Rival watch

  • 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!
littleDinosaurLuke said:
The consolation is that I predicted a 2-1 Liverpool win.
And Spurs to draw 1-1
So I think I’m top of both prediction leagues tonight
Not that I’m bragging, you understand?
And I suspect I’ve had a fast start but it will be over very quickly :emoticon-0111-blush
Click to expand...
A Man Utd fan happy that Liverpool won and went above them? Oh, dear. <whistle>

Isak got a 2nd at 1-0 that was ruled offside, too. Utter bullshit.
You must log in or register to see images


**** picture, but I'm struggling to find a decent one. Far more onside than Rashford, for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock, humanbeingincroydon and Billy The Spur
The BBC report of the VARpool match failed to mention the mysterious added on time at all, just that the goal happened in the last few seconds. It also failed to mention the second "offside" goal for Newcastle. Anyone reading the report might think there wasn't any controversy! In the comments section there were also many comments about Newcastle timewasting throughout. OK that may be the case, but how often is all that time actually added on? I understand that Everton were timewasting throughout the match the day before, but only three minutes were added on in that match (of which slightly less was actually played!)

But guess what? All this discussion is irrelevant because the amount of time for extra time was already determined to be 5 minutes .... 5 minutes plus anything else that happened in extra time, not what happened in the rest of the match. And we also know from experience that only very rarely does extra time itself get extended at all, let alone for nearly three minutes more! So the only discussion should be what happened in extra time that caused all that extra extra time, not what happened before that. And I understand there was only one incident in which Pope went down. Was he timewasting? Irrelevant because he didn't take three minutes about it. So the ref should explain where all that extra time came from. But we know don't we, Fergie time becomes Klopp time. It's happened before. For example a couple of seasons back when the Alisson scored a "winner" in the 95th, wasn't that goal after when the match should have ended?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billy The Spur and humanbeingincroydon
vimhawk said:
The BBC report of the VARpool match failed to mention the mysterious added on time at all, just that the goal happened in the last few seconds. It also failed to mention the second "offside" goal for Newcastle. Anyone reading the report might think there wasn't any controversy! In the comments section there were also many comments about Newcastle timewasting throughout. OK that may be the case, but how often is all that time actually added on? I understand that Everton were timewasting throughout the match the day before, but only three minutes were added on in that match (of which slightly less was actually played!)

But guess what? All this discussion is irrelevant because the amount of time for extra time was already determined to be 5 minutes .... 5 minutes plus anything else that happened in extra time, not what happened in the rest of the match. And we also know from experience that only very rarely does extra time itself get extended at all, let alone for nearly three minutes more! So the only discussion should be what happened in extra time that caused all that extra extra time, not what happened before that. And I understand there was only one incident in which Pope went down. Was he timewasting? Irrelevant because he didn't take three minutes about it. So the ref should explain where all that extra time came from. But we know don't we, Fergie time becomes Klopp time. It's happened before. For example a couple of seasons back when the Alisson scored a "winner" in the 95th, wasn't that goal after when the match should have ended?
Click to expand...
Did the BBC mistake a Liverpool match for the Tory conference?
 
vimhawk said:
The BBC report of the VARpool match failed to mention the mysterious added on time at all, just that the goal happened in the last few seconds. It also failed to mention the second "offside" goal for Newcastle. Anyone reading the report might think there wasn't any controversy! In the comments section there were also many comments about Newcastle timewasting throughout. OK that may be the case, but how often is all that time actually added on? I understand that Everton were timewasting throughout the match the day before, but only three minutes were added on in that match (of which slightly less was actually played!)

But guess what? All this discussion is irrelevant because the amount of time for extra time was already determined to be 5 minutes .... 5 minutes plus anything else that happened in extra time, not what happened in the rest of the match. And we also know from experience that only very rarely does extra time itself get extended at all, let alone for nearly three minutes more! So the only discussion should be what happened in extra time that caused all that extra extra time, not what happened before that. And I understand there was only one incident in which Pope went down. Was he timewasting? Irrelevant because he didn't take three minutes about it. So the ref should explain where all that extra time came from. But we know don't we, Fergie time becomes Klopp time. It's happened before. For example a couple of seasons back when the Alisson scored a "winner" in the 95th, wasn't that goal after when the match should have ended?
Click to expand...
I don't know the rights and wrongs of this game but surely an independent timekeeper should be considered or at least some clarity as to how these decisions are made. For example in the Spurs game VAR took 4 1/2 minutes to make a decision. 4 minutes were added on. That's clearly wrong. Time wasting is an issue because teams know that the time they waste is not accounted for in any scientific manner. You will never get the time adjusted to the second because the time wasting requires a subjective decision but I think you could improve it by using a clock that stopped as substitutes were introduced and medics were on the field and of course VAR sorted out it's opinions.
 
