You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Var debate 2019/20
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
jimmygrimblesboots
Well-Known Member
Unless it comes down to goal difference...it doesnt ditract fromthe fact that they were deneid a stoneall penalty by the same system of referral.
Goal difference ? i would take that , sincerely hope it does , because the Dippers will lose. As for the Dippers having a decision go against them , after last season and their good fortune ,respectfully .......... i couldnt give a fook
simon23
Well-Known Member
Goal difference ? i would take that , sincerely hope it does , because the Dippers will lose. As for the Dippers having a decision go against them , after last season and their good fortune ,respectfully .......... i couldnt give a fook
no neither can i but its a big blak mark agains those who say its only us that gets shafted by it....
This!no neither can i but its a big blak mark agains those who say its only us that gets shafted by it....
jimmygrimblesboots
Well-Known Member
no neither can i but its a big blak mark agains those who say its only us that gets shafted by it....
Hope the next time we get shafted its when we are winning 7-0 :)
Onholiday(somemightsay)
Well-Known Member
Banking sector (slightly less so since 2008)?Can anyone think of any other industry where one or two know nothing cûnts can control the future of tens of millions of pounds without any oversight or come back on them?
It’s beyond a joke.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,232
Not that it matters much given how shite we were, but I am fucking glad they didn't change the penalty decision on Stones's handball.
For the third Norwich goal, Pukki was inside the area from the goal kick, should have been retaken
VAR can't get involved in this
You're kidding me?
No, not kidding
Florida Blue
Well-Known Member
For the third Norwich goal, Pukki was inside the area from the goal kick, should have been retaken
Is that true? In all the highlights he looks nowhere near the area, I can't find any highlights that show the goal kick being taken.
ALL goals are looked at by VAR, the question on that incident is how far do they go back to Pukki being inside the box and calling that infringement, Stones has plenty of space to pass to Ota before Ota loses it.
Did they look at it and deem Pukki got no advantage being inside the box before the goal?
I'd love a ref to explain, and tell us how far they go back and look at things.