Karel Podolsky
Full Member
I think it's a foul , more abvious than Akanji (?) on Allison a few weeks ago.
How that’s not been given as a foul is amazing really.Luton's controversial equaliser, looks like a foul on the keeper to me
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
On its own that was a shocking decision but compared to this…given that VAR chose to intervene on that goal…it’s preposterousI think it's a foul , more abvious than Akanji (?) on Allison a few weeks ago.
If they are given fouls for Luis Diaz, diogo Jota and Bruno Fernandes. Then yes it's a foul.How that’s not been given as a foul is amazing really.
Its quite clear the player isn’t trying try win the ball and backs in to the keeper. There’s zero attempt to win it. He couldn’t actually win it if he wanted to because he’s facing the wrong way and moving in the opposite direction to the ball.
Appalling decision.
Agree with this!If they are given fouls for Luis Diaz, diogo Jota and Bruno Fernandes. Then yes it's a foul.
Realistically speaking I'm not sure i would give it as a foul, players are allowed to move around off the ball I think it's up to Trafford to be stronger there I'm not convinced he was getting there either and just bought the contact.
But in the current climate of there being consistent it's should be given as a foul.
It is genuinely amazing that every controversial decision these days has a comparable Liverpool scenario which had the exact opposite outcome to benefit the Scouse wankers:I think it's a foul , more abvious than Akanji (?) on Allison a few weeks ago.
If they are given fouls for Luis Diaz, diogo Jota and Bruno Fernandes. Then yes it's a foul.
Realistically speaking I'm not sure i would give it as a foul, players are allowed to move around off the ball I think it's up to Trafford to be stronger there I'm not convinced he was getting there either and just bought the contact.
But in the current climate of there being consistent it's should be given as a foul.
Game of opinions and all that but disagree with the above.Agree with this!
Never a foul in a million years.
Players can stand and move where they want. They are not obliged to move out of the way to allow other players to get the ball. Especially not players who aren’t getting to the ball anyway.
One of those fouls that I’d be upset about if it was against us but I’d probably eventually admit that it wasn’t a foul.
Not worth a discussion IMO
People obstruct and put blockers on each other in the box on every single free kick. I’m not convinced this is much different.Game of opinions and all that but disagree with the above.
The player clearly backs in to obstruct the keeper. He makes no attempt to win the ball and is even facing the wrong way.
Probably one of the more clear and obvious incidents of this nature you’ll see all season.
For me it is. What makes it obvious is there’s zero attempt for the ball and he backs in whilst facing away from goal. It’s not a coming together based on both meeting in the middle.People obstruct and put blockers on each other in the box on every single free kick. I’m not convinced this is much different.
This one would be controversial either way. Without VAR the ref has to make a call.Another game overshadowed by a controversial refereeing decision.
Make it stop already
Again though, players are constantly deliberately blocking each other off with no aim to play the ball at all.For me it is. What makes it obvious is there’s zero attempt for the ball and he backs in whilst facing away from goal. It’s not a coming together based on both meeting in the middle.
Now I know how you play the game. Dirty!!!Again though, players are constantly deliberately blocking each other off with no aim to play the ball at all.
I get your point though! But it’s not enough for me.
Now I know how you play the game. Dirty!!!
The very same thing was being said ad nauseum pre-VAR. And the constant analysing from an increasing number of angles of every decision, and subsequent criticism of officials after every game, was the main reason why Football eventually went down the technology route.Another game overshadowed by a controversial refereeing decision.
Make it stop already
The keeper runs into him more than him backing into the keeper.Agree with this!
Never a foul in a million years.
Players can stand and move where they want. They are not obliged to move out of the way to allow other players to get the ball. Especially not players who aren’t getting to the ball anyway.
One of those fouls that I’d be upset about if it was against us but I’d probably eventually admit that it wasn’t a foul.
Not worth a discussion IMO
Like you say, game of opinions. More to the point, this is why VAR should not be used for the majority of refereeing decisions. They are all subjective and having two referees coming away with the same decision is exceedingly unlikelyGame of opinions and all that but disagree with the above.
The player clearly backs in to obstruct the keeper. He makes no attempt to win the ball and is even facing the wrong way.
Probably one of the more clear and obvious incidents of this nature you’ll see all season.
Yep. That was my thinking before it was introduced, and pretty much everything has confirmed that.The debate in here further proves VAR as it’s currently used is pointless, it’s slowing the game down, killing celebrations to make decisions on things people will never agree on anyway. I don’t know why it’s interfering with decisions that are not black and white. Football challenges are far to subjective
They can stand where they want, they can’t always move where they want… that’s when obstruction might come in.Agree with this!
