Rival watch

[Billy The Spur]

It`s disgusting the amount of red cards that Man United and Liverpool are let off with, just look at what the likes of McTominay and Fabinho etc get away with year on year. We all know these two clubs are immune from the majority of sendings off they deserve.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

You must log in or register to see media

Watching MOTD2 and this whole match was just rigged, wasn't it?
Red card for Sabitzer, 2nd goal is offside, 3rd goal's a foul.
Where have they drawn that line from? His ****ing hair?

 

[Diego]

You must log in or register to see media

Watching MOTD2 and this whole match was just rigged, wasn't it?
Red card for Sabitzer, 2nd goal is offside, 3rd goal's a foul.
Where have they drawn that line from? His ****ing hair?

 

[vimhawk]

You must log in or register to see media

Watching MOTD2 and this whole match was just rigged, wasn't it?
Red card for Sabitzer, 2nd goal is offside, 3rd goal's a foul.
Where have they drawn that line from? His ****ing hair?

When I heard about VAR coming in, long before it was operational (I use that term loosely) I stupidly thought 'aha, here's something that will sort out the bias toward certain clubs by correcting the bias of the onfield ref'. Yes, I really was that stupid. In fact what VAR has become is a second chance at bias. We know some teams already have a 12th man, but now they have 13. With VAR you can look at that assault today and if it's committed by ManU you can give the total bollocks they came up with to not intervene, but if it's committed against ManU and the ref missed it they can then intervene on United's behalf. Because there is no doubt that if a Leicester player had done that to a United player they would be off. See also: [too many incidents to list]

 

[Billy The Spur]

You must log in or register to see media

Watching MOTD2 and this whole match was just rigged, wasn't it?
Red card for Sabitzer, 2nd goal is offside, 3rd goal's a foul.
Where have they drawn that line from? His ****ing hair?

Yep, the technology is not accurate enough and we are relying on a clown in a studio to implement it correctly, and there is nothing to stop the VAR airing on the side of a particular club over the other. Good old benefit of doubt at work again here, and surprise surprise it benefits a team in a red shirt.

 

[Spurf]

So has VAR really cut down the number of bad calls? Judging by the number of contentious calls every weekend you have to wonder.

Football will always have contraversial calls, it's the nature of the game, so I ask, what is the point of spoiling the spectacle with VAR if it still produces contraversial results.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

So has VAR really cut down the number of bad calls? Judging by the number of contentious calls every weekend you have to wonder.

Football will always have contraversial calls, it's the nature of the game, so I ask, what is the point of spoiling the spectacle with VAR if it still produces contraversial results.

No. They've turned it into another vehicle for bias towards certain clubs.
Spurs? No penalty:
https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...as-a-clear-handball-spurs-miss-out-on-penalty
Man Utd? No red card:
https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...l-sabitzer-extremely-lucky-not-to-be-sent-off
Arsenal? No offside:
https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...-emiliano-martinezs-line-of-vision-obstructed

All clearly wrong and absolutely nothing will happen.
Where are the apologies and resignations this week?

 

[cini65]

No. They've turned it into another vehicle for bias towards certain clubs.
Spurs? No penalty:
https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...as-a-clear-handball-spurs-miss-out-on-penalty
Man Utd? No red card:
https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...l-sabitzer-extremely-lucky-not-to-be-sent-off
Arsenal? No offside:
https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...-emiliano-martinezs-line-of-vision-obstructed

All clearly wrong and absolutely nothing will happen.
Where are the apologies and resignations this week?

Penalty, yellow card, not offside. So they're not all 'clearly' wrong. All just decisions going against the team you support (objectively wrong decision) or against teams you don't like (subjective interpretation).

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Penalty, yellow card, not offside. So they're not all 'clearly' wrong. All just decisions going against the team you support (objectively wrong decision) or against teams you don't like (subjective interpretation).

No, they're clearly wrong, as are you.
You know it's a properly **** decision when even Dermot Gallagher can't defend it.

 

[cini65]

No, they're clearly wrong, as are you.
You know it's a properly **** decision when even Dermot Gallagher can't defend it.

Cool story

 

[littleDinosaurLuke]

So has VAR really cut down the number of bad calls? Judging by the number of contentious calls every weekend you have to wonder.

Football will always have contraversial calls, it's the nature of the game, so I ask, what is the point of spoiling the spectacle with VAR if it still produces contraversial results.

There is none.
And VAR is adding to the controversy because it is invariably involved in marginal calls, some of which are subjective.
Football is a fast paced game; there will be mistimed tackles, incidences of the ball going to hand and players having a toenail offside.
There is no need to scrutinise every decision. There are numerous close calls in every game. By its very nature, playing offside is going to involve decisions, which require the splitting of hairs. It ends up creating a false narrative that games were decided because player x was called a millimetre onside when he was a millimetre offside. Or similarly, that a coming together of players in a 50/50 challenge was causative of a goal scored 15 passes later because player a in fact got there a split second earlier so a foul should have been called against player b.
In lower league games when refs make decisions and there is no scrutiny after the event by a group of officials on the sidelines, players get on with things and games flow better. Teams don’t gamble so much playing a high line for fear of opponents catching them out and running in behind. There is still a place for ball winning defenders and midfielders.
It’s all part of the game.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Sporting take the lead at Chavas with this "interesting" decision: https://streamin.me/v/7c9cd3e1
I wonder where Bruno Fernandes gets it from?

