| Processing yesterday 09:29 - Oct 27 with 2662 views | itfc_bucks |
Lots of positives.
Genuinely.
VAR mystifies me. Contact and the foul clearly started well outside the box. Should be a free kick.
Several times, we've got lads being taken out, NFL style, in the box. How are they not penalties? Defending players not even watching the ball - it's got to be a pen.
I've watched the Clarke 2nd yellow and I'm not convinced he doesn't get the ball.
Szmodics must start. Left side or #10, he must start.
With Ogbene injured, will we see Delap and Hurst start?
|  | | |  |
| Processing yesterday on 09:40 - Oct 27 with 2572 views | Guthrum |
I think Harry Clarke very much got the ball, judging by how it pinged sideways, well away before the Brentford player was even "tripped" (some angles seem to show little or no actual contact).
Szmodics was good, prefer Jack Clarke coming off the bench. Chaplin on top form, harrying, causing trouble and distributing. Phillips was much better, too. Considering it was a scratch team due to late injuries and illness, they did well.
Muric made some good saves in the second half, overshadowed by the misjudgement at the end (Mbuemo is a really tricky customer).
Think if Ogbene is out, we'll see same setup with Burns/Hutchinson on the right. |  |
| |
| Processing yesterday on 09:44 - Oct 27 with 2532 views | Garv |
Whether Clarke got the ball or not it's a classic piece of premier league level cheating from their lad. He just sees Clarke making the challenge and let's his legs go limp. |  |
| |
| Processing yesterday on 09:50 - Oct 27 with 2469 views | HemelBlue |
I would have liked to see our fight and phased of quality rewarded, as much as anyone but you being mystified by the examples of VAR seems to be more about you than VAR. For the penalty, the foul starts outside and continues into the box. The laws say the greater offence is punished, so it’s a pen. No question on that one.
The IFAB guidance on holding at corner, etc, is well established Although it’s open to criticism,. I didn’t see it contravened nor did you explain how it had been.
The second yellow is, unforunately, nailed on. He didn’t get the ball, but a touch on the ball would not have saved him because he has taken the player out while the attacker remained in promising possession.
We played well yesterday but came up short against a seasoned Prem team. No need to clutch at straws like this. | | | |
| Processing yesterday on 09:52 - Oct 27 with 2461 views | ibbleobble |
| Processing yesterday on 09:40 - Oct 27 by Guthrum |
I think Harry Clarke very much got the ball, judging by how it pinged sideways, well away before the Brentford player was even "tripped" (some angles seem to show little or no actual contact).
Szmodics was good, prefer Jack Clarke coming off the bench. Chaplin on top form, harrying, causing trouble and distributing. Phillips was much better, too. Considering it was a scratch team due to late injuries and illness, they did well.
Muric made some good saves in the second half, overshadowed by the misjudgement at the end (Mbuemo is a really tricky customer).
Think if Ogbene is out, we'll see same setup with Burns/Hutchinson on the right. |
What I don’t understand is that the referee has made a call and given a free kick against Clarke and given the conjecture, it wasn’t a clear and obvious error for VAR to intervene, so why did they? Secondly, to send a man off for a second yellow, which alters the course if the game should surely warrant VAR intervention given the conjecture.
The whole thing is a fking disgrace and needs to be abolished. Fans should start boycotting to make a statement. I was on a call with a German client the other day and he said it’s equally despised over there, especially what happened to them against Spain.
On Muric, I thought he was atrocious yesterday. Fluffed a kick that he got lucky on, he was pathetic on the penalty with such a straight run up, he could have given away a penalty for his push and this is all without the error at the death. I’ve seen players throw games and do less obvious harm. Walton in. | | | |
| Processing yesterday on 09:54 - Oct 27 with 2430 views | EastTownBlue |
It doesn’t matter where the foul begins, it never has. The only difference is that VAR gets involved in these matters.
I’ve seen a few calls regarding Hirst and Delap starting but that provides little in the way of bench options for later in the match. | | | |
| Processing yesterday on 10:04 - Oct 27 with 2353 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Processing yesterday on 09:50 - Oct 27 by HemelBlue |
I would have liked to see our fight and phased of quality rewarded, as much as anyone but you being mystified by the examples of VAR seems to be more about you than VAR. For the penalty, the foul starts outside and continues into the box. The laws say the greater offence is punished, so it’s a pen. No question on that one.
The IFAB guidance on holding at corner, etc, is well established Although it’s open to criticism,. I didn’t see it contravened nor did you explain how it had been.
The second yellow is, unforunately, nailed on. He didn’t get the ball, but a touch on the ball would not have saved him because he has taken the player out while the attacker remained in promising possession.
We played well yesterday but came up short against a seasoned Prem team. No need to clutch at straws like this. |
Odd post. All the footage suggests Clarke got the ball. | | | |
| Processing yesterday on 10:10 - Oct 27 with 2314 views | itfc_bucks |
| Processing yesterday on 09:54 - Oct 27 by EastTownBlue |
It doesn’t matter where the foul begins, it never has. The only difference is that VAR gets involved in these matters.
I’ve seen a few calls regarding Hirst and Delap starting but that provides little in the way of bench options for later in the match. |
I hear you and raise "clear and obvious error"?
