The Premier League Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
SaintinNZ said:
I'm not sure what you mean. I think you're agreeing with me? Still the fact that the ref went to the monitor and reviewed a penalty but didn't for our sending off boils my beans. Identical scenarios except if anything Bailly was lucky to connect with the ball, vesty was much better timed.
Click to expand...

My point is that you should be looking at the onfield referees. They were the reason for the different decisions.

Our referee saw everything he needed to live. And he messed the decision right up! Aim your anger at him - it was awful from him.

Whereas tonight, the referee didn't see everything he needed to. He (apparently) missed the touch on the ball. Once the VAR informed him of that, there was reason for him to review his original decision. What he saw on the replays was different he what he thought he saw live.
 
tomw24 said:
How has Taylor not given the foul and sent off McTominay there?
Click to expand...

I hate to say this, Tom, but I think he realised it was McTominay and that if he gave the foul, he would have no option but to book him and send him off, as he’d just booked him.
I always look at that kind of challenge and think would it be given outside the area? The answer was clearly “yes” even though McTominay slipped, he rugby tackled Mane ......
Ridiculous decision .....
 
st_brendy said:
Our referee saw everything he needed to live.
Click to expand...

Hmm, ..isn't that arguable?

If the referee in our game gone to review the VAR he would have had a very different perspective on the incident just like the ref in the ManU game did. Yet he was never called to have a look even though it WAS a clear an obvious error. The rescinding confirmed that.

Anyway, that's the inconsistency I was frustrated by. Not picking a fight, just not sure how you know what the ref did or didn't see. To me thats what VAR should be used for and it isnt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davecg69 and ChilcoSaint
Liverpool look like getting a CL placed when their performance over the course of the season has not really warranted this. I would much prefer teams like West Ham and Leicester City qualify. I would prefer to see City, Utd, Leicester and West Ham get the top four spots. Leicester will hopefully finish third. Neither Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs nor Chelsea have been consistent enough in 20/21 to be considered "Top six." Chelsea's fortunes have been transformed and look like being back to their best but they were poor under Lampard.
 
Ian Thumwood said:
Liverpool look like getting a CL placed when their performance over the course of the season has not really warranted this. I would much prefer teams like West Ham and Leicester City qualify. I would prefer to see City, Utd, Leicester and West Ham get the top four spots. Leicester will hopefully finish third. Neither Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs nor Chelsea have been consistent enough in 20/21 to be considered "Top six." Chelsea's fortunes have been transformed and look like being back to their best but they were poor under Lampard.
Click to expand...
West Ham can go **** themselves. I would be delighted if a Saints win on the last day made them miss out on Europe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RedandWhiteManofKent, SaintStu, MIsaints and 2 others
Paddy Podped said:
Presumably an extra one will open up after the FA Cup final thought?
Click to expand...

Yes. There's no realistic chance that the winner of Chelsea-Leicester will finish outside the top six (it's not mathematically for Leicester). And so 6th can be considered a EL spot. So West Ham haven't dropped out yet. Unfortunately.
 
SaintinNZ said:
Hmm, ..isn't that arguable?

If the referee in our game gone to review the VAR he would have had a very different perspective on the incident just like the ref in the ManU game did. Yet he was never called to have a look even though it WAS a clear an obvious error. The rescinding confirmed that.

Anyway, that's the inconsistency I was frustrated by. Not picking a fight, just not sure how you know what the ref did or didn't see. To me thats what VAR should be used for and it isnt.
Click to expand...

Because that is what was reported.

Technically, the rescinding doesn't confirm it was an obvious error. Merely that it was an error. The threshold for a red card to be successfully appealed is lower than for a red card to be reviewed by VAR. But here it makes no difference, because it was an obvious error!

There's absolutely a debate to be had about what VAR should and shouldn't be used for, and how it should be used. For example, if the power was exclusively in the hands of the VAR (which it currently isn't), then I imagine the Vestergaard red would have been overturned - because the VAR would have been able to ignore the fact that the referee saw the touch. However, based on how VAR is currently used, what the referee sees (or doesn't see) has a monumental impact on whether VAR gets involved.

I'm not trying to pick either by the way. Just trying (but maybe failing) to explain the process. Maybe we leave it there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaintinNZ
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back