Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

Cliche Guevara

Full Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
3,762
Location
Inverness
Interestingly BT clearly showed a clip of the referee looking at the angle he decided it wasn’t a penalty from.

Funnily enough BT never once showed the angle the referee was looking from in their analysis. Why on earth not?

I think from the angle on the monitor the ref was looking at he’s convinced Bruno has toed the ball away and then the player after. He gets a clear view only from that angle. An angle BT never showed.

He hasn’t then deemed the tackle infringed any of the game’s laws.
 

limerickcitykid

There once was a kid from Toronto...
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
13,239
Location
East end / Oot and aboot
The rules. Should I be seriously concerned about the way people's logic works on here?

Here are the rules: https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
  • A foul is 100% in context of 'contact with the player'. No mention at all to do with the ball
  • Winning the ball is irrelevant, as it is literally not relevant. It's not even mentioned.
  • You and others are talking about 'dangerous' when that also is irrelevant. The terms are 'careless, reckless or excessive'
It's there in black and white, if one can read.
As per your own link:

  • Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
  • Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
It's right there in black in white, if one can read. The definitions of reckless and excessive force specifically mention being 'dangerous'. So 'dangerous' or endangering an opponent is completely relevant and specifically mentioned in the laws.

Should I be concerned about the way your logic works on reading your own links?
 

prateik

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
37,205
Was no more of a penalty than the one on Martial....in fact it was less because Bruno actually looked like he touched the ball. I wouldn’t be against both being given.
Yep.. The one on Martial was just the same level (strength) of contact with no intention of playing the ball.. If anything, that should be punished more harshly.. and no .. I dont think that was a pen.

Neither were..

Just touching a player with the foot isnt a foul.. a shirt tug does a lot more to impede a running player than someone grazing a standing players foot.. Someone running full pelt.. that's a different story.. but not when someone is pretty much stationary.. that contact does nothing..
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
27,531
Yep. I thought he'd touched it as well.

The one in the Villa game was a bit more straight forward but that was another slight touch then crunching the man.
It definitely wasn’t a crunch, it was a slight tap on the shin after he played the ball. The contact was nowhere near enough to warrant it being excessive force which could have made it a pen, so for me no penalty.

for some reason people seem to think any touch in the penalty area = automatic penalty? That’s just not the case
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
2,766
Bit weird that none of the talk from the commentators or pundits is about whether or not Bruno touched the ball. They just focused on whether there was contact between legs, which there clearly was.

The refs need to be mic’d up. I’m convinced if people were able to hear why it was over turned it would be easier to accept. All the focus would have shifted from “was there contact” to “did Bruno touch the ball first”. It would have cut 90% of the debate that’s being had.
 

Pink Moon

Full Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
7,363
Location
Glasgow
Supports
Celtic
Tonight was poor and he was on VAR for the ridiculous Pickford-van Dijk assault and invisible Mane offside in the Merseyside derby too but he was also on VAR for this:



He felt that wasn't a red card...

It's no wonder the standard of officiating in the Premier League is at an all time low when bums like this guy are getting big jobs.
 

Bobski

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
3,958
Ultimately I would suggest that the only thing that matters with VAR is if what it adds to the game is worth what it takes away.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
27,531
Yep.. The one on Martial was just the same level (strength) of contact with no intention of playing the ball.. If anything, that should be punished more harshly.. and no .. I dont think that was a pen.

Neither were..

Just touching a player with the foot isnt a foul.. a shirt tug does a lot more to impede a running player than someone grazing a standing players foot.. Someone running full pelt.. that's a different story.. but not when someone is pretty much stationary.. that contact does nothing..
Amen! Convenient how BT haven’t said a peep about it :lol: the agenda is ridiculous. They’re so desperate for some united headlines.
 

Verminator

Full Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
6,860
Location
N3404 The Island of Manchester United
All big decisions correct for me. Their overturned penalty was simulation. Bruno nicks the ball, there's minimal contact afterwards and the lad flops. There's certainly no "full pelt" kick. It looks even worse in slowmotion as you can see the delay between the challenge and the reaction. I wouldn't have been surprised if the referee stuck with his initial decision, but I think it would've been wrong. The one on Martial was similar, he feels something and reacts rather than him actually being fouled. Also not a penalty.

