acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,291
Made up for it with 7 minutes in the second half.6 minutes to review VAR, 4 minutes added on as stoppage time, wonderful.
Made up for it with 7 minutes in the second half.6 minutes to review VAR, 4 minutes added on as stoppage time, wonderful.
Not at all related to the scoreline I'm sure.Made up for it with 7 minutes in the second half.
That explanation is bullshit. Shaw plays the ball off the Burnley player (or, in Gary Neville land, never touches it) How can an attacking phase of play involve a touch from an opposition player?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I have no problems with checking something that happened 11 seconds before, if it's the right decision. Shaw touches the ball first, then follows through and kicks the Burnley player). It's a foul and a yellow all day long.That explanation is bullshit. Shaw plays the ball off the Burnley player (or, in Gary Neville land, never touches it) How can an attacking phase of play involve a touch from an opposition player? That move clearly began with Maguire picking up a loose ball after the Shaw tackle.
Especially after his heroic act of "not letting the players rule the game" in the first halfNot at all related to the scoreline I'm sure.
Yeah in all fairness, a Shaw yellow is probably the correct decision if you take that event in isolation.I have no problems with checking something that happened 11 seconds before, if it's the right decision.
I wasn't the one providing that explanation.Doesn’t really matter whether you have a problem with it or not. The explanation is still bullshit. Maguire started the move after picking up a ball played forward by a Burnley player. No way in hell was that touch from the Burnley player part of the “attacking phase of play”.
And we didn’t need VAR to know this would happen. All we needed to do was watch an episode of MOTD.The only thing that VAR has proven is that even with multiple replays and plenty of time to look at stuff, there will still always be incidents in football which are inconclusive and controversial.
Now we have the same thing but with loads more stoppages and a pause before we can ever really celebrate any goal thats ever scored
Actually I’m wrong. They state that the attacking phase of play can include how the ball is won. I’m still calling bullshit but those seem to be the rules. Even though they do give the impression of making them up as they go along!I wasn't the one providing that explanation.
That is because there are many different people who all agree that VAR is shit, with different reasons to be pissed off with it every week. .People keep flip flopping about this from one argument to the complete opposite next game. This week it's too slow, before that it was 'where is the other line!?' that was too quick'. One week it's all about the integrity of the ref, not meddling in his decisions, respecting them. Now people are up in arms because VAR didn't intervene, wasn't hands on enough, and proactive enough.
The only common denominator is that it has to be a negative view on VAR, whoever makes the decision and however they make it.
That's very true. But then among them, there are a fair few who are fickle and use any argument, regardless of what they argued for earlier.That is because there are many different people who all agree that VAR is shit, with different reasons to be pissed off with it every week. .
Absolutely spot on.The only thing that VAR has proven is that even with multiple replays and plenty of time to look at stuff, there will still always be incidents in football which are inconclusive and controversial.
Now we have the same thing but with loads more stoppages and a pause before we can ever really celebrate any goal thats ever scored
Yup.The only thing that VAR has proven is that even with multiple replays and plenty of time to look at stuff, there will still always be incidents in football which are inconclusive and controversial.
Now we have the same thing but with loads more stoppages and a pause before we can ever really celebrate any goal thats ever scored
But Friend saw Shaw’s tackle and didn’t think it was a foul. They made him watch multiple replays until he changed his mind. Why not do that with the Maguire header?If we are gonna go with this respecting the refs decision and only overruling him if it's something he clearly missed, then we will have to accept that a lot of these decisions that don't make sense to us and we feel the ref made a wrong call, are gonna stay.
Friend rules Maguire made a foul. VAR probably looks at that and sees contact and they go with what the on field ref decided. They may feel it's soft (as I do) but they will still see contact, and defer because it's within the realms of interpretation that Friend doesn't see that as too soft to be a foul. They may have a different interpretation, but can't overrule him on the strength of the interpretation. It's a different thing if it's something he hasn't seen.
