|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2020 23:28:55 GMT
Can't agree was wild and dangerous and totally out of control.
Nice to see Dunk apologise to the opponent on a different note for his red today something you don't see very often. He realised what he did.
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Oct 18, 2020 23:52:34 GMT
Can't agree was wild and dangerous and totally out of control. Nice to see Dunk apologise to the opponent on a different note for his red today something you don't see very often. He realised what he did. Arsenal fans would have said the same 10 years ago. Pickford has burst out, spread himself and absolutely clobbered VVD. It was an act of shit goalkeeping more than a malicious tackle, and it's a shame that it's resulted in the injury that it has.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 19, 2020 0:34:23 GMT
You think they wouldn't have won the League without VAR? Did I say that??? No. Not at all. That's why I asked the question?
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Oct 19, 2020 8:06:38 GMT
Did I say that??? No. Not at all. That's why I asked the question? My point is that with VAR decisions you get some in your favour and you lose out on some, just as before when we only had refs. Maybe VAR leads to more decisions against the better teams, but it didn't look that way last season when we speak about Lpool. Maybe they will get more decisions against them this year so it evens out in a way?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Oct 19, 2020 8:09:38 GMT
Apparently it's because they are liverpool and it means more!!! That "this means more" around the ground/area really pisses me off. Cringe worthy dicks with a worrying tendancy for full kit wankery. When my lad goes into training tomorrow and they ask "who is our van dyke" I'm going to tell him to shout me and roll around on the floor crying 😂
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on Oct 19, 2020 8:25:05 GMT
Can't agree was wild and dangerous and totally out of control. Nice to see Dunk apologise to the opponent on a different note for his red today something you don't see very often. He realised what he did. Arsenal fans would have said the same 10 years ago. Pickford has burst out, spread himself and absolutely clobbered VVD. It was an act of shit goalkeeping more than a malicious tackle, and it's a shame that it's resulted in the injury that it has. If spreading yourself is to be knee high off the ground , feet first , then you are right. No chance of getting anywhere near the ball- absolutely appalling challenge; potentially Van Dyke will be out longer than Ramsay was, and certainly longer than Thiago; both Richarlison and Pickford’s tackle were extremely reckless.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 19, 2020 11:56:16 GMT
No ban for Pickford then I just watched that for the first time and that is just horrific.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Oct 19, 2020 12:53:17 GMT
Unbelievable
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 19, 2020 13:03:31 GMT
Not really unless the rules have changed?
The ref presumably saw it, VAR saw it and if it's seen and deemed not worthy of being dealt with then it can't be done retrospectively.
This was always going to be the outcome (unless the rules have changed).
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 19, 2020 13:06:21 GMT
Not really unless the rules have changed? The ref presumably saw it, VAR saw it and if it's seen and deemed not worthy of being dealt with then it can't be done retrospectively. This was always going to be the outcome (unless the rules have changed). If that’s the case David Coote the VAR official needs sacking
|
|
|
Post by bgreen13 on Oct 19, 2020 13:17:22 GMT
Saturday: VAR didn't check it because it was offside.
Monday: Not a red because VAR checked it and didn't deem it a red.
Which one is it?
Pickfords wank.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Oct 19, 2020 13:19:46 GMT
Not really unless the rules have changed? The ref presumably saw it, VAR saw it and if it's seen and deemed not worthy of being dealt with then it can't be done retrospectively. This was always going to be the outcome (unless the rules have changed). If that’s the case David Coote the VAR official needs sacking And the rules need changing.The ref could not of possibly seen the tackle clearly,if he did he too needs sacking.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 19, 2020 13:22:16 GMT
If that’s the case David Coote the VAR official needs sacking And the rules need changing.The ref could not of possibly seen the tackle clearly,if he did he too needs sacking. They were talking on Sky about this yesterday and came to the conclusion that either both are incompetent fools or Coote was frightened to undermine a senior referee🤔
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 19, 2020 13:26:29 GMT
And the rules need changing.The ref could not of possibly seen the tackle clearly,if he did he too needs sacking. They were talking on Sky about this yesterday and came to the conclusion that either both are incompetent fools or Coote was frightened to undermine a senior referee🤔 In real time from the first angle it didn’t look much of a tackle. It’s only that angle behind the goal it looks the full on horror it is. It’s exactly the sort of thing it should be used for. It didn’t look a red in real time imo but it clearly is.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 19, 2020 13:30:18 GMT
They were talking on Sky about this yesterday and came to the conclusion that either both are incompetent fools or Coote was frightened to undermine a senior referee🤔 In real time from the first angle it didn’t look much of a tackle. It’s only that angle behind the goal it looks the full on horror it is. It’s exactly the sort of thing it should be used for. It didn’t look a red in real time imo but it clearly is. So why didn’t Coote tell Oliver to look at his monitor 🤔
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 19, 2020 13:31:05 GMT
In real time from the first angle it didn’t look much of a tackle. It’s only that angle behind the goal it looks the full on horror it is. It’s exactly the sort of thing it should be used for. It didn’t look a red in real time imo but it clearly is. So why didn’t Coote tell Oliver to look at his monitor 🤔 Not a clue
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Oct 19, 2020 13:36:12 GMT
