Was it a foul?

Pogba's tackle on Neves — was it a foul?


  • Total voters
    916

Foxbatt

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
11,680
Ince is a kunt
 

ChaddyP

Full Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
13,127
Location
Jamaica
The Wolves player took nearly 3 hours to react to the tackle. I think he reacted and rolled around on the pitch after the third replay of the goal.
Neves even said he didnt go down till he knew where the ball went :lol: :lol:


ooop it went to varane and not Adama...guess i'll fall over and cry then
 

Slon

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
6
Below you can find a new rule description:


The new foul rule, which allows the referees to see the game through the glasses of leniency, has added one more chapter to the eternal referee-manager saga.

The new rule allows the referees to let games flow and ignore minimal contact between players.”

Dean Followed new guidelines.
 

Turnip

likes to be spanked with games consoles
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
2,063
Location
the bush outside Bruno's house
I think further up the pitch and its a foul no question. His foot went over the ball, he was showing studs, he was off the ground and he clearly connected with his shin pad, that's pretty much the textbook description of a wreckless challenge. It wasn't a leg breaking challenge, but it doesn't have to be for it to be a foul. But we got robbed by the same thing last week, so fecked if I care, more than happy to nick some points in a game like that.
 

Reditus

Platman
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
2,302
I must have seen it a hundred times now, it’s a foul. It just is

But I don’t think he actually impact on his shin, I think it was all on the edge of the shin guard which was hanging out a little
 

Bertie Wooster

Full Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
1,105
As someone who thought last weeks was a clear foul then, yeah, this was probably a foul as well. But no more so than the Southampton one. Neither were given, so both goals allowed to stand under the new 'less interference from VAR' policy.

Maybe both should have been ruled out instead, but at least it's a consistent interpretation. The inconsistency will be in the reaction to the incident by the media. This will be deemed a blatant foul by a lot of the sources who last week applauded the Southampton decision, and sly digs made about it going United's way, with very little reference to how last week's went against us. Though I guess there's consistency in their anti-United interpretation of decisions.
Absolutely no surprise that MOTD did just that. Last weeks incident was glossed over in seconds with 'never a foul'. Today, the first 3 minutes of the debate was all about how it was a 'blatant foul'. And not one reference to the very comparative incident that went against United last week. Not a surprise, given they were completely contradicting themselves and it would have been a reminder that a huge decision cost United last week so didn't fit their narrative / agenda. B*stards.
 

big rons sovereign

Full Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
4,406
Absolutely no surprise that MOTD did just that. Last weeks incident was glossed over in seconds with 'never a foul'. Today, the first 3 minutes of the debate was all about how it was a 'blatant foul'. And not one reference to the very comparative incident that went against United last week. Not a surprise, given they were completely contradicting themselves and it would have been a reminder that a huge decision cost United last week so didn't fit their narrative / agenda. B*stards.
No mention of sais climbing in varane for de Gea's save.
Dion can feck off, but Jenas can feck right off. Hope he ends up on talkshite.
 

Rightnr

Full Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
4,863
It was a foul but so was last week against Bruno. And I could care less either way.
 

edcunited1878

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
6,225
Location
San Diego, CA
There was more contact in the first half challenge on Bruno when he knicked the ball at the edge of Wolves's box then got caught on the follow through...no call.

Mike Dean and VAR saw no conclusive evidence to overturn the goal due to a foul in the lead up. They can all go feck themselves because United got kicked about again for two straight weeks without protection and the one time they get a proper break, people complain. They can all do one.
 

Doracle

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
618
It was a foul but I can see why this one wasn’t given under the new regs, as it had no impact on the play and the touch was so light that Neves didn’t need to go down. Much less obvious than Bruno getting assaulted last week, which MOTD oddly thought wasn’t a foul!
 

Raveneye

Full Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
323
Neves smashes his ankle into the sole of Pogba's shoe. It's a 50/50 challenge at worst where Pogba has the advantage and Neves has to put himself in danger.

