Today’s football 17/3

[Conroysleftfoot]

Great start to the game by Man Utd

[ISpeds00]

MOYES IN

[Burnley Ace]

Utd trying to play out from the back, they just aren’t good enough.

[Burnley Ace]

you think he tripped him on purpose ? We won't agree

edit: the point is, if it's in the area then VAR don't give him a red, because it's outside they do

Does there have to be intention? He was clumsy, he wasn’t careful enough when running behind a player and tripped him with no possibility of play the ball, hence the red card.

[Vegas Claret]

Does there have to be intention? He was clumsy, he wasn’t careful enough when running behind a player and tripped him with no possibility of play the ball, hence the red card.

of course there has to be intent

[ElectroClaret]

1-1 McAllister.

[ElectroClaret]

Salah makes it 1-2
VAR check....given.

[Rileybobs]

of course there has to be intent

Not the case actually. It doesn’t have to be intentional to be a foul and therefore denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

[Bosscat]

If that was BFC VAR would have cancelled it

[yTib]

Does there have to be intention? He was clumsy, he wasn’t careful enough when running behind a player and tripped him with no possibility of play the ball, hence the red card.

i think it was deliberate. he just tried to be cute about it and got caught out.

[Vegas Claret]

Not the case actually. It doesn’t have to be intentional to be a foul and therefore denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

so a guy can be back peddling, inadvertently knock into someone inside the box and a penalty be awarded and no red is given but outside the box it's a red card - that's the issue I have, it's ridiculous. It should be the same punishment regardless of where it is on the pitch and to send someone off where there is zero intent is farcical.

[Burnley Ace]

of course there has to be intent

He’s impeded an opponent with contact. There’s no mention in Rule 13 of the need for “intent”.

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

[dsr]

so a guy can be back peddling, inadvertently knock into someone inside the box and a penalty be awarded and no red is given but outside the box it's a red card - that's the issue I have, it's ridiculous. It should be the same punishment regardless of where it is on the pitch and to send someone off where there is zero intent is farcical.

You think it should be the same punishment for a foul inside the penalty area as outside? What, a penalty for all, or no penalty for wither?

The point of the professional foul red card is that without it, the attacking side is hugely disadvantaged by the foul. with the red card, the disadvantage is reduced or eliminated. If the attacking side gets the penalty, then the disadvantage is also much reduced.

[Rileybobs]

so a guy can be back peddling, inadvertently knock into someone inside the box and a penalty be awarded and no red is given but outside the box it's a red card - that's the issue I have, it's ridiculous. It should be the same punishment regardless of where it is on the pitch and to send someone off where there is zero intent is farcical.

No, the ref got it wrong originally and the VAR would no doubt have told him to send the Leicester player off even if the offence was in the box. The double jeopardy rule only comes into play if there was a genuine attempt to play the ball - hence Reguillon’s sending off yesterday.

[Vegas Claret]

No, the ref got it wrong originally and the VAR would no doubt have told him to send the Leicester player off even if the offence was in the box. The double jeopardy rule only comes into play if there was a genuine attempt to play the ball - hence Reguillon’s sending off yesterday.

reply on twitter from an active ref:

The Leicester player was originally cautioned for denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity, as in the area this is a caution if the foul was part of an attempt to challenge for the ball.

Outside the area, this caveat doesn’t apply, & a DOGSO is always a red card.

"See amendment to laws this season - it is “an attempt to play the ball or challenge for the ball.”

If you watch the videos IFAB gave referees at beginning of the season to show what “challenge for the ball” looks like, this fits.


I rest my case at that, the rule is a farce.

[dsr]

He’s impeded an opponent with contact. There’s no mention in Rule 13 of the need for “intent”.

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

It's clear that the Chelsea man tripped over his own foot; what is less clear is whether the touch on his leg was enough to make this happen. The ref thought Chelsea was tripped by Leicester, VAR spotted that the ref was wrong but took the decision off its own bat that the touch was enough to be a foul. Unless of course the ref had seen where the touch happened and just judged it wrong; but I suspect not, I think he thought Chelsea had been tripped by Leicester's foot.

I wish the commentators would stop banging on about contact being a foul. It isn't. Tripping is a foul, so if they think the man has been tripped, they should say so. As it is, they all reckon (and so do refs and VAR refs) that "contact" is one of the specific reasons that a penalty can be given, but that it is only applied if the forward dives. It gets my goat.

[Rileybobs]

reply on twitter from an active ref:

The Leicester player was originally cautioned for denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity, as in the area this is a caution if the foul was part of an attempt to challenge for the ball.

Outside the area, this caveat doesn’t apply, & a DOGSO is always a red card.

"See amendment to laws this season - it is “an attempt to play the ball or challenge for the ball.”

If you watch the videos IFAB gave referees at beginning of the season to show what “challenge for the ball” looks like, this fits.


I rest my case at that, the rule is a farce.

Not really sure about all that or who has written it. But the Leicester player didn’t make an attempt to play the ball so he should have been sent off regardless of whether the offence was in the penalty area or not.

[ksrclaret]

Let's hope someone will give us a twix for Obafemi in the summer. Rubbish.

[Vegas Claret]

Leeds 2 up and go top of the league, chance for back to back titles for Roberts

[Goody1975]

Not really sure about all that or who has written it. But the Leicester player didn’t make an attempt to play the ball so he should have been sent off regardless of whether the offence was in the penalty area or not.