And the rules need changing.The ref could not of possibly seen the tackle clearly,if he did he too needs sacking. They were talking on Sky about this yesterday and came to the conclusion that either both are incompetent fools or Coote was frightened to undermine a senior referee🤔 Either way both of them made the wrong decision and justice has not been done.There has to be a process where both are obviously wrong that overides their decision.The whole purpose of Var was to put an end to these errors.As you say if Coote isn't capable of operating the system he shouldn't be doing it.And if the system isn't policed properly that should go as well, which would be a shame because used properly it should benefit the game.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Oct 19, 2020 13:47:53 GMT
Not really unless the rules have changed? The ref presumably saw it, VAR saw it and if it's seen and deemed not worthy of being dealt with then it can't be done retrospectively. This was always going to be the outcome (unless the rules have changed). Except apparently the FA can overrule in exceptional circumstances. Which begs the question if a reckless illegal tackle putting an opponent out of the game for 8 months isn't considered exceptional what is? Producing a knife perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 19, 2020 13:50:36 GMT
Not really unless the rules have changed? The ref presumably saw it, VAR saw it and if it's seen and deemed not worthy of being dealt with then it can't be done retrospectively. This was always going to be the outcome (unless the rules have changed). Except apparently the FA can overrule in exceptional circumstances. Which begs the question if a reckless illegal tackle putting an opponent out of the game for 8 months isn't considered exceptional what is? Producing a knife perhaps? Don’t see why this would fall into that though? It was a daft tackle and they happen.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Oct 19, 2020 13:59:21 GMT
Except apparently the FA can overrule in exceptional circumstances. Which begs the question if a reckless illegal tackle putting an opponent out of the game for 8 months isn't considered exceptional what is? Producing a knife perhaps? Don’t see why this would fall into that though? It was a daft tackle and they happen. Because a reckless tackle likely to cause serious injury is a red. How can a reckless challenge that does cause serious injury not therefore be red. If you remember when Shawcross was sent off for the Ramsey incident the ref always said he wasn't going to send him off until he saw the extent of the injury. Surely the FA could use the same reasoning here. When van Dyke walked off you have to say he didn't look seriously injured. (On a side note how nice it is to see his 'I'll just get on with it' attitude instead of making malicious comments about Pickford).
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 19, 2020 14:01:41 GMT
Why are Stoke fans bothered with this?
Who gives a flying fuck?!?!?!!?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 19, 2020 14:02:00 GMT
Don’t see why this would fall into that though? It was a daft tackle and they happen. Because a reckless tackle likely to cause serious injury is a red. How can a reckless challenge that does cause serious injury not therefore be red. If you remember when Shawcross was sent off for the Ramsey incident the ref always said he wasn't going to send him off until he saw the extent of the injury. Surely the FA could use the same reasoning here. When van Dyke walked off you have to say he didn't look seriously injured. (On a side note how nice it is to see his 'I'll just get on with it' attitude instead of making malicious comments about Pickford). Because it was seen twice in the game and not deemed a red. This happens, it shouldn’t but it does. And it is but it is just an accident. A big daft goalie flying out making himself big.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Oct 19, 2020 14:06:10 GMT
Not really unless the rules have changed? The ref presumably saw it, VAR saw it and if it's seen and deemed not worthy of being dealt with then it can't be done retrospectively. This was always going to be the outcome (unless the rules have changed). Except apparently the FA can overrule in exceptional circumstances. Which begs the question if a reckless illegal tackle putting an opponent out of the game for 8 months isn't considered exceptional what is? Producing a knife perhaps? VAR officials (with the benefit of seeing an incident again) should have the authority to insist that the referee reviews the incident and also gets the benefit of viewing what happened from every angle - only possible with the technology There should also be some advice offered from the senior VAR referee Like other sports no reason why this cannot be seen / heard by everyone at the time Regardless of the terrible outcome for Van Djik,(he could just have suffered a less serious injury and as mentioned previously was able to walk off) the incident merits a red card imo Another factor is that the incident happened so early in the game - of course it should have no effect on the decision - but players are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt Well let's hope that the VAR system improves as a result of this I do believe there is a better chance of decisions been evened out over the season, several "goals" not given at the weekend would probably have stood In theory any presumed bias is being eliminated Teams who benefit from a correct decision don't get much publicity
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2020 14:11:47 GMT
Not really unless the rules have changed? The ref presumably saw it, VAR saw it and if it's seen and deemed not worthy of being dealt with then it can't be done retrospectively. This was always going to be the outcome (unless the rules have changed). Except apparently the FA can overrule in exceptional circumstances. Which begs the question if a reckless illegal tackle putting an opponent out of the game for 8 months isn't considered exceptional what is? Producing a knife perhaps? It's not the result (out for 8 months - which by the way is not a fact at this point, but just a worst case scenario) which can be the exceptional circumstance. If it was then sentiment would rule and that can lead to dangerous precedents. Pickford was clumsy and should have been censored, but it's not as if he decided he was going to make sure the Dutchman wouldn't play again.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Oct 19, 2020 14:11:58 GMT
