|
Post by clarkeda on Jan 21, 2020 9:32:17 GMT
As the ref didn’t give anything he can be retrospectively banned can’t he?
|
|
|
Post by scfcwebby on Jan 21, 2020 10:05:35 GMT
As the ref didn’t give anything he can be retrospectively banned can’t he? It depends whether the ref puts in his retort that he saw it or not. If he did not see it then retrospective action can be taken, if he saw it but Didn't deem it worthy of any action then nothing can be done after the game.
|
|
|
Post by pez75 on Jan 21, 2020 14:11:18 GMT
If there had been VAR Allen himself would have walked off earlu in the second half when he kicked Kanu with no ball there. If not a straight red which I thought it was, then certainly a second yellow. Never a red in a million years, and VAR would only have got involved if it was. Some ref's may have given Joe a yellow (VAR can't) but our ref probably knew he dropped a bollock with the previous incident so kept things even.
|
|
|
Post by LankyPotter on Jan 21, 2020 14:21:27 GMT
Can't understand people who don't want VAR. This is what you get without it. And the ref was looking right at it 10 yards away. VAR is so subjective, im not a fan of it myself.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Jan 21, 2020 14:34:29 GMT
We already have VAR. Very Average Referees. 😋
|
|
|
Post by superleft on Jan 21, 2020 17:14:19 GMT
Well if Joe should have got a 2nd yellow and having VAR would have highlighted it, then so be it. I'm not looking for an unfair advantage for Stoke. But, like was said above though, a red card for them changes the game anyway and Joe wouldn't have been in that position to make that particular tackle that gets him a 2nd yellow.
If you want unfair advantage for Stoke, you have to accept you also get shafted too, and VAR helps eliminate that. All this "over a season, it evens itself out" is bollocks.
It won't ever stop people having different opinions on the same footage. It happens in Rugby where commentators/supporters disagree with referees decisions. As soon as the implementation and change of rules to match the fact that you can run footage back, it'll start changing football for the better. I reckon it already is.
No more countries cheated out of world cup qualification because someone deliberately handballs it and scores (Henry - France v Ireland a few years back)...the examples go on and on. completely outweighs disrupting the flow of the game a bit. I don't buy into this let the game flow even if it means a shit load of decisions are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 22, 2020 12:01:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 22, 2020 12:20:40 GMT
Bit of a shitty night for the Baggies.
A loss and their 2 best attacking players get injured and banned.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Jan 22, 2020 12:54:04 GMT
The problem with VAR is that it has been VERY poorly introduced and has lurched far away from it's stated objective: "to correct any clear and obvious errors" The forensic investigation of each and every offside call is a clear example of where it has all gone wrong. The 'line' is itself open to question, so they should stick with the assistant refs flag, unless it is 'clearly and obviously' wrong Same with all the other interference. If they applied this correctly then var would hardly ever come into play...unless Mike Dean is reffing of course
|
|
|
Post by wearepremierleague on Jan 22, 2020 12:54:17 GMT
That ref the other day was absolutely wank. Seriously utter shite
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Jan 22, 2020 12:55:38 GMT
Well if Joe should have got a 2nd yellow and having VAR would have highlighted it, then so be it. I'm not looking for an unfair advantage for Stoke. But, like was said above though, a red card for them changes the game anyway and Joe wouldn't have been in that position to make that particular tackle that gets him a 2nd yellow. If you want unfair advantage for Stoke, you have to accept you also get shafted too, and VAR helps eliminate that. All this "over a season, it evens itself out" is bollocks. It won't ever stop people having different opinions on the same footage. It happens in Rugby where commentators/supporters disagree with referees decisions. As soon as the implementation and change of rules to match the fact that you can run footage back, it'll start changing football for the better. I reckon it already is. No more countries cheated out of world cup qualification because someone deliberately handballs it and scores (Henry - France v Ireland a few years back)...the examples go on and on. completely outweighs disrupting the flow of the game a bit. I don't buy into this let the game flow even if it means a shit load of decisions are wrong. Maradonna! Football has long moved on from being “just a game “ or even a sport. It is a money machine. As teams teach, incentivize and demand players use cheating to gain advantage, the players will become more skilled at fooling the referees. At least VAR, if implemented correctly can give them a fair chance at getting the decisions right.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2020 15:03:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Jan 22, 2020 15:10:32 GMT
That ref the other day was absolutely wank. Seriously utter shite I thought he was quite good. He can't be expected to see everything and at least he didn't try to guess which a lot of refs do in those instances. I have to say I thought Joe unusually for him made a bit of a meal of it when he realised he'd lost the ball and I didn't think it merited any more than a yellow in all honesty. I also felt Joe's kick at a player outside the area in the first half was identical to the one for which he was sent off against Forest but the referee was sensible in the WBA incident.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 22, 2020 15:17:27 GMT
Everybody recognises that without VAR refs will make wrong decisions. However a lot of us - mainly those who actually go to games - would rather live with wrong decisions than put up with VAR killing football as an enjoyable live experience.