100% spot on

[Vegas Claret]

Not really sure about all that or who has written it. But the Leicester player didn’t make an attempt to play the ball so he should have been sent off regardless of whether the offence was in the penalty area or not.

thanks, you literally just made the argument for me. Inside or outside shouldn't make a difference yet the ref ONLY gives a yellow, VAR only gave a red because it was outside

[Goody1975]

We can definitely get something at Chelsea after the international break, the atmosphere is getting toxic, it reminds me of when we went to West Ham and won 3-0.

I know it may upset some people but I'd swap Odobert for Brownhill against Chelsea. We have to keep JBL and Vitinho out wide to help the full backs out but I also think we need a solid three in the middle. Frustrate them and let their crowd do a job for us.

We can't let Gusto have a free reign down the right with Palmer also on that side.

[CoolClaret]

Let's hope someone will give us a twix for Obafemi in the summer. Rubbish.

Was a strange signing in all honesty wasn't it?

He's still young mind but I don't see him being anything more than a playoff contending Championship striker.

[Rileybobs]

thanks, you literally just made the argument for me. Inside or outside shouldn't make a difference yet the ref ONLY gives a yellow, VAR only gave a red because it was outside

No, my point is the ref made an incorrect decision to show a yellow and I’m pretty certain that the VAR would have upgraded the punishment to a red card regardless of whether the foul was proven to be inside the box or not. By the foul being outside the box it just made any potential attempt to win the ball an irrelevance.

[Tricky Trevor]

Ridiculous booking for Joe Gomez. Both his and Wan-Bissakas’ feet were equally high and Gomez played the ball.

[Goody1975]

thanks, you literally just made the argument for me. Inside or outside shouldn't make a difference yet the ref ONLY gives a yellow, VAR only gave a red because it was outside

Not sure that is correct, VAR never got to the point of checking the foul as the first thing they checked was whether it was outside or not. That makes whether he played the ball or not irellevant.

[kentonclaret]

So, the FA Cup Semi Finalists will be Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool/Manchester United and Coventry.
The much talked about “romance of the FA Cup” tends to flicker and die as the competition reaches the business end and once more the realisation dawns that days out at Wembley are the preserve of the “top 6” clubs and their fans.

[Vegas Claret]

No, my point is the ref made an incorrect decision to show a yellow and I’m pretty certain that the VAR would have upgraded the punishment to a red card regardless of whether the foul was proven to be inside the box or not. By the foul being outside the box it just made any potential attempt to win the ball an irrelevance.

but he didn't make an incorrect decision on the challenge only on the area it occured

The on field ref gave a penalty, decided there was enough of an attempt at a challenge to only issue a booking (as per my post above about the IFAB videos) . The ONLY clear and obvious error was inside or outside the box but because it was outside they changed it to a red.

With that, I feel we are going round in circles and we aren't ever going to agree (not that we have to of course) so I'm going to crack on with the rest of my day.

[ElectroClaret]

2-2 at Old Trafford

[Conroysleftfoot]

Great cup tie

[Rileybobs]

Gashford

[South West Claret.]

Lee Dixon on commentary.

[Brugge Claret]

Dixon mentioned about Man of the Match then had to change it to Player of the Match .

[TPClaret]

Dixon mentioned about Man of the Match then had to change it to Player of the Match .

Absolute ********. Worlds gone mad

[ElectroClaret]

2-3 Liverpool

[Mark the Claret]

Mason Mount come on, I'd forgotten all about him.

[yTib]

agree that the man/player of the match is bonkers.

i'm pretty sure out of the billions of people on earth nobody would be offended by 'man' of the match.

perhaps joey barton can write a poem about it.

[kentonclaret]

3-3

[Rileybobs]

agree that the man/player of the match is bonkers.

i'm pretty sure out of the billions of people on earth nobody would be offended by 'man' of the match.

perhaps joey barton can write a poem about it.

I don’t think they’ve changed it to player of the match to prevent offending people, more to standardise the terminology across all age and gender groups I would imagine.

[Buxtonclaret]

Been asking for that, have Liverpool, last 10 minutes.

[yTib]

I don’t think they’ve changed it to player of the match to prevent offending people, more to standardise the terminology across all age and gender groups I would imagine.

so for nothing then.

[chekhov]

Be grateful if someone could put their finger on why Sam Mattaface is so annoying. Thanks.

[Rileybobs]

so for nothing then.

Well, to standardise the terminology across all age and gender groups like I said.

[AGENT_CLARET]

Dixon mentioned about Man of the Match then had to change it to Player of the Match .

It can only be man of the match, it's a game between 22 men

[yTib]

it will go to pens and rashford will miss.

[yTib]

Well, to standardise the terminology across all age and gender groups like I said.

so for nothing then. at least no meaningful reason.

[ElectroClaret]

Man U win it.

[yTib]

oh god man utd have utterly pilfered a win.

[Rileybobs]

so for nothing then. at least no meaningful reason.

It’s for inclusivity purposes which I would say is a fairly meaningful reason, although no doubt others will disagree. I can’t really understand why something like this would upset or annoy anyone. If the concept of an award for the best player in a match was to be invented today it wouldn’t be called ‘man of the match’ would it?!

[Rileybobs]

Bonkers game. I don’t want either team to win which has kind of dulled my enjoyment of it.