Definite handball by West Brom, he moves his hand upwards towards the ball. Its handball under the older rules, nevermind the new stricter rules.

Retake was justified. He lunged a yard off his line.


Luck was on our side, but we hardly robbed them.
This. 100%
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
27,531
Bit weird that none of the talk from the commentators or pundits is about whether or not Bruno touched the ball. They just focused on whether there was contact between legs, which there clearly was.

The refs need to be mic’d up. I’m convinced if people were able to hear why it was over turned it would be easier to accept. All the focus would have shifted from “was there contact” to “did Bruno touch the ball first”. It would have cut 90% of the debate that’s being had.
They don’t want to acknowledge that tough as there would be less controversy. They were desperate for it to be a penalty, on the first replay I instantly said no pen and I knew it would be over turned. The fact Hoddle couldn’t understand it after 12 replays makes me worry for him.
 

Phil

Full Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
10,470
Bit weird that none of the talk from the commentators or pundits is about whether or not Bruno touched the ball. They just focused on whether there was contact between legs, which there clearly was.

The refs need to be mic’d up. I’m convinced if people were able to hear why it was over turned it would be easier to accept. All the focus would have shifted from “was there contact” to “did Bruno touch the ball first”. It would have cut 90% of the debate that’s being had.
BT Sport's MO is to stir up controversy, I'm not surprised really.
 

charlenefan

Far less insightful than the other Charley
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
24,257
Christ listening to Rio, Scholes and the ref on BT

Theres was 100% a pen
They should have had a free kick in the build up to our pen
Ours was only a pen under the current interpretation of the rule

Basically just when you think you can't get any more luck in one game :lol:
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
18,775
The rules. Should I be seriously concerned about the way people's logic works on here?

Here are the rules: https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
  • A foul is 100% in context of 'contact with the player'. No mention at all to do with the ball
  • Winning the ball is irrelevant, as it is literally not relevant. It's not even mentioned.
  • You and others are talking about 'dangerous' when that also is irrelevant. The terms are 'careless, reckless or excessive'
It's there in black and white, if one can read.
I know the laws, I was, admittedly a while ago, a qualified referee. I also have watched football matches, unlike, apparently, you, which is the only explanation I can possibly come up with for how someone can argue themselves into such a baffling position to argue that contact is NEVER a determining factor in whether it was a foul or not, in fact. If you had watched even just the game TWO games before you'd have seen Michael Oliver say 'PLAYED THE BALL' to explain why the tackle on Trezeguet wasn't a foul.

What you are confusing is that there are situations where playing the ball doesn't prevent a foul being committed in some instances (as you've highlighted when a foul is reckless or uses excessive force), but the position it's lead you to adopt is a baffling one, which you'd surely realise if you took two seconds to think about what the implications of it would be.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
1,994
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Tonight was poor and he was on VAR for the ridiculous Pickford-van Dijk assault and invisible Mane offside in the Merseyside derby too but he was also on VAR for this:



He felt that wasn't a red card...

It's no wonder the standard of officiating in the Premier League is at an all time low when bums like this guy are getting big jobs.
It's a really good point - I don't understand why there's this assumption that being an (arguably competent) referee on the pitch instantly translates to being good at VAR. Surely the FA should set about training VAR specialists instead of rotating the same twats from the same fraternity through the ranks. Make the VAR independent specialists, get rid of slow motion & freeze framed replays, thus ensuring that VAR corrects the major errors (e.g. those clearly visible from a different perspective at normal speed). This is what everyone wants, not whether or not someone's fecking toenail is offside.
 

Pink Moon

Full Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
7,363
Location
Glasgow
Supports
Celtic


Another Coote masterclass above.

How is this guy still in a job? :lol:
 

Dumbstar

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
15,764
Location
Viva Karius!
Supports
Liverpool
Coote is a cnut as well as a shite anything. Thank God they took him off our game as VAR operator and put him in the Utd game instead. He would definitely be ruling a couple of our legitimate goals as offside or handball. As well as awarding non existent penalties to Leicester. I can sleep easy tonight.