Because a reckless tackle likely to cause serious injury is a red. How can a reckless challenge that does cause serious injury not therefore be red. If you remember when Shawcross was sent off for the Ramsey incident the ref always said he wasn't going to send him off until he saw the extent of the injury. Surely the FA could use the same reasoning here. When van Dyke walked off you have to say he didn't look seriously injured. (On a side note how nice it is to see his 'I'll just get on with it' attitude instead of making malicious comments about Pickford). Because it was seen twice in the game and not deemed a red. This happens, it shouldn’t but it does. And it is but it is just an accident. A big daft goalie flying out making himself big. Yes but at the time it was seen in the game the seriousness of the injury wasn't known. If it had been a centre half he would have been off. I don't see why the rule should be different for gk's. That challenge could have snapped his leg in half and ended his career. It isn't even as if it's a first time for Pickford and I can''t think of any other gk I've seen do similar. If he keeps getting away with it he' ll never change and will cause another serious injury. We continually here correctly these days that footballers need to take the well being of opponents into account when challenging them. In what way is Pickford doing that?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 19, 2020 14:14:20 GMT
Because it was seen twice in the game and not deemed a red. This happens, it shouldn’t but it does. And it is but it is just an accident. A big daft goalie flying out making himself big. Yes but at the time it was seen in the game the seriousness of the injury wasn't known. If it had been a centre half he would have been off. I don't see why the rule should be different for gk's. That challenge could have snapped his leg in half and ended his career. It isn't even as if it's a first time for Pickford and I can''t think of any other gk I've seen do similar. If he keeps getting away with it he' ll never change and will cause another serious injury. We continually here correctly these days that footballers need to take the well being of opponents into account when challenging them. In what way is Pickford doing that? The seriousness of the injury should have nothing to do with it. I still don't think the Shawcross tackle was worthy of a red despite it snapping his shin in two. He's not really got away with it has he? There's been so much analysis of this one incident .
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Oct 19, 2020 14:19:45 GMT
Except apparently the FA can overrule in exceptional circumstances. Which begs the question if a reckless illegal tackle putting an opponent out of the game for 8 months isn't considered exceptional what is? Producing a knife perhaps? It's not the result (out for 8 months - which by the way is not a fact at this point, but just a worst case scenario) which can be the exceptional circumstance. If it was then sentiment would rule and that can lead to dangerous precedents. Pickford was clumsy and should have been censored, but it's not as if he decided he was going to make sure the Dutchman wouldn't play again. Well he's booked in for an anc procedure on 31 October so difficult to see him out for anything less than 8 months. I'm sure very few players actually intend to put a fellow professional out of the game but the key thing these days is that accidental or not if you fly in both feet off the ground knee high there is every chance of serious injury and therefore a straight red. No one can argue Pickford was thinking about the safety of his opponent. As I've said above it's not even as if it's a first time as Choupo Moting knows. Would you say Richarlison shouldn't have been sent of either because he was just a forward making a clumsy challenge? Luckily he didn't cause serious injury.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Oct 19, 2020 14:25:12 GMT
Yes but at the time it was seen in the game the seriousness of the injury wasn't known. If it had been a centre half he would have been off. I don't see why the rule should be different for gk's. That challenge could have snapped his leg in half and ended his career. It isn't even as if it's a first time for Pickford and I can''t think of any other gk I've seen do similar. If he keeps getting away with it he' ll never change and will cause another serious injury. We continually here correctly these days that footballers need to take the well being of opponents into account when challenging them. In what way is Pickford doing that? The seriousness of the injury should have nothing to do with it. I still don't think the Shawcross tackle was worthy of a red despite it snapping his shin in two. He's not really got away with it has he? There's been so much analysis of this one incident . I would agree that in general the injury shouldn't have anything to do with it but how many injury's does Pickford have to cause? I just think there is no doubt that the injury was caused by the challenge and could have been even more serious. I therefore think the FA have good reason to say that they will overturn the referee's decision because Pickford needs to take punishment for putting a player out for a long time. Otherwise what is the point of the reckless play rule?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 19, 2020 14:28:17 GMT
The seriousness of the injury should have nothing to do with it. I still don't think the Shawcross tackle was worthy of a red despite it snapping his shin in two. He's not really got away with it has he? There's been so much analysis of this one incident . I would agree that in general the injury shouldn't have anything to do with it but how many injury's does Pickford have to cause? I just think there is no doubt that the injury was caused by the challenge and could have been even more serious. I therefore think the FA have good reason to say that they will overturn the referee's decision because Pickford needs to take punishment for putting a player out for a long time. Otherwise what is the point of the reckless play rule? That's football though, you get injured, you cause injuries. It happens. I don't see why they'd overturn a decision when the ref saw it in real time and then VAR was used it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2020 14:28:45 GMT
No ban for Pickford then I just watched that for the first time and that is just horrific. It's pretty wild the more you see it. Obviously when an injury involved you tend to see it perhaps in a darker light but i can't defend Pickford in any way. There's spreading yourself and there's what he did It's not like VVD was running into him. I could see Harald Schumacher gasping watching that one at home.
|
|