Was it a foul?

[Lost bear]

I've been amused to see on MotD that they admired the Burnley and Leeds game for its leniency towards a series of rough challenges that weren't penalised as nobody was hurt, but that's after they've overreacted to this one.

There isn't much contact, and even if there is the ref can play advantage as Neves wins the ball. The ref doesn't then have to compensate for him passing it to a United player because he didn't control it well enough in his aggressive challenge.

And play doesn't have to stop for a player pretending to be injured when he isn't, for tactical reasons while his team are under attack. When the ploy of kicking it out for the opposition first appeared, it was good sportsmanship, but now too many people are cynically trying to exploit it by faking at well-chosen moments. I wonder what proportion of fake injuries happen just after possession turns over.

Anyone But United.

I feel like British and Irish fans are somewhat numb to it, because I found it really startling. I just thought all commentators were brutal critics, then I saw a Liverpool match, and they were praising every tiny thing. It seemed surreal, but some United supporters on here denied there was any media bias!

Ah ok, thanks Beans. I’m amazed at the blatantly of it, still after all these years.

 

[Red_toad]

Still a penalty if it happens off the pitch and if the nearest point of the pitch is in the penalty area.

Ah well seen plenty of players getting slammed after taking shots within the box that go wide or are saved. Refs generally don’t give a shite what happens to the attacker unless they’re in the process of shooting or crossing. There was zero appealing going on, so I can see why no one noticed it and the ref played on.

 

[GifLord]

Was a free kick given for this?

Nothing was given

 

[Foxbatt]

If a tackle is made in the box and someone stays on his feet he is praised. The tackle is made and Neves stays on his feet. I don't know what the rule is if someone kicks and the studs brush the opposing players shorts or socks.

 

[Shimo]

One thing is obvious from the poll results - that c60% of the car have never played the game!

Foul all day long

(As was the one last week on Fernandes in build up to their goal. You win some, you lose some. Will be more of these the next few weeks, and will increase inconsistency between refs)

Not the way Dean called the game yesterday. There was contact all over the pitch by them and even a couple by us - the James incident and then there was the one on Sacho on the sideline and on Bruno. There was contact yes, it was slight, Dean was looking right at it and at the time and he called it how he called rest of the game.

Looking it in at without the overall context of the game or how they are calling games this season so far, then yes it would be a foul.

 

[TheReligion]

Not the way Dean called the game yesterday. There was contact all over the pitch by them and even a couple by us - the James incident and then there was the one on Sacho on the sideline and on Bruno. There was contact yes, it was slight, Dean was looking right at it and at the time and he called it how he called rest of the game.

Looking it in at without the overall context of the game or how they are calling games this season so far, then yes it would be a foul.

I think that's a fair point as I'd forgotten the Neves one on Bruno where he left his foot in and it could have been a penalty kick.

 

[pratyush_utd]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Zoo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[stretford_oslo]

Obviously it was a foul and we were lucky, saying otherwise is just silly.

 

[TheReligion]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Are you Lockhursts mate?

 

[GifLord]

 

[lex talionis]

Not a foul, ridiculous to suggest that it was, but if we’re looking for a missed foul in the game go back to the cage-fighting contact by I think Dan James in the play that led to the Wan-Bissaka goal clearance.

Yes, the ball had been played before the contact but if you want to see a foul that we got away with that’s your ticket.

 

[sullydnl]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Pretty much my thoughts. A foul but not one that warranted VAR intervention to disallow the goal given the way VAR works and Neves' reaction likely counted against him too.

Though in general terms it's not good that the referee's initial decision carries so much weight. You could have literally identical incidents with different outcomes based on whether the ref saw contact but didn't think it was a foul or happened to miss that there was contact. Even if the ref spots the contact the VAR should be able to say "yeah you're right there was contact but you might want to look at it again anyway as you may have misjudged the situation".

In this case that's not our problem though.