The fact he keeps Ole at Utd even longer is an added bonus (1-0 against a totally smashable WBA, excellent).
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
32,749
Christ listening to Rio, Scholes and the ref on BT

Theres was 100% a pen
They should have had a free kick in the build up to our pen
Ours was only a pen under the current interpretation of the rule

Basically just when you think you can't get any more luck in one game :lol:
Scholesy was battling our corner in fairness.
 

Shane88

Actually Nostradamus
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
27,355
Location
Targaryen loyalist
"Defenders are having to put their arms by the side or behind their back to defend the cross. It's ridiculous!"

Defenders have been doing this for as long as I can remember. Why are pundits acting like it's a new thing?
 

Steve Bruce

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
601
"Defenders are having to put their arms by the side or behind their back to defend the cross. It's ridiculous!"

Defenders have been doing this for as long as I can remember. Why are pundits acting like it's a new thing?
It is a new thing on the scale we're seeing it. Maybe the odd one has done it in the past, but I certainly don't remember this being the norm.

I can't think of pallister, Bruce, irwin, rio, vidic, stam, berg, may etc etc doing it, if any of them did, it certainly wasn't a regular thing.

It's something I've noticed happening more frequently in the last 5 years.
 

RobinLFC

Cries when Liverpool doesn't get praised
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
13,793
Location
Belgium
Supports
Liverpool
It’s going horrifically wrong and is making the sport worse.

Anyone denying that has some serious issues.

I support the use of technology in sport. But I’m not going to endorse the implementation. Not even a little bit. To do so would be silly.

Hence the Trump comparison. It’s Brexit-esque.

Nobody would have voted for this shit. Promised one thing. Given a non functioning backwards step of a system instead.
I'm not denying that the use of it is making the PL worse. But that's on the PL, not on the system. VAR is an improvement for the game if used correctly, so your Trump comparison makes no sense because that's no good to begin with no matter how you apply it.

Technology in sports works and you only have to look at other sports to see that. It's how the Premier League has decided to use VAR that's fecking it all up and making people sick of it. You just have to look at the handball rules now, which are in place to "avoid any controversy" but it's causing a hundred times more controversy than it used to because it's executed poorly.
 

UnofficialDevil

Anti Scottish
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
13,898
Location
I'm not anti Scottish, I just wanted Moyes out.
Even Ole admitted we were lucky with VAR tonight.


On the overturned penalty initially conceded by Fernandes, Solskjaer admitted his side may have gotten away with one.

“I looked at a penalty this afternoon, Villa-Brighton and there’s contact on the ball and then the man,” he told BT Sport.

“In my head it might be a penalty. Maybe here we’re a tad lucky but none of them are given. Maybe the rules are different to how I interpret them.”

Regarding the controversial decision to rescind West Brom’s penalty, BT Sport pundit Rio Ferdinand didn’t hold back.

“It’s a disgraceful decision,” he said.
 

MikeKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
4,280
Supports
Bournemouth
Even if we take that as a fact, in what way was that “clear and obvious”?
If we take it as fact that he touched the ball, it's clearly not a penalty and that should be obvious. The ref thought Bruno clipped him without getting the ball, and VAR let him take a second look and he overturned his decision because he could not award them a penalty from a clean tackle.

This isn't controversial at all. If the player hadn't dived after the minimal contact it wouldn't have been unclear that it was a clean tackle, the ref certainly wouldn't have been fooled and it certainly wouldn't have been a foul. Ref was right in thinking that Bruno's tackle isn't what brought him down to the floor, and Bruno did also get the ball on top of it, which makes it a clear and obvious error.
Yeah agree with this. With the new laws it's handball, and the keeper was clearly off his line. I just disagree with overturning the WBA penalty, especially as the standard is supposed to be "a clear and obvious" error. I find it befuddling that anyone could look at that situation and decide that there's clearly and obviously not a foul - obviously Bruno gets a slight touch on the ball, but he gets a far bigger touch on Gallagher's shinpad.
It's a handball even before this season tbf. I remember a situation from when Evra played for us that was very similar to this one and nobody discussed it. Stick your arm out to block a cross and it's a foul, it's not much new about it.

