VAR so far...

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Teddy Eagle 01 Sep 19 11.31pm
Originally posted by Mapletree That isn’t what was said As he has history refs look out for this. It’s a known modus operandi Well it is what was said because I said it. Refs also knew they’d be surrounded by a mob of angry Man U players over any decision. Didn’t mean they did anything about it though.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

01 Sep 19 11.31pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

That isn’t what was said

As he has history refs look out for this. It’s a known modus operandi

Well it is what was said because I said it. Refs also knew they’d be surrounded by a mob of angry Man U players over any decision. Didn’t mean they did anything about it though.

Alert a moderator to this post

Putitout Oxford 02 Sep 19 11.15am
Looking at this a few times ,from Friends angle, which was behind the incident. It was clear that even allowing for Wilfs little bit of contact, Grealish ploughed on, he even put his hip and leg into Cahill, so as to make it a bigger contact than was actually the case. Before not falling in a heap, but leaping forward for max effect. Friend had already bought it more than once, he obviously got a better look at the technic behind it this time.
Alert a moderator to this post

Putitout

Oxford 02 Sep 19 11.15am

Looking at this a few times ,from Friends angle, which was behind the incident. It was clear that even allowing for Wilfs little bit of contact, Grealish ploughed on, he even put his hip and leg into Cahill, so as to make it a bigger contact than was actually the case. Before not falling in a heap, but leaping forward for max effect. Friend had already bought it more than once, he obviously got a better look at the technic behind it this time.

Alert a moderator to this post

maddog Wiltshire 02 Sep 19 2.03pm
MOTD were pretty clueless really. Their's was the "howler". It ought to be obvious why once the referee blows his whistle play has stopped - VAR hasn't changed that. Since the ball went in the net after play had stopped whatever else it was, it was NOT A GOAL. This is basic stuff! Lineker & Co were certain the referee was mistaken in thinking Grealish dived - but gave no proper reason why. Jermaine Jenas said he couldn't have dived because he passed the ball - bizarre logic! If anything it shows it was a dive since Grealish was stable enough to pass the ball but apparently not to stay on his feet. There was no contact on Grealish in the box - no one touched him until he dived at Gary Cahill. There was possible contact from Zaha outside the box. But a free kick decision is NOT within the scope of VAR - so VAR could not have overturned the referee's decision not to give a free kick. It's possible that Villa should have got a free kick. But no one in the studio consider this and we didn't see any close ups to check if there was actually contact from Zaha. Most games have several controversial free kick decisions with barely a mention from the MOTD studio - these hysterics were so OTT. Tim Cahill said that the referee should have allowed play to continue. Is that a new rule that Tim C has invented? The infringement was by Villa player and there was clearly no advantage to Palace from allowing play to continue so why wouldn't a referee stop play? Apparently so that VAR can reverse his decision. That's not a rule that I am aware of - have I missed something ? So Villa may have cause to feel aggrieved that they didn't get a free kick in a very dangerous position - but nothing more than that. 1-0
Alert a moderator to this post

maddog

Wiltshire 02 Sep 19 2.03pm

MOTD were pretty clueless really. Their's was the "howler".

It ought to be obvious why once the referee blows his whistle play has stopped - VAR hasn't changed that. Since the ball went in the net after play had stopped whatever else it was, it was NOT A GOAL. This is basic stuff!

Lineker & Co were certain the referee was mistaken in thinking Grealish dived - but gave no proper reason why. Jermaine Jenas said he couldn't have dived because he passed the ball - bizarre logic! If anything it shows it was a dive since Grealish was stable enough to pass the ball but apparently not to stay on his feet.

There was no contact on Grealish in the box - no one touched him until he dived at Gary Cahill. There was possible contact from Zaha outside the box. But a free kick decision is NOT within the scope of VAR - so VAR could not have overturned the referee's decision not to give a free kick.

It's possible that Villa should have got a free kick. But no one in the studio consider this and we didn't see any close ups to check if there was actually contact from Zaha. Most games have several controversial free kick decisions with barely a mention from the MOTD studio - these hysterics were so OTT.

Tim Cahill said that the referee should have allowed play to continue. Is that a new rule that Tim C has invented? The infringement was by Villa player and there was clearly no advantage to Palace from allowing play to continue so why wouldn't a referee stop play? Apparently so that VAR can reverse his decision. That's not a rule that I am aware of - have I missed something ?

