is with VAR that's not how fouls work anymore.First one no way. Second one, I thought so live, but after the replay, it really did seem that Ronaldo initiated the contact to me and then did a pretty good dive. Third one was stonewall pen, but pretty sure the ref thought Ronaldo was play acting too much on the first two which cost him the third. Terrible officiating.
What is the current rule anyway? I mean West Ham player left a leg out there in Ronaldo's path and Ronaldo obviously collided as any player would. Does player need to be hacked down by machete or something to be foul now?The first two were not penalties under the current rules I think but that last one should have been given no question.
The only explanation that comes remotely close to making sense is that they straight-up decided to flaunt the rules and deny United a penalty because they didn't want us to score. Nothing else can possibly have been the case. There's no conceivable scenario where they looked at that and genuiely didn't believe it should be a penalty. They knowingly chose to rob us. If it had been one single decision throughout the match, I could maybe give them the benefit of the doubt; but it was so many, and it's clear that they had an agenda. I don't often say something like that, but this time it's just undeniable. You can't make honest mistakes that many times. It was a deliberate attempt to cost us points.That one was quite literally - and it is an overused word but it does apply here - unbelievable. I couldn't actually believe that a supposedly trained and qualified referee looked at that in the VAR room and said 'nah, that's not a penalty'. Were they having a coffe break? Was he busy wanking to PornHub? What happened?
He didn't change direction to make contact, his legs were there because he was changing the way he was moving to go past Coufal.Very selective of the image, he pulled the leg back quickly after that still, then you see Ronaldo slightly change running direction to make sure contact. No penalty!
Second one at the end was a penalty.
The Leicester vs Brighton game was just amateurish. Maupay clearly grabbed Vestergaard's arm as he was jumping and pulled him off balance. Seeing how Vestergaard is absolutely huge it was a clear tactic to help someone get a header in.So, just seen highlights of this week's games and there has been a mess in all the games in terms of the refereeing.
Southampton correctly awarded a pen against City, then overturned for some bizzare reason by VAR. Leeds not given one and VAR not overturning that, our match and even the Leicester match where the refs were crap.
Technically both of the penalties today could've happened, even if the first was awarded.I know it’s a bit nerdy but it annoys me when people say things like “we should have got two penalties from the game”.
Had we got one penalty, that would have changed the rest of the game dynamics and therefore there second penalty situation wouldn’t have happened.
My thoughts too, but can almost forgive the 1st. The 2nd....does he hate Christiano? Only reason I could see not to give it.Honestly I thought the Zouma was a stonewall and the other not penalties.
But after watching them back the first was also stonewall. There knees clash together and again the defender got now if the ball
They tried to rob us today.
In fairness in the AWB one the West ham players where offside so it made it irrelevant.If I understand this correctly, the refs decision about AWBs pen was so bad that VAR couldn’t overturn it. They can’t overturn run of the mill free kicks and the phantom foul was deemed to have happened before the AWB foul.
It’s shocking, it really is
Thats what I thought. I understood why the third one wasn't given because Ronaldo was falling before contact was made. But the second one seemed so obvious. He stuck his boot right across Ronaldo. The commentators thought the opposite though for both. Regardless, everyone seems to agree that at least one penalty should have been given.I can understand why the first one wasn't given. The second one, only extremely biased people would say that wasn't as clear as a day. A total disaster it wasn't given.
I'm going to disagree, not saying you're right or wrong. Just from my opinion, I think Ronaldo was more so looking for the contact as much as possible and arched the run slightly.He didn't change direction to make contact, his legs were there because he was changing the way he was moving to go past Coufal.