The touch on his shinpad isn't what brought the player down. That contact isn't the reason the referee has given the penalty. It's his other leg that disappears which fooled the ref into thinking Bruno clipped him without getting the ball. It's clear and obvious from the replay that the initial contact isn't what brings the player down, and it was obvious Bruno got to the ball so VAR intervened. Not much of a talking point.

I'm not sure what I think about the Martial penalty. One one hand, pulling the shirt from behind always result in a foul and a yellow card for disruptive play so I'm not sure how this is different. On a different note, my personal opinion is that it would have been soft since it didn't impede Martial quite enough for me to believe him going to ground. However, I do know that players go to ground to make sure that possible fouls will be reviewed and I'm not sure that using the argument that Martial's reaction makes the initial pull back irrelevant is a good precedent. Maybe it is if it is consequent to prevent simulation, but I feel that all of a sudden going against the rulebook of not giving foul for disruptive play is quite the leap. I expected that to be a penalty and a yellow card, because well.. that's one of the things that is set in stone I feel. Every time somebody pulls the back of the shirt of someone in front of them it's a foul, and yellow card even if it doesn't stop the movement completely. I'm really flabbergasted it wasn't a penalty.
 

nemanja15

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
4,341
Location
Amidst those squeaky bums.
It’s a bit of a miracle our penalty stood, in all honestly, which is being overlooked on here. Fred clearly fouled Gallagher in winning the ball back right before it got to Mata for the handball.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
7,295
If we take it as fact that he touched the ball, it's clearly not a penalty and that should be obvious. The ref thought Bruno clipped him without getting the ball, and VAR let him take a second look and he overturned his decision because he could not award them a penalty from a clean tackle.

This isn't controversial at all. If the player hadn't dived after the minimal contact it wouldn't have been unclear that it was a clean tackle, the ref certainly wouldn't have been fooled and it certainly wouldn't have been a foul. Ref was right in thinking that Bruno's tackle isn't what brought him down to the floor, and Bruno did also get the ball on top of it, which makes it a clear and obvious error.
Of course it’s controversial. It’s not clear, there’s no consensus, and pundits can’t decide whether it’s a pen or not after watching 20 replays (Scholes).

therefore, in no way is it a “clear and obvious” error.

the point is not whether you think it’s a pen after analysing it for 30 mins, but whether it’s a big ref error that’s “clear and obvious” enough so that it should be overturned. It wasn’t.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
7,295
It’s a bit of a miracle our penalty stood, in all honestly, which is being overlooked on here. Fred clearly fouled Gallagher in winning the ball back right before it got to Mata for the handball.
that’s another interesting one. It was a definite foul, the question is really how far back VAR should go? According to the BT ref, it was in the remit. But where do they cut it off?
 

MikeKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
4,280
Supports
Bournemouth
It’s a bit of a miracle our penalty stood, in all honestly, which is being overlooked on here. Fred clearly fouled Gallagher in winning the ball back right before it got to Mata for the handball.
It's not a clear and obvious foul. It was a game where players pressed each-other and the ref had let a few things slide all game. Rashford and Fred himself had similar incidents all game where they where on their heels without getting the ball, but ref let play go on as it was not enough in it. That's exactly what happened before the goal. Fred didn't win the ball cleanly, he just pressed the other player who chose to make a little bit of a gamble of going to ground in a risky situation facing his own goal and ref did what he had been doing all game. If they're looking at small situations right before goals like this, overruling all these types of decisions for every goal, they also have to consider similar incidents throughout the game that might have led to a goal if it weren't for the wrong call..no?
 

MikeKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
4,280
Supports
Bournemouth
Of course it’s controversial. It’s not clear, there’s no consensus, and pundits can’t decide whether it’s a pen or not after watching 20 replays (Scholes).

therefore, in no way is it a “clear and obvious” error.

the point is not whether you think it’s a pen after analysing it for 30 mins, but whether it’s a big ref error that’s “clear and obvious” enough so that it should be overturned. It wasn’t.
It's really not. Just because people make it out as if it is, it really isn't. It's just because it's Man Utd and you're obsessing about it and the media knows this so they play on that making the most of it. Those pundits isn't refs, but yet they make it the topic of the day. Just because they don't know what they talk about isn't a strong indication that a decision truly is controversial. You can make out it is if you want to, but it really isn't. The referee made a decision, had a second look and decided he was fooled. Why people have to act as if they know whats inside the mind of the ref after he himself overruled his decision is beyond ridiculous. Obviously he thought he made a mistake because he overturned it, so his reasoning for giving it in the first place obviously had to be clearly wrong, or else he wouldn't have overturned it. See? That is actually how it should work. The ref is concerned about making the right decision, the pundits are concerned with creating controversy out of simple things they can't understand. I couldn't care less about the subjective opinions of different pundits getting paid to discuss a scripted topic for 10 minutes, just because people wanted United to lose doesn't mean every decision is a controversy. Or.. actually, it does... but thats whats so fecked up
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
7,295
It's really not. Just because people make it out as if it is, it really isn't. It's just because it's Man Utd and you're obsessing about it and the media knows this so they play on that making the most of it. Those pundits isn't refs, but yet they make it the topic of the day. Just because they don't know what they talk about isn't a strong indication that a decision truly is controversial. You can make out it is if you want to, but it really isn't. The referee made a decision, had a second look and decided he was fooled. Why people have to act as if they know whats inside the mind of the ref after he himself overruled his decision is beyond ridiculous. Obviously he thought he made a mistake because he overturned it, so his reasoning for giving it in the first place obviously had to be clearly wrong, or else he wouldn't have overturned it. See? That is actually how it should work. The ref is concerned about making the right decision, the pundits are concerned with creating controversy out of simple things they can't understand. I couldn't care less about the subjective opinions of different pundits getting paid to discuss a scripted topic for 10 minutes, just because people wanted United to lose doesn't mean every decision is a controversy. Or.. actually, it does... but thats whats so fecked up
no. Firstly, I’m not obsessing about it, secondly, I’m commenting about it because I’m a Utd fan.

I think it was a definite pen. For it to be overturned, the error should be “clear and obvious”, it’s not, it’s very subjective. To a large extent, it’s irrelevant whether ultimately it’s a pen or not - it shouldn’t have been reviewed, as it doesn’t fit the criteria to be reviewed.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
1,994
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
It's not a clear and obvious foul. It was a game where players pressed each-other and the ref had let a few things slide all game. Rashford and Fred himself had similar incidents all game where they where on their heels without getting the ball, but ref let play go on as it was not enough in it. That's exactly what happened before the goal. Fred didn't win the ball cleanly, he just pressed the other player who chose to make a little bit of a gamble of going to ground in a risky situation facing his own goal and ref did what he had been doing all game. If they're looking at small situations right before goals like this, overruling all these types of decisions for every goal, they also have to consider similar incidents throughout the game that might have led to a goal if it weren't for the wrong call..no?
You can't simultaneously argue that that isn't a clear and obvious foul whilst arguing that WBA's penalty should have been overturned because that was far from clear and obvious.

Both sides' penalties should have stood and by the letter of the law, the retake was correct (much as I despise the monitoring of keepers' feet).

I don't understand why so many in here are being sensitive about it - there's no shame in admitting when you've gotten the rub of the green from the refs, as Chelsea did vs. Rennes recently.
 

MikeKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
4,280
Supports
Bournemouth
no. Firstly, I’m not obsessing about it, secondly, I’m commenting about it because I’m a Utd fan.

