or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 19 comments are related to an article called:

Sweep it under the carpet

Page 1 of 1

posted on 26/8/19

Which penalty incident was this now? Seems every week you guys have an issue.

posted on 26/8/19

Man City get too many penalties as it is. Only one of United's goals have come from the penalty spot so far this season which shows that we are being screwed over by the ref.

posted on 26/8/19

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
Which penalty incident was this now? Seems every week you guys have an issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mepham stood on David Silva's foot, bringing him down in the penalty area. Reviewed but dismissed. There seems to be a reluctance to overrule the on field ref now. You just get the feel that it is changing and they FA making it up as they go along. No consistency of what is reviewed and if all they are going to do is support the ref what's the point?

posted on 26/8/19

So you don’t pay for a tv license but watch match of the day? Do you steal $ky subscriptions too? Go to the city games for free by sneaking in?

You make me sick.

posted on 26/8/19

comment by Kane Hemmings (U1734)
posted 45 seconds ago
Man City get too many penalties as it is. Only one of United's goals have come from the penalty spot so far this season which shows that we are being screwed over by the ref.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
haha to be fair the one pen we scored we only managed cause VAR gave us another go.

posted on 26/8/19

He is not content with over 75s having to pay their licences so that he can watch for free, he is also making the disabled and terminally ill pay for theirs whilst he steals TV for free and bankrupts the poor and feeble.

posted on 26/8/19

Calma amigos

Live in North Carolina now. So its online for MOTD and NBCSN for everymatch. Lee Dixon, Arlo White and Grahame Le Seux on commentary

posted on 26/8/19

comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
Which penalty incident was this now? Seems every week you guys have an issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mepham stood on David Silva's foot, bringing him down in the penalty area. Reviewed but dismissed. There seems to be a reluctance to overrule the on field ref now. You just get the feel that it is changing and they FA making it up as they go along. No consistency of what is reviewed and if all they are going to do is support the ref what's the point?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they seem to have set a much higher bar than the rest of Europe, for decisions being overturned. I haven't seen the incident so can't comment on that but I don't like that they aren't over-ruling mistakes and the fact that 'clear and obvious error' is subjective. They should take out the clear and obvious error, which would make things easier and fair. Things would then natural be more consistent.

posted on 26/8/19

VAR was brought into ensure that the correct decision is given if it had not been awarded by the ref. The Silva and spurs ignored penalty claims were pathetic and VAR atm just seems a complete pointless waste of time if its not going to do its purpose.

posted on 26/8/19

comment by Shaun M - Ran out of usernames (U9955)
posted 46 minutes ago
VAR was brought into ensure that the correct decision is given if it had not been awarded by the ref. The Silva and spurs ignored penalty claims were pathetic and VAR atm just seems a complete pointless waste of time if its not going to do its purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Kane’s reputation for diving and initiating contact to win penalties doesn’t help in this situation.
Could have gone either way for me.

The Silva incident was a clear blatant penalty.

posted on 26/8/19

comment by Shaun M - Ran out of usernames (U9955)
posted 58 minutes ago
VAR was brought into ensure that the correct decision is given if it had not been awarded by the ref. The Silva and spurs ignored penalty claims were pathetic and VAR atm just seems a complete pointless waste of time if its not going to do its purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spurs one was a dive, for me.

posted on 26/8/19

IMO City and Spurs should have each gotten a penalty.

It does VAR no favours when they fail to overturn blatant decisions.

VAR can be great but what a shame at some of it's application.

posted on 26/8/19

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by Shaun M - Ran out of usernames (U9955)
posted 58 minutes ago
VAR was brought into ensure that the correct decision is given if it had not been awarded by the ref. The Silva and spurs ignored penalty claims were pathetic and VAR atm just seems a complete pointless waste of time if its not going to do its purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spurs one was a dive, for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Might fall into the category of trying to buy a pen, but there was plenty of contact. Seen much less given.

posted on 26/8/19

I think the same points raised with Kanes non pen could equally be raised with the Jimenez one which was given.

posted on 26/8/19

comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by Shaun M - Ran out of usernames (U9955)
posted 58 minutes ago
VAR was brought into ensure that the correct decision is given if it had not been awarded by the ref. The Silva and spurs ignored penalty claims were pathetic and VAR atm just seems a complete pointless waste of time if its not going to do its purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spurs one was a dive, for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Might fall into the category of trying to buy a pen, but there was plenty of contact. Seen much less given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes there was contact and I changed my mind on this after about ten replays, that Kane pushed himself left, into the contact and then went down just before it became enough to send him down. If he had continued right, on his natural course, it wouldn't have happened. In this case, according to the guidance given to the VAR, it's not a 'clear and obvious error'. For me it wasn't even an error as Kane attempted to buy the penalty.

posted on 26/8/19

comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 25 minutes ago
I think the same points raised with Kanes non pen could equally be raised with the Jimenez one which was given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just watched that one. I'd say they are very different. Jimenez uses his body to shield the ball, getting in front of the defender, who fouls him. Kane was going right with the ball then unnaturally comes in left without the ball and starts going down, before the contact is enough for a foul.

posted on 26/8/19

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/var-right-deny-harry-kane-19009336

----------------------------------------------
Talk about stealing a living.

comment by Scarf (U21116)

posted on 27/8/19

City are going to be the 'victims' of VAR as things stand in the Premier League.

They spend more time in their opponents penalty areas, and therefore have more opportunities for penalty claims, which at the moment is still 'whatever the Ref sees' that is the decision; so it stands to reason that they will have more clear cut penalty claims turned down, with Silva vs Bournemouth and Rodri vs Tottenham (both nailed on spot kicks) turned down.

Also, having more arms and hands in the opponents penalty area means there is more chance of the ball accidentally hitting one of them, ie Laporte's hand denying Jesus goal against Tottenham even though not a single person in the Stadium saw it.

Also, their main 'weapons' for breaking down well organised defences are precise through balls and well timed runs; clearly the split second nature of this type of play means they are regularly going to fall foul of the accuracy of VAR in comparison with the human eye, Jesus (again) ruled out goal vs West Ham (a superb piece of football) was ruled out because Sterling hadn't shaved his armpit hair or some equally daft explanation.

It isn't right that attacking football be punished, sadly that is what seems to be the outcome (even if it is City)

posted on 27/8/19

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 day, 3 hours ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 25 minutes ago
I think the same points raised with Kanes non pen could equally be raised with the Jimenez one which was given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just watched that one. I'd say they are very different. Jimenez uses his body to shield the ball, getting in front of the defender, who fouls him. Kane was going right with the ball then unnaturally comes in left without the ball and starts going down, before the contact is enough for a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They are and they aren’t. Jimenez was very clever with his and knew exactly what he was doing to get the result he wanted.

Page 1 of 1

Sign in if you want to comment