AS Monaco (A) | CL | Post Match Thread

Lovebitesandeveryfing said:
I think the foul is a genuine grey area. Problem is on a forum is that people always want it to be black and white, Was/Was Not, purely binary.
I actually find that the decision making process is the wrong way round in this instance. I would actually have found it understandable if in real time the ref had awarded a penalty. If VAR then had the authority to call him to the monitor — but they don't, do they, in that scenario? — the proper function of VAR, in this instance would have been to get him to rescind his original decision. The slow motion makes it clear that a) he gets the ball b) barely brushes Dier. And the oblique angle between leg and head then makes the “dangerous play foot up” argument more than doubtful.
Look we should have put the game to bed before it even got to that. I hope everyone can agree on that. The major problem was there.
Click to expand...
That's why VAR intervened. I agree its close. Had there not been contact and the ref didn't call for an indirect kick for dangerous play, VAT would not have intervened. They intervened specifically because they thought they saw contact and thus making this a potential penalty.

And all potential penalties demand VAR intervention.

Everything about the scenario worked correctly. Even if unfortunately against us.
 
Hypothetical question: if the exact same situation should occur next UCL match, would any of you who don't blame Nico for last night (not for the dropped points, just for the penalty) blame him then?

If so, what would be your reason for changing your mind?
 
Dax777 said:
That's why VAR intervened. I agree its close. Had there not been contact and the ref didn't call for an indirect kick for dangerous play, VAT would not have intervened. They intervened specifically because they thought they saw contact and thus making this a potential penalty.

And all potential penalties demand VAR intervention.

Everything about the scenario worked correctly. Even if unfortunately against us.
Click to expand...
If there wasn’t contact that doesn’t matter according to your earlier posts and those of nearly everyone else who thinks this was a penalty. I wish you would just stick to one story, but you don’t, like nearly always.
 
noseve said:
Hypothetical question: if the exact same situation should occur next UCL match, would any of you who don't blame Nico for last night (not for the dropped points, just for the penalty) blame him then?

If so, what would be your reason for changing your mind?
Click to expand...
I don’t blame him at all but I do think Dier was clever and knew what he was doing. Nico didn’t give away the penalty Dier won it so if the same thing happened again I’d still expect Nico to try clear it then let the ball go past him in the box
 
So if the ball comes inside the box , stop , take a deep breath and low your pants down?
 
Dier is stooping and the contact is minimal, the foot is high and it's a tough decision to take. But if i'm honest, Gonzalez also reacted slowly to Dier's movement after the kick was taken, and Dier gets goal-side. This was poor. Dier did use centre half 'know-how' to use his body and arms to impede Gonzalez but Nico should be shoving his body full strength in the way or shoulder to shoulder Dier.

From the distance he was from goal, you would back Donnarumma, especially if Nico unsettles Dier's body position in any way. I thought going in with the foot in the box was naive.
 
ufo said:
So if the ball comes inside the box , stop , take a deep breath and low your pants down?
Click to expand...
They're the only two options then, are they?

What about accepting that you are out of position; realising that you can't make a move for the ball without risking a penalty; showing faith in the other covering defenders and/or your keeper?

This ridiculous 'macho' element that some bring into the equation is crazy.
 
Last edited:
noseve said:
A perfect example of why one-goal leads are never comfortable.

Surely you've seen poor decisions before, or 35-yard wonder strikes, or freak deflections? If a team makes a conscious decision to protect a one-goal lead, only for one of the above to occur (against which you can definitely legislate, by attempting to stretch your lead) they've nobody else to blame.

Not everything is somebody else's fault.
Click to expand...
Lots of games are won by 1 goal, you can't win every game by 2 clear goals. Last night we drew because of a very poor refereeing decision, so yes it was somebody else's fault. Don't try to over analyse the obvious.
 
Superace said:
Lots of games are won by 1 goal, you can't win every game by 2 clear goals. Last night we drew because of a very poor refereeing decision, so yes it was somebody else's fault. Don't try to over analyse the obvious.
Click to expand...
Not over-analysing anything.

Plenty of matchea are also won by a single goal after a 2-goal lead has been reduced because of an unplanned moment.
 
Father Paul said:
Spot on. The night before they got it right during the dippers game correctly pointing out a poor decision. Here they entered into that grey area that has sickened so many and is potentially ruining the game. They indulged in needless subjective analysis which offered an alternative view to the ref but not pointing out an obvious mistake. We perhaps need VAR just an awful lot less of it.
Click to expand...
I'm a firm believer in VAR but much much more reduced impact to the game. Its changed the game we love
 
Dax777 said:
True. But for the infringement in question: "raised foot with contact" slowing down to ascertain contact was necessary. Besides at normal speed it looked like there was contact coz Dier jerked his head like he was shot or something. But the slowdown was realy to confirm he wasn't cheating us and buying the post event reaction by Dier.

He wasn't. It was a penalty.
Click to expand...
Okey dokey. I thought Dier made the most of it given that he knew the ref has been shit all match and was likely to give it. You thought it was a pen I thought it was harsh.
the fact we can’t agree just shows how hard it is nowadays .
 
Longdarnit Blue said:
Apologies if this was answered earlier, but if Dier was actually kicked in the head - why was he allowed to remain on the pitch to take the penalty? He could easily have had concussion or even have been killed….
Click to expand...
If the 'injured' player is taking the penalty he can stay on.
 
Dax777 said:
True. But for the infringement in question: "raised foot with contact" slowing down to ascertain contact was necessary. Besides at normal speed it looked like there was contact coz Dier jerked his head like he was shot or something. But the slowdown was realy to confirm he wasn't cheating us and buying the post event reaction by Dier.

He wasn't. It was a penalty.
Click to expand...
When I saw it in real time, I thought “Uh oh!”

When I saw it on the monitor in slo-mo and freeze frame, I thought it was a good non-call. I was literally surprised it was given, even though I was not thrilled Nico’s foot was so high. The important things to me were the player came in from the blindside, the foot was not studs up (dangerous), and there was minimal if any real contact as Nico won the ball.

All that said, most European refereeing is a fucking joke compared to the English game, which still gets railed. It’s as if there is a different Laws of the Game over there, and it rewards feigning injury, whining about ANY contact, and yet they’re reflexive in throwing yellow cards around in a very performative, stern-faced manner. Prancing clowns most of them!
 
ChicagoBlue said:
When I saw it in real time, I thought “Uh oh!”

When I saw it on the monitor in slo-mo and freeze frame, I thought it was a good non-call. I was literally surprised it was given, even though I was not thrilled Nico’s foot was so high. The important things to me were the player came in from the blindside, the foot was not studs up (dangerous), and there was minimal if any real contact as Nico won the ball.

All that said, most European refereeing is a fucking joke compared to the English game, which still gets railed. It’s as if there is a different Laws of the Game over there, and it rewards feigning injury, whining about ANY contact, and yet they’re reflexive in throwing yellow cards around in a very performative, stern-faced manner. Prancing clowns most of them!
Click to expand...
This gets on my nerve. Has that 'I want to be a bully' vibe.
 
noseve said:
Hypothetical question: if the exact same situation should occur next UCL match, would any of you who don't blame Nico for last night (not for the dropped points, just for the penalty) blame him then?

If so, what would be your reason for changing your mind?
Click to expand...
Well if his name was Matheus Nunes, you can bet your last penny the pile on would be immense.

Nico took a risk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top