 

[littleDinosaurLuke]

You must log in or register to see media

Watching MOTD2 and this whole match was just rigged, wasn't it?
Red card for Sabitzer, 2nd goal is offside, 3rd goal's a foul.
Where have they drawn that line from? His ****ing hair?

As has probably been said already , football isn’t played in screenshots. Sabitzer was pulling out of a tackle. It was probably a yellow on the basis of mistimed tackle but not a red.

Ineanacho backed into Martinez and fell over. Where’s the foul?

As for all offsides, if every millimetre has to be taken into account, then exactly when the pass was played and the position of the active attacker(s) and the defenders must be worked out very precisely. In 0.1 seconds, Rashford covers 80cm-90cm - almost three ruler lengths- so if the image showing the point of release of the pass is a fraction out and/or the lines denoting the last defender are marginally out, the outcome of the decision is very different. I struggle to understand how the VAR operator knows exactly when the freeze the frame. Often the player still seems to playing the pass. As I said, a fraction of a second can result in the image showing the attacker a number of centimetres further forward or back.
But if have to decide these things on such fine margins, many decisions will be seen as controversial. Rashford might have been a toenail offside; then again, he might not have been. Teams will have get better playing offside rather than risking the VAR toenail lottery.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

As has probably been said already , football isn’t played in screenshots. Sabitzer was pulling out of a tackle.

This just isn't true. He isn't pulling out at all:

You must log in or register to see media

Did Gary Neville say that he did or something?
It's clearly not true, so I'm wondering where the idea came from.
I watched part of the game at the stadium and there's no commentary, so I don't know.

 

[littleDinosaurLuke]

This just isn't true. He isn't pulling out at all:

You must log in or register to see media

Did Gary Neville say that he did or something?
It's clearly not true, so I'm wondering where the idea came from.
I watched part of the game at the stadium and there's no commentary, so I don't know.

Sabitzer goes to play the ball, but Faes gets there first. He appears to turn to follow the flight of the ball, at which point Faes is behind him. His foot makes contact through his momentum, having committed to playing the ball. It’s late and should be a yellow, but not dangerous play. When you watch it in slo-mo, it looks like he has all the time in the world to deliberate and therefore it looks intentional. When you view it in real time, especially from the first camera angle, it just looks like he’s come second in the race for a loose ball. Souness spouts a lot of nonsense as if it’s a given that Sabitzer intended to do Faes harm - presumably because that’s what he would have done in that situation. Neither the ref nor VAR can come to that conclusion on the footage. It’s a late challenge and a yellow because of the resulting foul in my view.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Sabitzer goes to play the ball, but Faes gets there first. He appears to turn to follow the flight of the ball, at which point Faes is behind him. His foot makes contact through his momentum, having committed to playing the ball. It’s late and should be a yellow, but not dangerous play. When you watch it in slo-mo, it looks like he has all the time in the world to deliberate and therefore it looks intentional. When you view it in real time, especially from the first camera angle, it just looks like he’s come second in the race for a loose ball. Souness spouts a lot of nonsense as if it’s a given that Sabitzer intended to do Faes harm - presumably because that’s what he would have done in that situation. Neither the ref nor VAR can come to that conclusion on the footage. It’s a late challenge and a yellow because of the resulting foul in my view.

This just isn't true. Where's Sabitzer going to play the ball to?
The angle from behind makes this really, really obvious.
Faes plays the ball away from him and then Sabitzer's foot strikes out into his knee.
What would the Austrian be trying to do with the ball with that action?
He's not going to control it or make a pass to a teammate, is he?

Spurs fans will be happy to note that the ref for this was Stuart Attwell.
Who's our ref on Sunday against Chelsea? Yep, you've guessed it!

 

[BluefromBridgend]

Sabitzer goes to play the ball, but Faes gets there first. He appears to turn to follow the flight of the ball, at which point Faes is behind him. His foot makes contact through his momentum, having committed to playing the ball. It’s late and should be a yellow, but not dangerous play. When you watch it in slo-mo, it looks like he has all the time in the world to deliberate and therefore it looks intentional. When you view it in real time, especially from the first camera angle, it just looks like he’s come second in the race for a loose ball. Souness spouts a lot of nonsense as if it’s a given that Sabitzer intended to do Faes harm - presumably because that’s what he would have done in that situation. Neither the ref nor VAR can come to that conclusion on the footage. It’s a late challenge and a yellow because of the resulting foul in my view.

Not dangerous play then?

 

[Billy The Spur]

Sabitzer did not play the ball, was reckless, out of control and endangered an opponent, the level of force should be irrelevant. We all know the same officials further down the line will have a similar incident involving a less regarded club and send the player off in an instant.

 

[Diego]

Sabitzer did not play the ball, was reckless, out of control and endangered an opponent, the level of force should be irrelevant. We all know the same officials further down the line will have a similar incident involving a less regarded club and send the player off in an instant.

If the level of force is irrelevant how are you so sure he endangered an opponent?
The man was trying to block the ball which is why he was sideways on, he also pulled out made obvious by the level of contact and the absence of any mark on the players leg.

Yes i appreciate you all want United players sent off every game but sometimes you have to let reason govern prejudice.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Sabitzer did not play the ball, was reckless, out of control and endangered an opponent, the level of force should be irrelevant.

The Laws of the Game don't quite agree with you....

Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned.
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.

Of course Emerson Royal got sent off at Arsenal for a much less serious offence.

Again the issue is that the Laws are written very badly and subject to too much interpretation. The definition of using excessive force is essentially using excessive force and/or endangering but reckless is a lesser offence. That's so unclear it's not surprising it's applied inconsistently