So Villa may have cause to feel aggrieved that they didn't get a free kick in a very dangerous position - but nothing more than that. 1-0

Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare 02 Sep 19 2.12pm
Originally posted by Curlyeagle 2 Palace popularity is poor and I thought Match of the Day was shocking! Not a word about the game or how Palace dominated for most just all about the penalty claim. I also feel that the boy Grealish will make a rod for his own back. Although a talented player he is petulant and spends a large majority of the game on his arse! This in itself makes it very difficult for referees to decide if it’s a genuine foul or if he’s throwing himself to the floor. In my opinion they got it spot on re the penalty, minimal contact if any just Grealish throwing himself to the floor whilst running at pace. reminds me of wilf :P
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

02 Sep 19 2.12pm

Originally posted by Curlyeagle 2

Palace popularity is poor and I thought Match of the Day was shocking! Not a word about the game or how Palace dominated for most just all about the penalty claim.

I also feel that the boy Grealish will make a rod for his own back. Although a talented player he is petulant and spends a large majority of the game on his arse! This in itself makes it very difficult for referees to decide if it’s a genuine foul or if he’s throwing himself to the floor.
In my opinion they got it spot on re the penalty, minimal contact if any just Grealish throwing himself to the floor whilst running at pace.

reminds me of wilf :P

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 02 Sep 19 2.12pm
Originally posted by maddog MOTD were pretty clueless really. Their's was the "howler". It ought to be obvious why once the referee blows his whistle play has stopped - VAR hasn't changed that. Since the ball went in the net after play had stopped whatever else it was, it was NOT A GOAL. This is basic stuff! Lineker & Co were certain the referee was mistaken in thinking Grealish dived - but gave no proper reason why. Jermaine Jenas said he couldn't have dived because he passed the ball - bizarre logic! If anything it shows it was a dive since Grealish was stable enough to pass the ball but apparently not to stay on his feet. There was no contact on Grealish in the box - no one touched him until he dived at Gary Cahill. There was possible contact from Zaha outside the box. But a free kick decision is NOT within the scope of VAR - so VAR could not have overturned the referee's decision not to give a free kick. It's possible that Villa should have got a free kick. But no one in the studio consider this and we didn't see any close ups to check if there was actually contact from Zaha. Most games have several controversial free kick decisions with barely a mention from the MOTD studio - these hysterics were so OTT. Tim Cahill said that the referee should have allowed play to continue. Is that a new rule that Tim C has invented? The infringement was by Villa player and there was clearly no advantage to Palace from allowing play to continue so why wouldn't a referee stop play? Apparently so that VAR can reverse his decision. That's not a rule that I am aware of - have I missed something ? So Villa may have cause to feel aggrieved that they didn't get a free kick in a very dangerous position - but nothing more than that. 1-0 I wholehearted concur, in fact I posted comments to this effect but just not quite so eloquently. Some pundits make fools of themselves with their hogwash and lack of knowledge of the laws.
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 02 Sep 19 2.12pm

Originally posted by maddog

MOTD were pretty clueless really. Their's was the "howler".

So Villa may have cause to feel aggrieved that they didn't get a free kick in a very dangerous position - but nothing more than that. 1-0

I wholehearted concur, in fact I posted comments to this effect but just not quite so eloquently.
Some pundits make fools of themselves with their hogwash and lack of knowledge of the laws.

Alert a moderator to this post

maddog Wiltshire 02 Sep 19 3.02pm
Ironically if Grealish had stayed on his feet it would have ended 1-1. Villa fans should feel aggrieved by Grealish diving - he cost them the game.
Alert a moderator to this post

maddog

Wiltshire 02 Sep 19 3.02pm

Ironically if Grealish had stayed on his feet it would have ended 1-1. Villa fans should feel aggrieved by Grealish diving - he cost them the game.

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 02 Sep 19 3.08pm
Originally posted by maddog Ironically if Grealish had stayed on his feet it would have ended 1-1. Villa fans should feel aggrieved by Grealish diving - he cost them the game. Perhaps our players having heard a whistle never made strenuous efforts to keep out the shot.Just a thought, I don't know for certain if this was the case. At the end of the day, it would have been an injustice if A.Villa got a draw.I expected more of them.
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 02 Sep 19 3.08pm

Originally posted by maddog

Ironically if Grealish had stayed on his feet it would have ended 1-1. Villa fans should feel aggrieved by Grealish diving - he cost them the game.

Perhaps our players having heard a whistle never made strenuous efforts to keep out the shot.Just a thought, I don't know for certain if this was the case.