Spurf said:
I don't know the rights and wrongs of this game but surely an independent timekeeper should be considered or at least some clarity as to how these decisions are made. For example in the Spurs game VAR took 4 1/2 minutes to make a decision. 4 minutes were added on. That's clearly wrong. Time wasting is an issue because teams know that the time they waste is not accounted for in any scientific manner. You will never get the time adjusted to the second because the time wasting requires a subjective decision but I think you could improve it by using a clock that stopped as substitutes were introduced and medics were on the field and of course VAR sorted out it's opinions.
Click to expand...
The fact the match was on BT does have to be taken into consideration, since all too often matches on Sky or BT have 5-6 minutes of stoppage time as standard when non-televised matches have 4 maximum

Not that I'm suggesting officials are under instruction to give broadcasters their money's worth...
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
The fact the match was on BT does have to be taken into consideration, since all too often matches on Sky or BT have 5-6 minutes of stoppage time as standard when non-televised matches have 4 maximum

Not that I'm suggesting officials are under instruction to give broadcasters their money's worth...
Click to expand...
I don't think that kind of stance is going to get anywhere. For a start it's just speculation and it's not likely to be taken seriously. I think you have to stick to the obvious because that's more difficult to deny. That's why I picked VAR, medics and subs. because it is possible to time these precisely. If you show that these are not being calculated correctly you have a chance of making your point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alfie Conn
Spurf said:
I don't think that kind of stance is going to get anywhere. For a start it's just speculation and it's not likely to be taken seriously. I think you have to stick to the obvious because that's more difficult to deny. That's why I picked VAR, medics and subs. because it is possible to time these precisely. If you show that these are not being calculated correctly you have a chance of making your point.
Click to expand...
When the amount of added time is already stated, yet the match continues way past that, it does become suspicious

Obviously there's time where it wouldn't be, for example a player needing treatment after the stoppage time is announced, but when the match arbitrarily keeps going questions need to be asked - especially when any mention of this is swept under the carpet
 
  • Like
Reactions: paultheplug
Spurf said:
I don't know the rights and wrongs of this game but surely an independent timekeeper should be considered or at least some clarity as to how these decisions are made. For example in the Spurs game VAR took 4 1/2 minutes to make a decision. 4 minutes were added on. That's clearly wrong. Time wasting is an issue because teams know that the time they waste is not accounted for in any scientific manner. You will never get the time adjusted to the second because the time wasting requires a subjective decision but I think you could improve it by using a clock that stopped as substitutes were introduced and medics were on the field and of course VAR sorted out it's opinions.
Click to expand...
In Test match cricket, the 90 overs are never completed by 6pm as required. So half an hour is added to try to get them in. But that’s rarely enough. So rather than play until it’s dark, the authorities have decided to accept that 90 overs means 85 or 86, if you’re lucky. Football seems to be following a similar route. We can’t add on the actual time attributable to all the many stoppages or we’d be here all night is the thinking. So games go short. If you do get a long stoppage for injury of VAR, just accept that it’s going to take some time out of the game.
As with cricket, the policy will actually just encourage more prevarication and time wasting by the team who will benefit from that.
 
Spurf said:
I don't know the rights and wrongs of this game but surely an independent timekeeper should be considered or at least some clarity as to how these decisions are made. For example in the Spurs game VAR took 4 1/2 minutes to make a decision. 4 minutes were added on. That's clearly wrong. Time wasting is an issue because teams know that the time they waste is not accounted for in any scientific manner. You will never get the time adjusted to the second because the time wasting requires a subjective decision but I think you could improve it by using a clock that stopped as substitutes were introduced and medics were on the field and of course VAR sorted out it's opinions.
Click to expand...
In the past we haven't had that someone to switch the clock on/off. Ref is too busy and 4th official is 'running ' about on the touchline. But now we have VAR officials.
They could do this 'difficult' task. (but are they independent- last night I'm not sure they were)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurf
Great news is Alonso is going to Barca but the absolute kick to the nuts ,Aboomerang is coming back to the prem according to Fab Romano
 
Not too interested in deadline day, but had a quick look at the BBC page just now (16:31) and it seems to consist of stories of players who won't be joining Chelsea despite multi £million bids. Could be lazy journalism of course, could be Chelsea's attempt to reduce the effectiveness of other teams by buying every player in the world (to misquote a Who song, "see the new Chelsea just like the old Chelsea"). I thought only state owned clubs had unlimited budgets?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll
humanbeingincroydon said:
When the amount of added time is already stated, yet the match continues way past that, it does become suspicious

Obviously there's time where it wouldn't be, for example a player needing treatment after the stoppage time is announced, but when the match arbitrarily keeps going questions need to be asked - especially when any mention of this is swept under the carpet
Click to expand...

When the added on time board is held up they say it "there will be a minimum of X minutes"...tbh I have no issue with refs adding on the additional time...I just wish more would do it.
Pretty certain our winner v Leicester last February was beyond the time added.
Has happened other times too.

We have complained a lot about teams time wasting from minute 1 against us (Watford, Burnley, WBA etc) and the biggest complaint was that they weren't punished with bookings and lots of added on time.

Newcastle were wasting time from early on, Everton are regularly doing it...maybe this will stop it.

Got no sympathy with Newcastle tbh
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD, Sucky, Spurf and 1 other person
remembercolinlee said:
When the added on time board is held up they say it "there will be a minimum of X minutes"...tbh I have no issue with refs adding on the additional time...I just wish more would do it.
Pretty certain our winner v Leicester last February was beyond the time added.
Has happened other times too.

We have complained a lot about teams time wasting from minute 1 against us (Watford, Burnley, WBA etc) and the biggest complaint was that they weren't punished with bookings and lots of added on time.

Newcastle were wasting time from early on, Everton are regularly doing it...maybe this will stop it.

Got no sympathy with Newcastle tbh
Click to expand...
The ref got 5 minutes from 45 and then 3 from that 5, though.
We all know damn well that were Liverpool leading at Anfield and Newcastle chasing it wouldn't happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock and vimhawk
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back