Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] Sheffield Utd v Manchester City FA Cup Semi Final



Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
24,375
Just switched on for the second half. Ground appears to be virtually empty. WTF?
Just noticed that here. I thought Sheffield United had taken their full allocation.
 










The Wizard

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2009
18,383
Yep. This conspiracy stuff is tiresome and immature. VAR is not meant to re ref the game. At first I thought it was a penalty. Then I changed my mind. Then I changed it again. All irrelevant. The on field ref gave his decision and in the absence of 100% proof against that’s what counts. Pretty much the same system as used in cricket. I don’t like VAR but not because it doesn’t make the decisions I think should be made. I’m not the ref.
There’s always someone that has to be devils advocate for the sake of it.

The whole ‘clear and obvious’ quote is tiresome, clear and obvious is open to interpretation, if a player getting the ball isn’t clear and obvious then what the hell is? A ball hitting someone’s hip not their hand? An offside line? A ball hitting someone’s shoulder and being ruled hand ball?
 






Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,705
Darlington
Yep. This conspiracy stuff is tiresome and immature. VAR is not meant to re ref the game. At first I thought it was a penalty. Then I changed my mind. Then I changed it again. All irrelevant. The on field ref gave his decision and in the absence of 100% proof against that’s what counts. Pretty much the same system as used in cricket. I don’t like VAR but not because it doesn’t make the decisions I think should be made. I’m not the ref.
The comparison to cricket (which you're obviously not the first to have made, but have lucked out as being the person I've decided to respond to. Congratulations)
is misleading, as the technology used in cricket can either provide a definitive answer or has a known margin of error.
Having the decisions re-refereed by people who have repeatedly shown that they were given their brain as some sort of consolation prize is not comparable, wherever we personally think the line on "clear and obvious" should be drawn.
 


Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,705
Darlington
There’s always someone that has to be devils advocate for the sake of it.

The whole ‘clear and obvious’ quote is tiresome, clear and obvious is open to interpretation, if a player getting the ball isn’t clear and obvious then what the hell is? A ball hitting someone’s hip not their hand? An offside line? A ball hitting someone’s shoulder and being ruled hand ball?
I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, but my understanding has always been that there's no actual basis for the idea that a tackle can't be a foul if the player gets the ball.
 






Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
12,538
Cumbria
I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, but my understanding has always been that there's no actual basis for the idea that a tackle can't be a foul if the player gets the ball.
No actual basis written down - but a well understood and established precedent over 100+ years really. If you get the ball first, it should only really be a foul if it's dangerous play at the same time.
 




















Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,705
Darlington
No actual basis written down - but a well understood and established precedent over 100+ years really. If you get the ball first, it should only really be a foul if it's dangerous play at the same time.
Yeah, but a decision's never going to be overturned based on something that isn't in the rules.
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here