Premier League Thread 2015-16

I'm reminded of the fact that last season Mane was clipped twice, with significantly more contact, in the penalty area at Stamford Bridge. Both times he was informed that he'd dived and the 2nd time he was booked for it.

Consistency! That's all that's being asked for of referees, and they're not giving it. I feel a bit sorry for Palace because with the lesson of Mane's booking, Benteke should have been told to get up.
However, if no contact in the penalty area is allowed then we can look forward to half a dozen penalties per game.

Consistency in TV punditry wouldn't go amiss either. I seem to remember fairly clearly that not so long ago Lawro was wondering what the game was coming to if the mere whiff of a touch was enough to ensure a penalty. Favouritism? I think perhaps.

 

This season actually. Yes, Mane was hard done by. They should have been penalties, just as Liverpool were right to be awarded a penalty.

 

Mane was hard by! Two points went begging also, so more importantly Saints were hard done by.

But I suppose we're all to fall asleep again in sound comfort of the knowledge that it all evens out over the season. And excuse me while I reach for the vomit bag.

 

Eh? We won 3-1.

 

You'd make a great attorney of law

Someone has to speak up for the guilty

 

Think you're getting your seasons mixed up. LAST season.

 

The Mane incidents happened THIS season.

 

The Palace player tried to avoid contact, pulling his left foot back, but was unlucky to touch Benteke's foot with his knee.
There was no intent to trip!
So, why can a referee give a penalty, when their is no intent to foul, but can deny one when he decides that a player didn't intend to handle the ball?
Is there nothing in the laws about intent?

 

Well, it seems Steve McClaren will be out of a job tomorrow. Now seems a good time to check in with an old friend...

Warning: Contains swearing - of course.

 

Dr Caneiro's tribunal is starting today. If a decision can't be reached today it will go public in June. The sticking point is that she wants a public apology from Chelsea and Mourinho....club possibly, but Jose is someone who is always right (in his own eyes). Mourinho went way over the top at the time and this could easily have been avoided if he had laughed it off at the next press conference and admitted that. I suspect it then escalated behind closed doors as she considered that he impugned her professionalism....we won't know until it goes public. Hope it does.

 

No it wasn't. A lot less of a penalty than the Aguero one last week in the cup final.

 

What annoys me about the refs is, they can make a decision like yesterday, then hide behind the slightest bit of contact & say 'I was right.' People like Tom will agree, because everything in football is black and white right or wrong with no deviation. But really, all it needs is the tiny bit of grounded common sense, where the ref see's that there;'s no decision to make, and other than one annoyed (or sheepish?) looking Benny frowning at him, no one will get upset. And no one will talk about it for days to come. And no one will care. So well done ref, you bought the clever dive, you didn't read the situation well at all, & now its set to drag on for a few days.
If it is in fact a penalty, then the times up for diving, because we are now teaching players to look for the slightest contact, receive the decision they are looking rather than seek a opportunity to create a goal. If refs reward this now, it can only get a lot worse.

 

As someone who started watching football in the 60s, there is much that irks me, as a result of the changes in the ways that the rules/laws of the game are interpreted.
The sliding tackle. Back in the day, a sliding tackle was very much a part of the game, especially on the mud patches that we called pitches. You used to be able to win the ball cleanly, and if your follow through took out an opponent, then so be it. The referees interpreted it as a coming together following a clean tackle.
These days, it is different. These days a similar clean tackle frequently results in the tackler being deemed to have committed a foul, and often leads to him being carded.
Is this actually written into the laws of the game, as a foul/yellow card offence, or is it just another part of the game that is being changed/ruined by the interpretation of referees?
Either way, why does this rule NEVER get applied to goalkeepers?
How many times do we see goalkeepers slide for the ball, gather it cleanly, but as a result of their impetus a striker gets bowled over.
Outfield a follow through contact is now deemed a free kick.
Why is a goalkeeper, following through, not deemed a penalty?
A 6ft plus, 13st goalkeeper, slamming into both of your legs, can be just as harmful as an outfield player catching you with his body, which is often the case in the middle of the pitch.

 

Just seen the "supposed" penalty - never.

 

The inconsistency of the decision and the pundits' 'say something for the sake of it' was clear in MOTD2 analysis. Both pundits said definite penalty, there was contact; 5 minutes later, analysing Rondon's goal V Leicester, (where he clearly pushed Huth in the chest and muscled him off the ball) was ' good use of strength'. Now, if touching a player illegally is a foul, surely Rondon pushing Huth's chest constitutes a foul. Sorry, but if every bit on contact is a foul, please collect all the footballs in, gather up the goal posts, develop the green field into housing and forget about ever playing a game again. It is a contact sport and as such, there will always be some degree of contact. I would hate to see some of these players venturing out in a gale force wind!

 

It's a penalty.

 

Surely the laws need to reflect that football IS a contact sport? Why not have the guideline that as long as you don't go in with your studs showing, if you get the ball before the player, there is no foul, inside or outside of the penalty area. Likewise, pushing or leaning on a player without using your arms is fine.

This inconsistency has got worse over the last couple of years. Remember our first game back in the Prem, when Clyne took out Aguero down the wing? He got the ball before the player, and no foul was given, even though Aguero was subsequently out injured for weeks. Nowadays Clyne would have had a straight red. Barmy.

 

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/10195829/ref-watch-no-foul-on-christian-benteke-against-crystal-palace-says-dermot-Gallagher

Dermot Gallagher says no penalty.

 

I can't believe you are still defending this awful piece of refereeing Tom. Incidentally, the ref says he didn't think it was a pen but gave it on the opinion of his lino. You had to view the slow mo replay a number of times to even see the brush of the knee on his foot, how anyone can say they are sure is beyond belief. To say it's a defo penalty makes the ref's union a bit of a joke in all honesty. I think Pardew's got every right to be upset and to question whether it would have been given to Palace in the same circumstances.

 

This is why we all feel so disconnected from aloof refs like Tom, so single minded even when wrong, drives me crackers. Were I still playing, the red mist would descend nearly every match. Gets my goat.