For me the incident with Allen was a red card - however it is still down to an officials opinion and that opinion can still be wrong. As an example does anyone remember the game where the official missed Ronaldo clearly committing a red card offence in a World Cup game, go over to the pitch side screen, bottle it and dish out a yellow card? VAR solves nothing when it come to an opinion based decision - and when it comes to offsides it's turned into a ridiculous whose got the longest nose air pixel counting game.
|
|
|
Post by pez75 on Jan 22, 2020 15:20:25 GMT
That ref the other day was absolutely wank. Seriously utter shite I thought he was quite good. He can't be expected to see everything and at least he didn't try to guess which a lot of refs do in those instances. I have to say I thought Joe unusually for him made a bit of a meal of it when he realised he'd lost the ball and I didn't think it merited any more than a yellow in all honesty. I also felt Joe's kick at a player outside the area in the first half was identical to the one for which he was sent off against Forest but the referee was sensible in the WBA incident. He got a proper elbow in the chops! It wasnt a slight touch or nothing incident - the only debate to be had is whether the lad meant it or not. I know Joe for some strange reason has become a figure of hate for some, but one thing he cannot be accused of is shithousery...
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jan 22, 2020 15:20:40 GMT
The problem with VAR is that it has been VERY poorly introduced and has lurched far away from it's stated objective: "to correct any clear and obvious errors" The forensic investigation of each and every offside call is a clear example of where it has all gone wrong. The 'line' is itself open to question, so they should stick with the assistant refs flag, unless it is 'clearly and obviously' wrong Same with all the other interference. If they applied this correctly then var would hardly ever come into play...unless Mike Dean is reffing of course Thing is who decides what is a "clear and obvious" error in terms of offsides? Now that the tech is there to enforce the rule, I don't think there's an obvious solution. I wonder whether changing the rule so that rather than being offside if *any* part of your body is ahead of the last defender, you're considered onside unless *no* part of your body is level with the last defender. That way the onus is still on the attacker to stay level, he can hedge his bets a bit by trying to keep a trailing leg level or something but he can really have no complaints if he strays completely beyond the back line. You can't expect an attacker to judge whether his bootlace might be offside when trying to stay level, but it's not unreasonable to expect him to ensure that at least part of his body stays level. That said it would be a much harder thing to judge for the linos, but are we moving towards a time when they won't be necessary anyway?
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Jan 22, 2020 15:29:02 GMT
I thought he was quite good. He can't be expected to see everything and at least he didn't try to guess which a lot of refs do in those instances. I have to say I thought Joe unusually for him made a bit of a meal of it when he realised he'd lost the ball and I didn't think it merited any more than a yellow in all honesty. I also felt Joe's kick at a player outside the area in the first half was identical to the one for which he was sent off against Forest but the referee was sensible in the WBA incident. He got a proper elbow in the chops! It wasnt a slight touch or nothing incident - the only debate to be had is whether the lad meant it or not. I know Joe for some strange reason has become a figure of hate for some, but one thing he cannot be accused of is shithousery... I'm not an Allen hater and was surprised to see him fall to the ground in a delayed reaction as it's not what I usually see from him. Nor am I saying he wasn't elbowed but are you 100% sure it was deliberate and not just a result of grappling? I'd have put money on yellow if the linesman or ref had seen it especially in the context of Allen's deliberate kick at a player on the edge of the box. Retrospective three match ban seems harsh and I am positive it has been given because the match was live on TV. Nothing would have been done had it been a normal Saturday afternoon Championship match. Not the consistency players cry out for.
|
|
|
Post by pez75 on Jan 22, 2020 15:39:18 GMT
He got a proper elbow in the chops! It wasnt a slight touch or nothing incident - the only debate to be had is whether the lad meant it or not. I know Joe for some strange reason has become a figure of hate for some, but one thing he cannot be accused of is shithousery... I'm not an Allen hater and was surprised to see him fall to the ground in a delayed reaction as it's not what I usually see from him. Nor am I saying he wasn't elbowed but are you 100% sure it was deliberate and not just a result of grappling? I'd have put money on yellow if the linesman or ref had seen it especially in the context of Allen's deliberate kick at a player on the edge of the box. Retrospective three match ban seems harsh and I am positive it has been given because the match was live on TV. Nothing would have been done had it been a normal Saturday afternoon Championship match. Not the consistency players cry out for. He got cracked and fell over, not sure what more there is to say. The powers that be have taken a look and decided that had the ref seen it, it would have been a red. Again, not a lot more to add. Retrospective bans happen whether the game is on TV or not to my knowledge but I cant comment on the consistency, however I am sure what all players would be glad to see is all misdemeanours receiving the same punishment, hence the retrospective action in a league where VAR is not in use. Don Goodman & Higgy both called it a red at the time, WBA are not contesting it. Move on.