Further, why was the referee not sent to the monitor to review it? | | | |
| Processing yesterday on 10:21 - Oct 27 with 2272 views | EastTownBlue |
| Processing yesterday on 10:10 - Oct 27 by itfc_bucks |
I hear you and raise "clear and obvious error"?
Further, why was the referee not sent to the monitor to review it? |
Re the no onfield review, from the IFAB VAR protocol:
“ For factual decisions e.g. position of an offence or player (offside), point of contact (handball/foul), location (inside or outside the penalty area), ball out of play etc. a ‘VAR-only review’ is usually appropriate but an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) can be used for a factual decision if it will help manage the players/match or ‘sell’ the decision (e.g. a crucial match-deciding decision late in the game)”. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Processing yesterday on 10:27 - Oct 27 with 2246 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Processing yesterday on 10:21 - Oct 27 by EastTownBlue |
Re the no onfield review, from the IFAB VAR protocol:
“ For factual decisions e.g. position of an offence or player (offside), point of contact (handball/foul), location (inside or outside the penalty area), ball out of play etc. a ‘VAR-only review’ is usually appropriate but an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) can be used for a factual decision if it will help manage the players/match or ‘sell’ the decision (e.g. a crucial match-deciding decision late in the game)”. |
Thing is, location is not a factual decision in this sort of situation, because it depends entirely on what the ref saw as a a foul. Contact continued, but did the foul?
I think it probably did in this instance, but it is just nonsense to suggest its like a line decision and therefore one for var to simply deal with, without reference to a referee. | | | |
| Processing yesterday on 10:41 - Oct 27 with 2160 views | ibbleobble |
| Processing yesterday on 10:21 - Oct 27 by EastTownBlue |
Re the no onfield review, from the IFAB VAR protocol:
“ For factual decisions e.g. position of an offence or player (offside), point of contact (handball/foul), location (inside or outside the penalty area), ball out of play etc. a ‘VAR-only review’ is usually appropriate but an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) can be used for a factual decision if it will help manage the players/match or ‘sell’ the decision (e.g. a crucial match-deciding decision late in the game)”. |
Surely a penalty review at 2-2 is helping to “manage the match”!? | | | |
| Processing yesterday on 12:32 - Oct 27 with 2034 views | Plums |
IFAB Law 12
'If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.'
MOTD - despite all their faults did say 'Clarke didn't let go in time'. Unfortunately for Harry, it was clearly a penalty. I thought the second yellow was harsh and the OG also. If he had stopped the ball in that instance, he'd have seen a straight red for handball. |  |
| |
| Processing yesterday on 14:18 - Oct 27 with 1910 views | bournemouthblue |
The more I am seeing, the more I wonder if Delap could play on the left and Omari on the right potentially
Delap generally drifts to the left on attacks any way, that's my thinking |  |
| |
| Processing yesterday on 20:17 - Oct 27 with 1691 views | HemelBlue |
| Processing yesterday on 10:04 - Oct 27 by redrickstuhaart |
Odd post. All the footage suggests Clarke got the ball. |
Ermmm, ‘suggests he got the ball’. Even your starting point is not very emphatic; thanks for proving the point. The unbiased commentators on every clip conclude Potter got there first and Clarke took him out at speed. That is a booking every single time someone steams in like that and cleans out the man. Case study of what not to do when on a yellow. We’re falling into the trap of blaming refs for our own mistakes here. | | | |
| Processing yesterday on 20:19 - Oct 27 with 1677 views | HemelBlue |
| Processing yesterday on 12:32 - Oct 27 by Plums |
IFAB Law 12
'If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.'
MOTD - despite all their faults did say 'Clarke didn't let go in time'. Unfortunately for Harry, it was clearly a penalty. I thought the second yellow was harsh and the OG also. If he had stopped the ball in that instance, he'd have seen a straight red for handball. |
When people complain about the refs, they rarely know the laws. Informed posts like yours get no response. Nicely done though | | | |
| Processing yesterday on 22:29 - Oct 27 with 1528 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Processing yesterday on 20:17 - Oct 27 by HemelBlue |
Ermmm, ‘suggests he got the ball’. Even your starting point is not very emphatic; thanks for proving the point. The unbiased commentators on every clip conclude Potter got there first and Clarke took him out at speed. That is a booking every single time someone steams in like that and cleans out the man. Case study of what not to do when on a yellow. We’re falling into the trap of blaming refs for our own mistakes here. |
What a load of millet-smelling bollox. Nobody was cleaned out. Clarke got the ball first. The bloke literally swan dived. Go look at the footage properly. | | | |
| Processing yesterday on 06:17 - Oct 28 with 1349 views | franz_tyson |
I didn't think it was a second yellow, but thought it was a,penalty. Contact was outside the box, but I thought the lad did "appear" to be strong when there was first contact and when he eventually went down in the box Clarke was all over him. Hindsight and all that but Clarke should have let go when he reached the box and set himself to have a second nibble when the lad was ready to cross or shoot. Clumsy, naive and no complaints from me about a penalty.
Scored 3 away goals and nearly got a draw with 10 men so can take a few positives.... as long as we can work on the negatives. | | | |
| Processing yesterday on 07:27 - Oct 28 with 1229 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Maybe you should Google ‘laws of the game of association football’ and ‘guidelines for VAR intervention in English Premier League’ ?
I’m not sure you’d enjoy football more if you understood what you are looking at - but clearly from what you say it might help. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