I think it was a definite pen. For it to be overturned, the error should be “clear and obvious”, it’s not, it’s very subjective. To a large extent, it’s irrelevant whether ultimately it’s a pen or not - it shouldn’t have been reviewed, as it doesn’t fit the criteria to be reviewed.
Sorry about that. The error has to be clear and obvious to everyone on the planet? You'll find a guy that will disagree with even the most obvious things thereby making it debatable. That doesn't make it less obvious to someone else. There has to be some sort of authority, and in this context it's a single ref, a couple of cameras and a bunch of refs in a room. If they think it might be an obvious error, it might be. If it's not, then it's not. Personally I would prefer VAR to be used more frequently to create consistent decisions on situations that might be unnecessarily subjective at the moment. There is no reason why a ref shouldn't be able to make a call like this and have a second look to confirm his decision or check if he was fooled by playacting or missed something. Surely we want more consistently good decisions. I don't think this was a penalty because Bruno got the ball and the contact after didn't impede the players ability to move, he went to ground simply looking for a soft penalty when he felt the contact, because he lost control of the ball. Sometimes pundits say players are "clever" and "it's part of the game now isn't it" other times they call it a disgrace and cheating. It's all subjective, all I know is they aren't consistent in their views. Neither the refs or the pundits.

You can't simultaneously argue that that isn't a clear and obvious foul whilst arguing that WBA's penalty should have been overturned because that was far from clear and obvious.

Both sides' penalties should have stood and by the letter of the law, the retake was correct (much as I despise the monitoring of keepers' feet).

I don't understand why so many in here are being sensitive about it - there's no shame in admitting when you've gotten the rub of the green from the refs, as Chelsea did vs. Rennes recently.
I get what your saying regarding the clear and obvious bit. The way they implement it is horrible and it's clearly subjective either way. I just think that reviewing a clear direct penalty incident should be mandatory if there is doubt. It took less than a minute for the ref to jog over an make a better decision. That part didn't bother me. He overturned his own decision, which makes all other opinions irrelevant. We can disagree with the fact the ref didn't give a penalty, but the reason he blowed his whistle was the wrong decision in the refs mind, proved by his willingness to overturn it. The Maguire incident before that was also interesting as they chose to let it go, the same way they didn't give Martial a penalty for a similar pullback. It's like some decisions are cancelled out by other factors and margins of play. It's all very subjective as it always was, I agree on that part. Making every decision a talking point without knowing what the ref is thinking is dumb, but that aspect wouldn't have been any different without VAR. Refs themselves disagree a lot which is the real problem. Some even think their job is to make the league exiting like Clattenburg admitted to. It doesn't seem like those in charge of implementing VAR really want it to work, so they are just ruining football for everyone to get them on their side.

There is obviously no shame in admitting that, I just think people feel better about "being objective" than actually being objective. It's always some bias in our minds and there is no shame in taking that into consideration whilst holding your view, instead of always going the other way, going against your own club like I know some do. (not saying you do it, but it does happen) I'm clearly biased towards United but I don't think I'm wrong for it either. Sometimes I don't care as much about fairness regarding decisions of other teams, especially the likes of Liverpool etc. However, I feel like there is a definite pull towards panting United in a state of crisis. If we win, it's supposedly undeserved and if we lose it's deserved. I don't think that picture is completely true. I see a game like this and I think the team who had the most quality ended up winning deservedly, despite it being an open game and Johnstone having the game of his life. I think there was very little real controversy and on the big decisions the ref had a decent game.
 

MikeKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
4,280
Supports
Bournemouth
So basically refs are shit, and are against us but technology and applying rules means they don't get away with their bias against us

:angel:
More like refs are shit, doesn't give decisions to other teams. VAR is shit, they use fake technology to give United decisions they don't deserve.
 

ghaliboy

Snitches on Tom Hagen
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
11,031
Location
Sydchester
I'm surprised so many people think that Norwich shout was a penalty. He clearly got the ball on the way down and clipped the player, they showed it in the other wider shot.

yes I know it was west brom but they looked like norwich
 

Verminator

Full Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
6,860
Location
N3404 The Island of Manchester United
Clear and obvious seems to be the sticking point here.
The ref blew when he thought one thing had happened. On review, he had a completely contrasting view.

So, regardless of what you, I or the pundits may think, it was clear and obvious to the referee that he had made an incorrect decision.

It isn't a difference of opinion between two parties. One man has the right (and duty) to say he made the wrong call.