Other PL matches up to end of February

1234568

Comments

  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    edited February 8
    Has there been a better example of VAR saying “there must be a way we can disallow a goal here”. Had they let the goal stand he would have got only a yellow.
    By the strict letter of the law they may have thought it was the right decision but I don’t think I’ve seen a decision made where both teams and both sets of supporters were angry.
    Liverpool had already lost the game and now lose one of their best players.
  • LukerzLukerz
    thornburyiron said:

    Point was Lukerz, they may have been pointless but they were in positions to have them because we were dropping back. Against the better teams they will create better opportunities.

    Teams will create chances against us, that’s football - do you expect us to go 13 games now with no chances conceded as the third bottom side?

    We are one of the worst sides in the league over25 games yet have won 4/5. Let’s just focus on the good stuff for 24 hours. 👍
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    Hilarious ending - probably the correct decision but funny nonetheless.

    My money is on the ref just sayin..boot the ball out and i will blow the whistle once play resumes,, he would not have allowed any chance that Liverpool could have threatened the City goal.

    Luckily for the officials, the nonsense all occurred in the last seconds….

    It does beg the question…what latitude to the refs have to not to pull back play for denying a goal scoring opportunity when a goal is scored anyhow…I presume the problem here is that Haarland reacted with his own shirt pull possibly preventing the goal being saved
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    Agreed teams will create chances but I think we should try to make it more difficult for them to make more of them real good ones.
    Yesterday we were 2-0 up at half time and Burnley were too poor to take advantage of our dropping deep. Last week same scenario at half time but Chelsea were too good.
    To get to the 40 point mark we will need to win nearly half of our last 13 games and some of the 13 we are going to lose so I want us to do less of the ‘come and try to score’ mentality and a bit more ‘try and stop us scoring’ for more than the first half or 55 minutes
  • EXETERHAMMEREXETERHAMMER
    edited February 8
    Win 4 and draw 2 could be enough.

    I am being positive.

    Gonna have a quick drink over the Positive Arms😁 (vibes)
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 8
    By the strict letter of the law?

    I hadn't realised that the rules could be disapplied when we felt like it.

    I would have to look up the current rules, but according to my comms, if he's going to penalise the Liverpool player for the foul then the reckoning stops there.

    Everything that happens after is as if it never occured.

    You can argue about what the penalty for the foul should be, but that would have been the end of that movement.

    There's no way of penalising Szobozslai that allows the goal to stand.

    And surely he should be penalised because he fouled Haaland.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 8
    thornburyiron said:

    Has there been a better example of VAR saying “there must be a way we can disallow a goal here”. Had they let the goal stand he would have got only a yellow.
    By the strict letter of the law they may have thought it was the right decision but I don’t think I’ve seen a decision made where both teams and both sets of supporters were angry.
    Liverpool had already lost the game and now lose one of their best players.

    Well maybe he shouldn't have committed the foul?

    You can't blame the referees for a decision the player makes. That's on him.

    Also, VAR didn't say anything about disallowing the goal. It gave the ref the opportunity to look again. And it was he who made the decision.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    edited February 8
    MrsGrey said:

    Might not have spelled that correctly 😕

    s-c-r-e-a-m-e-r.

    No, that's correct. 👍
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    I don’t think he was going to penalise him but play advantage but when Haaland pulled him back it nullified the advantage. As soon as it was decided to pull it back for the first foul then the only punishment was a free kick and a red card for denying a goal scoring opportunity. Bizarrely it didn’t deny it because the ball went in and would have without Haarland’s foul.
    If Haaland hadn’t fouled him the goal would have stood and it would have been a yellow.
    I don’t know if Liverpool can appeal the red card on the grounds that he didn’t deny a goal scoring opportunity so change it to a yellow but I think he’d already had a yellow so would get a red anyway but a shorter ban.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    So shortly after Neville says that Szoboszlai is an accomplished full back he puts Silva onside by being a yard behind the defensive line, then gets a red card.

    Top punditry. 😂
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 8
    I think if Liverpool appeal the red and it's successful, there wouldn't be a yellow awarded retrospectively. ( I don't think the panel works that way.)

    He'd just get a free pass.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    I’d be surprised if they don’t appeal and yes he will get off if successful. I wonder if you read the laws in a certain way Haaland could get a red for denying a scoring opportunity because that’s exactly what he did in getting it chalked off.
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    We all know that a defender can get a straight red for denying a goal scoring opportunity- it also makes sense that an attacker can also get a straight red for cynically denying a defender the chance to clear it
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Unless I'm missing something that is a red for DOGSO surely.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    IronHerb said:

    So shortly after Neville says that Szoboszlai is an accomplished full back he puts Silva onside by being a yard behind the defensive line, then gets a red card.

    Top punditry. 😂

    Curse of the commentator.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    I hadn't realised, in the hurly burly, that the ref actually played advantage.

  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    😂😂 What is Pep wearing?
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    Oh boy am torturing myself watching Forest vs Wolves - at one point Forest were through on goal and I kid you not it was five against just one defender and they did not manage to get a shot on target - unbelievable
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    Wolves are shockingly poor, players all over the place and looses passes it makes their comfortable victory over us even more maddening


    I reckon that even Killman would shine in their team……what wait😀
  • LukerzLukerz
    How are Forest not winning - Wolves don’t look like a professional side
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 11
    All sorts going on.

    Palace now only drawing. Forrest not winning....

    Edit, Palace losing 😂
  • stevesteve
    What on earth do Burnley think there doing =)
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    mad that we lost 3-0 to that Wolves side.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 11
    Those guys coming on for Man City looking up at the sky ( pouring 🌧️🌧️🌧️) in desperation 😂

    Thinking, Pep, we're 3-0 up. Really?

    Similarly, Fulham subs thinking jeez gaffer it's 3-0 down, chucking it down. Can I not just stay here in my big coat. I'm a Londoner.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Apparently Forrest have had 29 shots?
  • alderzalderz
    Mané should have won it at the end there for Wolves
  • EXETERHAMMEREXETERHAMMER
    Well done Wolves
  • stevesteve
    Thank you Wolves .Thank you Thank you
  • stevesteve
    Forest had 35 attemps on goal ,Should thank them as well =)
  • Jorderz_Moyes_will_be_MoyesJorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes
    The mad Forest owner could sack Dyche tbh. Then it’s about whether he hires a better or worse replacement
Sign In or Register to comment.