|
|
|
Post by pottermouth on Jan 22, 2020 15:46:06 GMT
Was never a red card, not even a yellow IMO, he wasn't even looking where Allen was and just about caught him, well done Joe for making the most of it though, it's about time we started using a few of the darker arts. Gouranga. Wrong on every point. It was an elbow. As for condoning cheating well that doesn’t even merit a comment.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jan 22, 2020 15:46:53 GMT
He got a proper elbow in the chops! It wasnt a slight touch or nothing incident - the only debate to be had is whether the lad meant it or not. I know Joe for some strange reason has become a figure of hate for some, but one thing he cannot be accused of is shithousery... I'm not an Allen hater and was surprised to see him fall to the ground in a delayed reaction as it's not what I usually see from him. Nor am I saying he wasn't elbowed but are you 100% sure it was deliberate and not just a result of grappling? I'd have put money on yellow if the linesman or ref had seen it especially in the context of Allen's deliberate kick at a player on the edge of the box. Retrospective three match ban seems harsh and I am positive it has been given because the match was live on TV. Nothing would have been done had it been a normal Saturday afternoon Championship match. Not the consistency players cry out for. It wasn't a delayed reaction and it was definitely deliberate. 90% of us said so at the time, the FA reviewed and charged, WBA accepted it without appeal. It's quite difficult to imagine a more clear-cut case tbh
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Jan 22, 2020 15:53:41 GMT
Handbags really nothing in it , it’s a mans game and joe was fine
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jan 22, 2020 15:58:51 GMT
Apparently he’d been kicked to fuck, had no support from the officials and was just taking retribution
I must of missed all that
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 22, 2020 16:14:01 GMT
More importantly, how can a referee looking directly at the incident claim not to have seen it?
|
|
|
Post by emmbrook1956 on Jan 22, 2020 16:34:00 GMT
Really annoys how inept these officials are. Joe Allen suffers at the elbow of Gallagher at Preston and now pereira. It is not important if he did not mean it. I brought somebody down in a penalty area, I did not mean it. A penalty was still given!
|
|
|
Post by y_oh_y_delilah on Jan 22, 2020 16:40:39 GMT
That ref the other day was absolutely wank. Seriously utter shite No he wasn’t. Unless you want him to give EVERY decision in Stoke’s favour, in which case he ‘was absolutely wank.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Jan 22, 2020 16:52:36 GMT
I'm not an Allen hater and was surprised to see him fall to the ground in a delayed reaction as it's not what I usually see from him. Nor am I saying he wasn't elbowed but are you 100% sure it was deliberate and not just a result of grappling? I'd have put money on yellow if the linesman or ref had seen it especially in the context of Allen's deliberate kick at a player on the edge of the box. Retrospective three match ban seems harsh and I am positive it has been given because the match was live on TV. Nothing would have been done had it been a normal Saturday afternoon Championship match. Not the consistency players cry out for. He got cracked and fell over, not sure what more there is to say. The powers that be have taken a look and decided that had the ref seen it, it would have been a red. Again, not a lot more to add. Retrospective bans happen whether the game is on TV or not to my knowledge but I cant comment on the consistency, however I am sure what all players would be glad to see is all misdemeanours receiving the same punishment, hence the retrospective action in a league where VAR is not in use. Don Goodman & Higgy both called it a red at the time, WBA are not contesting it. Move on. I know retrospective bans are supposed to happen all the time but in my opinion the only ones given are those which are highlighted on TV. I'm not aware of any player getting a retrospective ban when not on TV. unless in the Premiership.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Jan 22, 2020 16:55:45 GMT
Really annoys how inept these officials are. Joe Allen suffers at the elbow of Gallagher at Preston and now pereira. It is not important if he did not mean it. I brought somebody down in a penalty area, I did not mean it. A penalty was still given! I think intention is quite an important consideration in violent conduct. Playing devil's advocate, can you explain why Allen wasn't sent off for his deliberate kick which presumably the referee only booked as he thought it wasn't intentional so not violent conduct?
|
|
|
Post by adi on Jan 22, 2020 16:55:51 GMT
Stop dreaming boys. Gouranga. Those that know deemed it worthy of a ban. Nightmare... 🌝 And they’ve accepted the ban. 🤔
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jan 22, 2020 16:56:04 GMT
The referee was ten yards away and looking right at it. Bottle job.
|
|
|
Post by adi on Jan 22, 2020 16:59:51 GMT
The referee was ten yards away and looking right at it. Bottle job. I think he was unsighted actually by two players. Glad we won otherwise you’d be fuming
|
|