You could say that Pogba's studs shouldn't be up at all, but Pogba doesn't pose any imminent threat to Neves at the time he slides for the ball. Neves is the one who insists on putting his ankle in Pogba's path. That's an injury risk even if Pogba is tackling perfectly.
 
Last edited:

westmeath

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
1,293
Location
Ireland
Clearly a foul and a bad mistake from Dean. No intent from Pogba, he’s just a bit late and the contact is minimal so the hyperbole from the usual suspects is way off. Some decisions just go your way and some don’t. Over 38 games it’s no big deal.
 

The Brown Bull

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
3,010
Location
Dublin.
I think further up the pitch and its a foul no question. His foot went over the ball, he was showing studs, he was off the ground and he clearly connected with his shin pad, that's pretty much the textbook description of a wreckless challenge. It wasn't a leg breaking challenge, but it doesn't have to be for it to be a foul. But we got robbed by the same thing last week, so fecked if I care, more than happy to nick some points in a game like that.
This.
 

RedDevilRoshi

Full Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
7,610
Last season it would’ve been pulled back for a foul and the goal disallowed. For me it was a 50/50 challenge. Neves didn’t have full control of the ball as it went straight into Varane’s path for him to play it onto Greenwood for the goal. Neves has only won it due to Pogba’s very poor 1st touch that has presented the ball straight to his path. Pogba has gone in to try and win the ball as it was a 50/50 there for it to be won after a poor 1st touch to lose it. He’s slightly caught Neves but the contact is minimal. Studs are showing yes but it isn’t a reckless OTT challenge that endangers Neves.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
14,618
It's a foul for me. Nowhere near as obvious as the foul on Bruno the other week, but you clearly see his shin guard move from the impact. Slight touch. I think if we'd have suffered that foul last week, I wouldn't even feel that aggrieved as it was such a nothing foul. And like last week, happened quite a bit earlier so no excuses for their defense there.
 
Last edited:

The United

Full Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
3,552
It was a foul but I love the shithoustry of it and Pobga's injury at 92 mins.
 

Kill 'em all

Pastor of Muppets
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
10,263
Last week we got fecked over by the same decision. The same people on TV weren't complaining when Southampton were the ones who scored from a very similar scenario.
 

Juanuzayne

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
95
Is there an option for:

Yes it was a foul, but the same thing happened against us a week ago and the goal was given? So it’s only fair that the goal today counts.
 

The Boy

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
2,530
Supports
Brighton and Hove Albion
And is Sourness right? Can Neves count himself lucky that he isn't currently having life-saving surgery?

Poll please mods.
Souness is a tit, it was hardly a “leg breaker” which he must have said at least 50 times!

But it was a foul - Neves summed it up well, Neves hit the ball, Pogba hit his leg.
 

SadlerMUFC

Full Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
4,251
Location
Niagara Falls, Canada
The way that Pogba lunged into the tackle I'd have had no problem if the foul was given. However, once play goes on, the "foul" did not cause the goal. The ball was given away to Veranne ragardless of whether or not it was a foul. Neves tries to buy the foul and even if he stayed in the play and didn't fake an injury, it wasn't like he was going to tackle Greenwood. So while I would have had no problem with the foul being called, it had nothing to do with the goal. It wasn't like last week where Bruno was blatantly fouled from behind and that caused him to give up the ball...
 

SAFMUTD

Full Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
6,814
Wonder how many of those voting no we're asking for a foul to be given last week in that play against Bruno.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
8,013
I'm shocked there's more than a few percent of people who think that's a foul just because there was the merest contact. Didn't impede him, didn't hurt him, no danger associated with it. For me it's a dive and he should have been booked.
 

VeevaVee

despite the protests, wears Ugg boots
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
44,128
Location
Manchester
Under this new ‘letting things go’ thing, no. There was barely anything in it. By what I’d consider the letter of the law, maybe. Very hard to tell if he touched the ball by a hair.
 

