That's the exact phrase that stood out to me. They don't both come in high at all. What's the likelihood of ever getting the VAR to explain statements like this on that Howard Webb show, whatever it is.
Article on sky from going through the comments and specifically the 2 points of doku winning the ball first and then both coming in high and pretty just falling total bs on it. As said, wining the ball means nothing as we’ve seen numerous times this season where players penalised for follow through. Even then Max is first to touch the ball with his chest anyway. And the ‘both come in high’ comment being nonsense given Mac is pretty much both feet on the ground, other than ducking now sure exactly hiw he’s meant to get lower! Will be nothing else said about it from pgmol and move on and same thing will happen in a few weeks time and a foul will be given no doubt.
I follow him on tic-toc; he comes out with some stickers at times but he's been on the money when it comes to this season's refereeing
Plus a high foot (when the opponent is challenging) is endangering the opponent and an automatic free-kick.
Wasn’t the ball played through to Grealish? He’s only going to get it, stop, go backwards, stop again, let the whole team get back goal side, wait some more, go to move… then stop, then pass the ball backwards anyway.
I went and had a look on YouTube to see what you were referring to. Ref plays advantage then blows as Haaland is passing to Grealish who may or may not go on to score. Other than Hooper is just totally incompetent full stop, he may have thought Grealish was offside or that 2v1 suddenly didn't look like an advantage. Compared to our contentious decisions, this falls short.
Still contentious. And only one decision. If City had some fans I'm sure they'd come on here and point out others.
Not as contentious as a legit goal ruled out or deliberate handball in one game and dangerous high kick in another being deemed ok. One of those was outrageous and the other two went directly against the laws of the game. Did the city one go against any laws?
he appeared to play the advantage and then change his mind very late .It did look a weird decision but naturally i just laughed ,
It was a weird decision but they happen often. Weird or not, it didn't go against the laws of the game as far as I know. We've seen referees play advantage and then call it back for the free kick. He's a terrible referee anyway, who knows what he saw to make him change his mind.
I'm not trying to compare them. I agree that we've had some really bad decisions against us and that it feels like we've been net disadvantaged, while City haven't. But I don't think you can say that City have had nothing against them and that was one that sprang to mind.
I don't mean exactly the same, just weird decisions in general.There was a weird decision a few weeks ago, can't remember who but offside was given and neither the linesman nor VAR saw the player way over at the corner flag keeping the player well on. The Forest game with two drop ball situations, both strange decisions to make and both against the laws for what should have happened in each case. Has anyone said what law Hooper ignored?
