A&H

BHA v Liverpool

santa sangria said:
from the classroom last week UEFA guidance is a shot on goal and HB offence should be YC.
From what I saw the shot was fine i.e. going in or close
Click to expand...

To think that UEFA are telling referees that a man should have been sent off (2nd caution) for this makes me nauseous.
Not a fan in the world is expecting a caution for this.
Absolute clowns.
 
The Referee Store
deusex said:
To think that UEFA are telling referees that a man should have been sent off (2nd caution) for this makes me nauseous.
Not a fan in the world is expecting a caution for this.
Absolute clowns.
Click to expand...
If the shot is on target it is very difficult to argue that the handling didn't prevent a promising attack. In this case though it didn't look like it was even close to being on target, so no caution was correct.
 
RustyRef said:
If the shot is on target it is very difficult to argue that the handling didn't prevent a promising attack. In this case though it didn't look like it was even close to being on target, so no caution was correct.
Click to expand...
As mentioned in the other thread, we have been here before. Actually it's very easy to argue it did not 'perevent' a promising attack. Because the promising attack that was in progress was over* as soon as the shot was take. From there onwards it's either denying a goal or not denying a goal.

* Granted you are not anticipating a high chance of a rebound of the post or keeper to another attacker. Just the fact that there is some chance of it happening doesn't make it a continued promising attack.
 
one said:
As mentioned in the other thread, we have been here before. Actually it's very easy to argue it did not 'perevent' a promising attack. Because the promising attack that was in progress was over* as soon as the shot was take. From there onwards it's either denying a goal or not denying a goal.

* Granted you are not anticipating a high chance of a rebound of the post or keeper to another attacker. Just the fact that there is some chance of it happening doesn't make it a continued promising attack.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, as a very high percentage of on target shots are blocked or saved. A moot point here though as it was clearly off target so was neither SPA nor DOGSO.
 
As we trudge out to council park 16 for £35 later on, a sobering thought is Mr Var who sees no wrong in the gk clattering, is (99%) off to Qatar to watch the monitors there.

Hope for us all it seems
 
one said:
As mentioned in the other thread, we have been here before. Actually it's very easy to argue it did not 'perevent' a promising attack. Because the promising attack that was in progress was over* as soon as the shot was take. From there onwards it's either denying a goal or not denying a goal.

* Granted you are not anticipating a high chance of a rebound of the post or keeper to another attacker. Just the fact that there is some chance of it happening doesn't make it a continued promising attack.
Click to expand...
ESPECIALLY since you're awarding a penalty, which is even more of a promising attack, as a result.
 
According to multiple posts on Twitter and RSUK, PGMOL said this ...

PGMOL : “The VAR operator (Stuart Attwell) was unable to find any clear evidence that Sanchez made any contact with Diaz from all the camera angles available to him at the time. Therefore, Mike Dean was correctly not asked to take a look at it at the pitch side monitor.”

If that is correct I can only assume the only camera Attwell had access to was located in the car park ... 😂🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️
 
RustyRef said:
According to multiple posts on Twitter and RSUK, PGMOL said this ...

PGMOL : “The VAR operator (Stuart Attwell) was unable to find any clear evidence that Sanchez made any contact with Diaz from all the camera angles available to him at the time. Therefore, Mike Dean was correctly not asked to take a look at it at the pitch side monitor.”

If that is correct I can only assume the only camera Attwell had access to was located in the car park ... 😂🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️
Click to expand...
I've seen that statement credited to a known "troll" account, so would take it with a hefty pinch of salt for now. There's no statement about this match on the actual PGMOL account, so I'd be inclined to assume they haven't decided what story to "clarify" with yet.
 
On that logic, retrospective yellow card for Diaz for simulation. Is that really an official statement from the PGMOL?
 
RustyRef said:
According to multiple posts on Twitter and RSUK, PGMOL said this ...

PGMOL : “The VAR operator (Stuart Attwell) was unable to find any clear evidence that Sanchez made any contact with Diaz from all the camera angles available to him at the time. Therefore, Mike Dean was correctly not asked to take a look at it at the pitch side monitor.”

If that is correct I can only assume the only camera Attwell had access to was located in the car park ... 😂🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️
Click to expand...

they are making themselves look ridiculous, there was not even a need for Dean to check anything, a simple, Mike, red card gk serious foul play

the end
 
Anubis said:
they are making themselves look ridiculous, there was not even a need for Dean to check anything, a simple, Mike, red card gk serious foul play

the end
Click to expand...
I Agree with your red card comment (SFP) after looking at the incident from multiple angles shown on MOTD last night, What did surprise me, is the fact that Mr Deans felt the need to let it go unpunished
 
Richard smith said:
I Agree with your red card comment (SFP) after looking at the incident from multiple angles shown on MOTD last night, What did surprise me, is the fact that Mr Deans felt the need to let it go unpunished
Click to expand...

as Rusty has quoted, the VAR could find nothing to see.
 
Richard smith said:
Was the VAR on that game blind?????
Click to expand...

Practising for his Qatar gig


just to throw something else out there, ref, obv thinks var will alert him to anything, spare a thought for the lino....he has a great view but if var is saying nothing to see here, the linos input is void.
 
I know Anubis has me on ignore, so it"s his problem that he's not read my post, but to reiterate, Rusty's quote is not from the PGMOL and was most likely fabricated on twitter.
 
Richard smith said:
I don't agree, if the Lino is seeing something the referee is missing, surely the lino should be alerting the referee to the fact
Click to expand...

As lino, you know VAR are doing there thing, check complete

no way on earth the AR, aware the var has replays, angles, etc, is now goimg to pipe up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top