Lost bear

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 10, 2019
Messages
107
Absolutely no surprise that MOTD did just that. Last weeks incident was glossed over in seconds with 'never a foul'. Today, the first 3 minutes of the debate was all about how it was a 'blatant foul'. And not one reference to the very comparative incident that went against United last week. Not a surprise, given they were completely contradicting themselves and it would have been a reminder that a huge decision cost United last week so didn't fit their narrative / agenda. B*stards.

Absolutely no surprise that MOTD did just that. Last weeks incident was glossed over in seconds with 'never a foul'. Today, the first 3 minutes of the debate was all about how it was a 'blatant foul'. And not one reference to the very comparative incident that went against United last week. Not a surprise, given they were completely contradicting themselves and it would have been a reminder that a huge decision cost United last week so didn't fit their narrative / agenda. B*stards.
The MOTD pundits really don’t like Utd, do they?

Sad ( though not unexpected) to see Roy Kean siding with the truly out- there comments of the Pogba-obsessed Souness, though. Jesus it can be hard work listening to these guys with their weird agenda.

btw, can someone inform a newbie what ABU stands for? I mean, I get the theme but am interested in the terminology….
 

NotoriousISSY

$10mil and I fecked it up!
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
15,005
Location
up north
Not sure how VAR is meant to be implemented nowadays, but in regards to a clear and obvious error...it simply isn't one.

It's a soft foul which can happen to any player in any game. If the ref doesn't give it in normal time, it is what it is. VAR should never re-referee the game unless it needs a card.

Wolves conceded because of shit goalkeeping, not because of that challenge.
 

andy0

Full Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
1,726
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.
 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
1,123
Location
Midwest, USA
The MOTD pundits really don’t like Utd, do they?

Sad ( though not unexpected) to see Roy Kean siding with the truly out- there comments of the Pogba-obsessed Souness, though. Jesus it can be hard work listening to these guys with their weird agenda.

btw, can someone inform a newbie what ABU stands for? I mean, I get the theme but am interested in the terminology….
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!
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
51,145
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
Absolutely no surprise that MOTD did just that. Last weeks incident was glossed over in seconds with 'never a foul'. Today, the first 3 minutes of the debate was all about how it was a 'blatant foul'. And not one reference to the very comparative incident that went against United last week. Not a surprise, given they were completely contradicting themselves and it would have been a reminder that a huge decision cost United last week so didn't fit their narrative / agenda. B*stards.
Predictable- they should at least say the inconsistency shows the confusion over the new and very subjective rules but nope.
Just curious whether those pundits believe what they're saying is genuinely balanced or not.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
79,537
Location
Centreback
Never a foul. He clearly keeps running after and not until he looks at the ref or the ball and realises he’s fecked up does he drop like a sack of spuds.
Agreed. He was well past the tackle without even a wince. Looks round then throws himself to the ground as if there was a snipper in the crowd to try to stop the attack.
 

Eddy_JukeZ

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
13,810
Neves' delayed reaction was a piss-take.

Either way, Bruno got fouled last week.

The ABUs have nothing to complain about.
 

Abraxas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
1,324
I don't see why Neves playacting or not makes a big difference. It's not just about the result. There have probably been examples of nothing challenges that result in a broken leg and there have definitely been extremely dangerous challenges where the parties involved have been fortunate and walked away unscathed. It's not always the best indicator, it really depends. Contact is always going to be important but it's not the only thing, you can attempt to jump over a challenge and get taken out with minimal contact - it's still a foul. These are extreme examples, but the point is it shouldn't just be about Neves reaction or whether the contact was heavy.

Also, I don't think the new guidelines are there to allow reckless challenges, they're there to stop the petty, irritating ones being penalised and breaking the game up so I'm not sure how relevant it is if the argument from those that think it's a foul is the nature of the tackle.

I think Pogba was just about on the wrong side of being a bit reckless. It's the dive in, height and stud position for me. It's not a terrible one, just uncontrolled and the wrong type of challenge to let go. I think we were lucky with it.