Just seen Lineker on MoTD saying the decision to overturn Bournemouth's late penalty was not "clear and obvious" for an intervention despite it being an objective decision for things such as ball position, offside, handball by goalscorer, etc. Therefore, clear and obvious error test does not apply.
This is what I’ve been trying to say for a few seasons now, but it’s especially worse this season. I don’t believe in the conspiracy theories and think all refs have it in against us (some I think hate us, like Oliver).
Even for sky, it's pretty crazy that they give that headline and don't show the other angle where he clearly moves his arm towards the ball.
Gallagher's take? He thought the officials made the right call. Same opinion he has on all the calls in the Bournemouth game. Do you even need to ask?!?
It says he doesn't think we should have gotten a pen for the handball.
Nah it was given in the 4/5th minute of 8 minutes of injury timeGenuinely hilarious seeing the meltdown from the ABU's over this. "tHe rEfS fAvOuR uNiTeD".
Despite the fact 3 penalites were given against United in the previous 2 matches one of which was well over the allotted injury time and drew Chelsea back level before they went on to win the game.
(Could you imgaine the faux outrage in the media and Social Media if it had been the other way around)
That was Warnock who said that.
Fair enough. the clip is unavailable in my location.
What is this... analyse all of the decisions to make it seem like United didn't deserve any of them?
Why wouldn't they? It is not like ETH is gonna say something in next press conference or the club would ask Sky to pipe it down.
To be fair to the ref, you can see why he blew up for handball. It wasn’t one of those ones where a speculative cross hits an arm, the ball was heading straight to Rashford who was about to be clean through on goal. And when handball is that influential referees will naturally have a lower threshold for penalising them.
If you ignore Gallagher’s wibbling they’re all reasonable observations. We don’t have to play the victim every weekend.
Oh yeah, I thought it was handball at first glance (thought he made a bigger movement then he did). It's nowhere near the worst decision in the world or anything.
Fecking Hell, there's bias and then there's that.
It's that Warnock lad who winds me up the most to be honest. No idea how he got himself on telly.
I think the point is why do we get this level of scrutiny?
Sorry but the last one is not even slightly reasonable. Making out that Bournemouth might feel hard done by because they didn't get a penalty for a foul outside the box is ridiculous.
Putting out some narrative for future games. Why am I not surprised.
Is that including the presenter trying to argue that it’s a penalty because Kambwala “clothes-lined” the attacker after the initial trip?
Because we are Manchester United. Which, for the last 10 years, has meant all of the downsides of being the biggest club in the country with none of the upsides!
Right. But it’s not just a little bit unfair with a consequence that our rival fans can banter us with it. Let’s forget the argument of whether it has had an effect on the decisions referees make and talk about the principle - you can see how it can have an effect on the referee’s decision making process. Any decision, however innocuous in United’s favour can and will earn them a special mention on Sky Sports. If you want to keep your head down and have an easy life as a referee it’s really fecking clear what bias you need to have when refereeing United matches.
Decisions for and against United will get scrutinised more than decisions for and against small clubs. That’s why small clubs get fecked over the most. Try being a Wolves fan this season.
I’d argue that Højlund being hauled down with zero attempt at playing the ball was more of a penalty than the Mac Alister one where Doku attempted to play the ball and Mac Alister hurled himself into. I’d also argue that Garnacho being in possession of the ball in the box and the defender holding two hands around his waist and pulling him backwards with zero chance of ever getting the ball is also more obvious.
Were either of those examples you mention referred to VAR?
Both were reviewed by VAR as far as I recall. They stuck with the on-field decision... Clear and obvious blah blah blah
Both were dismissed by VAR within seconds.
Listen, I cannot fecking stand VAR, so have no interest in defending such a godawful system. I’m just making the point that there’s a huge bias in the way football fans view and interpret these things. With Liverpool being the only club this season who have had VAR make a 100% objective mistake that cost them points (the incorrect offside call) All the rest is just football fans feeling hard done by. Which is something that will never go away.
Fair enough. Anyway my initial point was about the scrutiny which you've addressed via @Pexbo
Why does the ref need to go to the monitor and check if VAR decides its a foul on Palmer?
The defender stood on his foot.
Since when the VAR is allowed to overturn the ref and decides if it was a foul or not, if the ref hasn't seen it? Thats excactly why the monitor is there and the ref has to have the last say?
Plenty of times. The ref didnt give a foul and VAR did. They don’t always send the ref to the monitor
Nicely put. It's never going to be seen as a success as it's set up to fail. Because fans are never satisfied and that's the tribal nature of the sport.
Yeah, exactly. Even the way VAR has turned offside into a matter of inches goes against the original spirit of the law, which was really just intended to stop goal hanging. Not penalise strikers who have a fraction of a limb closer to the goal than the nearest defender.
