A&H

Southampton vs Manchester United

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joshref

RefChat Addict
What we saying then for Southampton’s first goal. Was there a foul on Bruno or was he just overreacting?
 
The Referee Store
He gets around him from the side so I'm good with no foul. Although it's one that the defenders maybe get more often then not.
 
Joshref said:
What we saying then for Southampton’s first goal. Was there a foul on Bruno or was he just overreacting?
Click to expand...
Yes it was a foul for me and I am sure it would have been called by the ref if the exact action happened the the penalty area to create a goal scoring opportunity. But the tolerance for fouls has been higher this season. So it not being called is consist and I am good with VAR not intervening.
 
Not a foul for me, Fernandez felt the slightest bit of contact and flung himself over. Players will have to learn that they aren't getting those anymore, and hopefully that will mean they eventually stop doing it and lead to a much better game.
 
Fair enough Tierney ignoring Saka hitting the deck (higher bar as indicated in advance)
Shame David Coote (effectively Refereed both Magpies games) didn't get the same memo (except GK's can do what the hell they like)
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
The reverse angle is more revealing
Don't get me wrong, I'd expect a PK, but not a certainty for me, not the way these light-weight forwards go down
Click to expand...

I think it's about as clear and obvious as it gets for me

PT couldn't see it though from his position looking through the back of an arsenal player, then he guesses it isn't a pen by cutting the grass. In these situations var and the process I'd wrong
 
Not for me, Saka runs into the back of James's legs, and the upper body contact is nowhere near enough for a penalty. It certainly isn't going to get classed as a clear and obvious error.
 
RustyRef said:
Not for me, Saka runs into the back of James's legs, and the upper body contact is nowhere near enough for a penalty. It certainly isn't going to get classed as a clear and obvious error.
Click to expand...

Because James puts his legs there as saka is running at full pelt?
 
Like I say, only Atkinson and Coote have conspired to ignore the memo. Not that I'm bitter
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
es1 said:
Because James puts his legs there as saka is running at full pelt?
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure, he's allowed to stand there, isn't obliged to move out of the way. In any case, there is no way on earth they are going to describe that as a clear and obvious error, even more so this season with the lower involvement directive.
 
RustyRef said:
I'm not so sure, he's allowed to stand there, isn't obliged to move out of the way. In any case, there is no way on earth they are going to describe that as a clear and obvious error, even more so this season with the lower involvement directive.
Click to expand...
Bearing in mind the ref doesn't see it clearly, if at all?
 
es1 said:
Bearing in mind the ref doesn't see it clearly, if at all?
Click to expand...

I suspect Tierney has told VAR that he felt Saka ran into James, in which case there is no way VAR can recommend a review. Saka was already on his way down before there was any contact at all, and this is exactly what they don't want to give this season. Players are going to have to get used to it, in previous season they could feel contact and fall over, they won't get rewarded for that any more.

This is the first point there is any potential leg contact, he's already well on the way down having felt the slight arm contact on his back.

1629657896640.png
 
RustyRef said:
I suspect Tierney has told VAR that he felt Saka ran into James, in which case there is no way VAR can recommend a review. Saka was already on his way down before there was any contact at all, and this is exactly what they don't want to give this season. Players are going to have to get used to it, in previous season they could feel contact and fall over, they won't get rewarded for that any more.
Click to expand...

I know you don't know and neither do I but we can't know what's been said between them and that's part of the problem. Any other sport I can think of explains it instantly and there's no excuse for it not to happen with football.

I don't think PT can see it. By cutting the grass he's giving a clear decision (and guessing) that imo is wrong. James steps across saka for me and trips him. I see see clear foul.
 
Not a penalty for me either. The upper body contact is trifling and the lower body contact is caused by Saka running into James leg which has a perfect right to be there. It's the converse of when a canny striker gets his body there first and makes it tricky for the defender to get to the ball ...
 
RustyRef said:
I suspect Tierney has told VAR that he felt Saka ran into James, in which case there is no way VAR can recommend a review. Saka was already on his way down before there was any contact at all, and this is exactly what they don't want to give this season. Players are going to have to get used to it, in previous season they could feel contact and fall over, they won't get rewarded for that any more.

This is the first point there is any potential leg contact, he's already well on the way down having felt the slight arm contact on his back.

View attachment 5116
Click to expand...
Can you clarify that? The CR tells VAR what he thinks he saw (and what you think you saw) and VAR can't say "I see something different".
 
es1 said:
I know you don't know and neither do I but we can't know what's been said between them and that's part of the problem. Any other sport I can think of explains it instantly and there's no excuse for it not to happen with football.

I don't think PT can see it. By cutting the grass he's giving a clear decision (and guessing) that imo is wrong. James steps across saka for me and trips him. I see see clear foul.
Click to expand...
There's no excuse for it not happening in the football in England. It happens elsewhere.

Two games in and there's nothing clear and obvious about "clear and obvious".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top