Never a foul in a million years.
Players can stand and move where they want. They are not obliged to move out of the way to allow other players to get the ball. Especially not players who aren’t getting to the ball anyway.
One of those fouls that I’d be upset about if it was against us but I’d probably eventually admit that it wasn’t a foul.
Not worth a discussion IMO
All fair points. I guess the argument if the Luton player is ‘protecting the ball’ or being obstructive.They can stand where they want, they can’t always move where they want… that’s when obstruction might come in.
Not sure why you think the goalie is never getting that ball anyway. He’s moving towards the ball (as the guy who scores is) and in two steps will jump and has a chance (not a certainty) of punching it… has the advantage of arms as extra height.
I don’t think the Luton player DEFINITELY stops the goalie (not many fouls are 100%) but it’s obstruction for me which clearly stops the goalie having a chance (which he would have had) of punching that ball.
Yes I’d be p!ssed if we did it and it got disallowed but it wouldn’t be the clear cut wrong decisions we’ve had this season (and last).
Agreed. It’s poor from the keeper as he should give himself more space to run and attack the ball. But either way the player has moved to check him off the ball - that’s always been a foul.How that’s not been given as a foul is amazing really.
Its quite clear the player isn’t trying try win the ball and backs in to the keeper. There’s zero attempt to win it. He couldn’t actually win it if he wanted to because he’s facing the wrong way and moving in the opposite direction to the ball.
Appalling decision.
It's that kind of expectation of consistency with 'subjective calls' - that can be interpreted different ways by different people - that seems an impossible ask.I'm fine with it not being given as a foul so long as other, similar situations are judged to the same standard. They're not though. The vast majority are considered fouls. Judging this one by a different standard amounts to putting an unfair thumb on the scales, especially considering the timing and stakes involved.
If you want keepers to have less protection you start the season with that concept and run with it consistently . You don't invent a new standard in the final minutes of a game integral to a relegation battle.
I don't think you can call a scenario where analogous situations are much more frequently given than not "50-50 calls". There's always been a great deal of criticism that keepers get too much protection precisely because these scenarios have been called so often, not because it's touch and go.It's that kind of expectation of consistency with 'subjective calls' - that can be interpreted different ways by different people - that seems an impossible ask.
I watch cricket - when it comes to LBW appeals (which are actually provable one way or another now via technology) I've often heard them say over the years how such an such an umpire is a 'giver', while others are mostly 'not out' men. So, yes, you could say consistency within the individual - but there's no unfair demand of blanket consistency with every official somehow seeing and interpreting subjective things the exact same way.
That's an impossibility. Individual officials should be consistent within a match and week to week as regards their own interpretations. But I don't get expecting them all to see and think alike en masse on subjective calls, and criticising the fact that one interpreted a decision one way, while in a totally different match a totally different official interpreted a similar situation a different way (when both may be valid interpretations on 50-50 calls).
I don't think it is a freekick. Why? Aren't players allowed to touch goalkeepers? Football have become to soft.On the Luton goal. He hasn't moved toward the keeper with any real effect, he's just turned his back and stood his ground. Keeper was probably never getting there anyway.
Don't think it's a foul myself, keeper should have been stronger but he was all at sea anyway, but it's one that will be given as a foul on another day.
True. But, as you point out yourself, a great deal of criticism about them when they're ruled out. But whenever the opposite decision is reached, there's a huge furore about that as well. So it's very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for the officials the second a situation like that arises. Whichever decision they make, there's going to be a lot of debate and disagreement and comparisons made to decisions made by different officials in different matches...I don't think you can call a scenario where analogous situations are much more frequently given than not "50-50 calls". There's always been a great deal of criticism that keepers get too much protection precisely because these scenarios have been called so often, not because it's touch and go.
https://www.change.org/p/ban-anthony-taylor-from-officiating-chelsea-gamesJust seen Anthony Taylor trending on X from Chelsea fans. Is he up there with Oliver as one of the most disliked referees?
EasilyThat Gusto tackle is a straight red all day long.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If that was Casemiro he’d be in a jail cell by now.Easily
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Also remember all that "buckling ankle" stuff at heard around the time of the Rashford tackle? Yeah turns out that was a loads of bollocks
Complete bottle job from Taylor. How he's a 'top ref' is mind-boggling.Easily
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Also remember all that "buckling ankle" stuff at heard around the time of the Rashford tackle? Yeah turns out that was a loads of bollocks