At the end of the day, it would have been an injustice if A.Villa got a draw.I expected more of them.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 02 Sep 19 4.44pm
Originally posted by Willo I wholehearted concur, in fact I posted comments to this effect but just not quite so eloquently. Some pundits make fools of themselves with their hogwash and lack of knowledge of the laws. So do I and so have I. I believe I was the first to highlight the nonsense spouted by T Cahill The PL statement does make sense. In short, VAR didn't review per se whether Grealish dove; it checked whether there was any cause to award a penalty. Although the two things are effectively rolled into one on this occasion, they are two distinctly different issues. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 02 Sep 19 4.44pm

Originally posted by Willo

I wholehearted concur, in fact I posted comments to this effect but just not quite so eloquently.
Some pundits make fools of themselves with their hogwash and lack of knowledge of the laws.

So do I and so have I. I believe I was the first to highlight the nonsense spouted by T Cahill

The PL statement does make sense. In short, VAR didn't review per se whether Grealish dove; it checked whether there was any cause to award a penalty. Although the two things are effectively rolled into one on this occasion, they are two distinctly different issues.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 02 Sep 19 4.59pm
Originally posted by YT So do I and so have I. I believe I was the first to highlight the nonsense spouted by T Cahill The PL statement does make sense. In short, VAR didn't review per se whether Grealish dove; it checked whether there was any cause to award a penalty. Although the two things are effectively rolled into one on this occasion, they are two distinctly different issues. Supporters are totally confused as to when VAR is used, whether it was used,if it being used to review an incident at a game they are watching etc etc etc.The whole business of VAR is shrouded in confusion which leads to misunderstanding.
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 02 Sep 19 4.59pm

Originally posted by YT

So do I and so have I. I believe I was the first to highlight the nonsense spouted by T Cahill

The PL statement does make sense. In short, VAR didn't review per se whether Grealish dove; it checked whether there was any cause to award a penalty. Although the two things are effectively rolled into one on this occasion, they are two distinctly different issues.

Supporters are totally confused as to when VAR is used, whether it was used,if it being used to review an incident at a game they are watching etc etc etc.The whole business of VAR is shrouded in confusion which leads to misunderstanding.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 02 Sep 19 5.04pm
Originally posted by Willo Supporters are totally confused as to when VAR is used, whether it was used,if it being used to review an incident at a game they are watching etc etc etc.The whole business of VAR is shrouded in confusion which leads to misunderstanding. Yes I concede that. I believe the modern phrase is that "it requires more education". Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 02 Sep 19 5.04pm

Originally posted by Willo

Yes I concede that. I believe the modern phrase is that "it requires more education".

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Putitout Oxford 02 Sep 19 5.06pm
Slightly off the VAR thing, but for me another worrying aspect coming out of this is , how Friend , is being slagged off by a succession of not just ex players, but any number of ex refs .some only recently finished. It’s incredible that we now have Four officials round the pitch, backed by VAR, yet there is more open controversy now from people you might expect to be much more measured in their responses. And nowhere near as personal . Another thing is this decision taken with the use of VAR, has totally dominated any comment on the game .Surely this looks like VAR and not the game of football ,is going to be the future big deal ,in particular for TV use.
Alert a moderator to this post

Putitout

Oxford 02 Sep 19 5.06pm

Slightly off the VAR thing, but for me another worrying aspect coming out of this is , how Friend , is being slagged off by a succession of not just ex players, but any number of ex refs .some only recently finished.
It’s incredible that we now have Four officials round the pitch, backed by VAR, yet there is more open controversy now from people you might expect to be much more measured in their responses. And nowhere near as personal .
Another thing is this decision taken with the use of VAR, has totally dominated any comment on the game .Surely this looks like VAR and not the game of football ,is going to be the future big deal ,in particular for TV use.

Alert a moderator to this post

EddieMac 02 Sep 19 5.12pm
Originally posted by Putitout Slightly off the VAR thing, but for me another worrying aspect coming out of this is , how Friend , is being slagged off by a succession of not just ex players, but any number of ex refs .some only recently finished. It’s incredible that we now have Four officials round the pitch, backed by VAR, yet there is more open controversy now from people you might expect to be much more measured in their responses. And nowhere near as personal . Another thing is this decision taken with the use of VAR, has totally dominated any comment on the game .Surely this looks like VAR and not the game of football ,is going to be the future big deal ,in particular for TV use. This decision had absolutely nothing to do with VAR.
Alert a moderator to this post

EddieMac

02 Sep 19 5.12pm

Originally posted by Putitout

This decision had absolutely nothing to do with VAR.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

VAR so far...

Site Map

Sponsors