That wasn’t what we got tonight though. What we got was forensic analysis of a foul and yellow card and nothing for a goal being scored.If we are gonna go with this respecting the refs decision and only overruling him if it's something he clearly missed, then we will have to accept that a lot of these decisions that don't make sense to us and we feel the ref made a wrong call, are gonna stay.
They didn't invent a foul.This wasn't football. The officials are arbitrarily going back in time to invent decisions to prevent a difficult and game changing decision. Shaw's phantom 'foul' and yellow card was invented because the officials were scared to send off the Burnley player. Maguire's superb headed goal was disallowed - for what? One of the worst decisions I have ever seen and yet the VAR doesn't even review it for accuracy.
I'm not sure that they even work from a time. Was it West Ham who scored a goal at the start of the season after a handball? I feel Chelsea had one was well.I have no problems with checking something that happened 11 seconds before, if it's the right decision. Shaw touches the ball first, then follows through and kicks the Burnley player). It's a foul and a yellow all day long.
The thing being overlooked here, in the clamour to judge the Shaw foul, is that the most obvious denial of a goalscoring opportunity was committed by clearly the last defender, with a knee high foul, and Friend gave a YELLOW card!For me the referee got the Shaw decision correct. Not a red but a foul and the next phase led to Cavani being fouled (which would’ve been a red) so it was right to bring it back.
Maguire’s one is harder. His arm in the back of the Burnley player takes him down but I’ve seen so many incidents like that where no foul is given. Not sure it’s enough of a refereeing error to overturn via VAR though. VAR wouldn’t give it as a foul if the referee doesn’t blow either. One of those entirely left up to the referee to decide. .
If they didn't make the ref change his mind on the Shaw foul, then he'd probably have had to have sent off the Burnley defender at the other end. Basically they were trying to avoid the contraversy of giving Burnley a red when they should have had a free kick at the other end not long before.But Friend saw Shaw’s tackle and didn’t think it was a foul. They made him watch multiple replays until he changed his mind. Why not do that with the Maguire header?
The Maguire one will only be considered as foul if he was climbing or pushing or grabbing. He was purely jumping, no pushing and no climbing on player’s shoulder, the arm did nothing and was natural position.For me the referee got the Shaw decision correct. Not a red but a foul and the next phase led to Cavani being fouled (which would’ve been a red) so it was right to bring it back.
Maguire’s one is harder. His arm in the back of the Burnley player takes him down but I’ve seen so many incidents like that where no foul is given. Not sure it’s enough of a refereeing error to overturn via VAR though. VAR wouldn’t give it as a foul if the referee doesn’t blow either. One of those entirely left up to the referee to decide. .
His momentum and the position of his arm does take out the Burnley defender though.The Maguire one will only be considered as foul if he was climbing or pushing or grabbing. He was purely jumping, no pushing and no climbing on player’s shoulder, the arm did nothing and was natural position.
To me if that momentum wasn’t intentional but a natural reaction and is just soft one (which I consider soft) then it’s fine. I don’t know may be just my biased view but being honest myself I have seen something harsher given as goal, and this one is nothing.His momentum and the position of his arm does take out the Burnley defender though.
Peters was well beaten, Harry was already high in the air with his momentum towards the ball, the contact with the arm is mostly as he's coming down. There was no advantage gained off it that he didn't already have.His momentum and the position of his arm does take out the Burnley defender though.
They wouldn't have done anything because Friend didn't initially think it was a foul - VAR only intervened when a Friend made a mistake, in your scenario i think too much time would have passed for them to go back.what would have happened after the Shaw tackle if the ball went to a burnley player, they crossed it in and scored? would they have brought it back for the foul ? or would they just have booked shaw and gave the goal ?
This.Especially after his heroic act of "not letting the players rule the game" in the first half
Yeah in all fairness, a Shaw yellow is probably the correct decision if you take that event in isolation.
What irks me the most is it was against Burnley - their whole game plan is putting in physical challenges all game - drawing them from their opponents in the process. Then as soon as someone brushes them they collapse like a ragdoll for that freekick so they can pump it into the box.
And I thought Kevin friend wasn't going to let the players ref the game.....