 

[Offsideagain]

I was taught at school that what the Ref says is the Law, mind you that was Rugby. Fernandinho gets away with stuff like this every week. The ABU’s were out in force again on pundit central. MOTD is a waste of air time especially with Jenas on. Mike Dean deemed it as not a foul as he deemed Tevez kicking Joey Barton up the arse not a foul in the infamous City v QPR game all those years ago when he did deem Barton lashing out at Tevez a foul.

 

[Maticmaker]

How many times do ex-players and other pundits ask for consistency?

Look at the position of the ref, almost identical view he had with the Pogba challenge later. Dean didn't give this, so he didn't give the later one...that's consistency isn't it............ even if (as many feel) consistently wrong!!

 

[MackRobinson]

It was a foul, but not clear enough to overturn the original non-call.

 

[spiriticon]

Mike Dean was in the mood to let everything go yesterday, he basically allowed Wolves to rough house us in the first half.

For the pundits to be going on and on about a foul which is 'maybe yes, maybe no' is a little OTT when there were so many fouls on us which weren't called.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

The more I think about it the more I am inclined to say Neves hit Pogba's foot with his shinpad via his kicking motion.

 

[Beans]

Obviously it was a foul and we were lucky, saying otherwise is just silly.

It was obviously contact, I'm not sure it was a foul. It looks like a cleat grazes the sock and pulls it and the pad slightly to the side. If that was Pogba's hand on an arm we'd never consider a slight brush as a foul. Should it be a foul because it's a cleat? I honestly don't know if there's a rule that says a slight scrape of a passing cleat is a foul.

 

[makcikkaulawa]

All in all, its a cow point.. its moot..

And also, it will always, ALWAYS.... evens itself out throughout the season...
its long season guys, some decision will be ours and some isn't...

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[alexthelion]

The rules say it was a foul.

No they don't, if there's only minimal contact play goes on.

There was only minimal contact, therefore under new rules this season, no foul.

 

[r1z3mu]

No they don't, if there's only minimal contact play goes on.

There was only minimal contact, therefore under new rules this season, no foul.

So if I understand it correctly now players can go into tackle both feet studs up and as long as opposing player avoids contact (let's say jumps high) it's not considered a foul and game should continue? Isn't it dangerous play?

 

[The Brown Bull]

No they don't, if there's only minimal contact play goes on.

There was only minimal contact, therefore under new rules this season, no foul.

Did Xhaka make contact with Cancelo? Don’t think so.
Roy Keane, Robbie Keane, Sourness, Dion Dublin & Jermaine Jenas all said it was a foul.

 

[Fox outside the box]

This.

You need some luck though so we take it and move on. Wolves look a pretty good side and could have beaten us easily.

Yep, no idea why people act surprised either. Can only assume they only really keep tabs on United. Wolves away is a tough fixture and they've started the season really well. We had plenty of these games under Fergie, you've got to take your points and move on. Especially when we've still got a number of players playing their way to match fitness or not available at all.

 

[sullydnl]

No they don't, if there's only minimal contact play goes on.

There was only minimal contact, therefore under new rules this season, no foul.

If a tackle is deemed dangerous enough you can get a red card even if there's no contact at all with the player, let alone have a foul awarded against you for minimal contact. It's context dependent, there isn't a blanket rule that minimal contact means no foul.

 

[romufc]

What I want to see is consistency but along with pundits and MOTD and Sky Sports, there seems to be none.

Alot of time discussing the Pogba foul but not one mention of the Bruno one. It is clear and simple there is an agenda against United.

What is more worrying is that Souness was implying that Pogba wanted to injure Neves, that is quite shallow coming from a pundit, just because you hate a player, Its not right to accuse someone for intentionally injuring someone when its clear he didn't.

I recall watching the analysis and Souness was saying If someone was to injure someone, thats exactly how to do it, then called it a leg breaker when Pogba made no contact?

 

[The Brown Bull]

If a tackle is deemed dangerous enough you can get a red card even if there's no contact at all with the player, let alone have a foul awarded against you for minimal contact. It's context dependent, there isn't a blanket rule that minimal contact means no foul.

This