Match of the Day - 2020/21

Tommy_Catons_Perm said:
Martin Keown used that one to justify his verdict that the penalty that was given was the wrong decision. He said that because the first one looked more of a penalty and the ref decided it wasn't, then the ref had "set the bar" on what was a penalty. Therefore no way could the second one be a penalty and VAR should have realised this and not given the penalty.

Bizarre logic suggesting one wrong decision on a penalty means all subsequent decisions should be wrong too.
Click to expand...
Moss set the bar for handballs when he penalised Jesus when the ball hit his upper chest, possibly simultaneously his upper arm. The penalty award was correct using this same criteria.

The earlier penalty call potentially hit the upper arm at the part covered by the short sleeve. This isn't a penalty. But the only person I've heard refer to this part of the law is Dermot Gallagher. None of the pundits have mentioned this, so their opinions are pretty irrelevant really.

The bar for cautions was set when Moss issued soft cards against two City players. Moss isn't a very good referee, but at least he was consistent in sticking to his own standards.
 
moomba said:
He seems to be obsessed with appearing like the thinking man's commentator.

Which for a thick fuck like him doesnt really work.
Click to expand...
He has the tone of voice like he's always on the verge of telling you your dog has died
 
Paladin said:
Moss set the bar for handballs when he penalised Jesus when the ball hit his upper chest, possibly simultaneously his upper arm. The penalty award was correct using this same criteria.

The earlier penalty call potentially hit the upper arm at the part covered by the short sleeve. This isn't a penalty. But the only person I've heard refer to this part of the law is Dermot Gallagher. None of the pundits have mentioned this, so their opinions are pretty irrelevant really.

The bar for cautions was set when Moss issued soft cards against two City players. Moss isn't a very good referee, but at least he was consistent in sticking to his own standards.
Click to expand...
Fair enough on all 3 points. But I find the idea of setting bars for penalties very odd. Is it mentioned in the laws of the game? Do all referees do it? Do they all set the bar at the same level? Do they show the players where the bar is before kick off. No, it's bollocks.
 
34yearsandstillgoingstrong said:
Match of the day excelled last night. At least the refs were consistent in awarding pens to all of the Big 4 and VAR was consistent in not overturning any of the decisions. The "3 Wise men" on MoD were consistent in applauding all of the -often contentious - decisions. That is - apart from those at The Etihad where they felt moved to question the integrity of Moss ( I know ! ) and the whole point of VAR.
LIVERPOOL - Salah clearly sticks his left leg out at a right angle to "initiate contact" and follows up with his trademark swandive ( for MoD - a definite penalty ) At the other end Allinson takes out the Villa Player but for MoD he manages to "get a finger to the ball" and so -for MoD - the right decision ! - NO PENALTY
CHELSEA - umpteenth minute of FergieTime -a coming together of feet -entirely accidental - for MoD -A CLEAR penalty
THE RAGS - Cross into the Norwich area ; CR7 has no chance of getting to the ball , Norwich defender has his hand on CR7's shoulder ; CR7 executes his trademark extravagant swan-dive - PENALTY ( definite Penalty for MoD )
Magliar tugs Norwich player's shirt and performs his usual bear-hug on said player who is bearing down on goal . Nothing given and for MoD's 3 Wise Men not worthy of a mention
Interesting penalty at BRENTFORD. Again deep into Fergie Time . Watford defender attempts a tackle , makes no contact with the Brentford player who-anticipating the challenge -goes down and in the process stamps on the Watford Player's leg. For MoD this was apparently a STONEWALL Penalty.
and so to THE ETIHAD
Wolves player sticks his right arm high in the air to intercept Silva's cross. Ball hit said arm and penalty awarded.
For MoD a totally outrageous decision ; "Moss is incompetent and what is the point of VAR when it is plain to see that the ball hit the Wolves player's armpit" ( forgetting to mention together with the whole of his upperarm )
MoD then showed an earlier claim City had had for a penalty ( City actually had 5 decent claims for penalties ! ) and because that claim was even more obviously a penalty than the one given it would seem - for MoD - that the giving of later penalty demonstrated the incompetence of the officials.
MoD then went on to argue that Wolves were very hard done to with respect to the Jimenez sending off. "Moss had a very poor game today" It seems that Jimenez's booking - for tugging Rodri's shirt and diving in from behind - was totally uncalled for and it directly led to Jimenez's subsequent sending-off. It wasn't Jimenez's fault he was sent off - it was the incompetence of Moss and his obvious bias in favour of City !
Well , we City fans are used to this strange logic from the media . ( and we did get our first penalty of the season !)
Click to expand...
Lots of words there mate and l agree with every one. The BBC wankus are so certain and emphatic they have me doubting myself.
The one that wins top prize for stupidity is the Liverpool goalie one. His roundhouse swing took a man down and if it did touch the ball it wasn't enough to.make it move.
I don't think that their interpretation is in the rules but neither is their standard but meaningless 'there's not enough in it for me'.
BBC sport right now in full flow backing Lewis Hamilton even quoting Harry Kane's opinion three times.
 
Tommy_Catons_Perm said:
Martin Keown used that one to justify his verdict that the penalty that was given was the wrong decision. He said that because the first one looked more of a penalty and the ref decided it wasn't, then the ref had "set the bar" on what was a penalty. Therefore no way could the second one be a penalty and VAR should have realised this and not given the penalty.

Bizarre logic suggesting one wrong decision on a penalty means all subsequent decisions should be wrong too.
Click to expand...
Like you and no doubt many a Blue from Crumpsall to Edgeley, from Weaste to Dukinfield, I was sitting on my sofa and spluttering into my light ale when I heard the comments from Keown and Shearer on the penalty and sending-off decisions.

I mean, that these two seasoned, insightful pundits, noted for their backgrounds in Philosophy, Logic and Classical Studies, should make the mistaken conclusions they did by falling into the 'Post Hoc Fallacy' almost made me choke on my crinkle cut crisps!

As everyone knows, 'Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc' (literally, 'After this, therefore because of this') has been used by philosophers down the ages to point out the flaws in such attempted examples of 'logic', wherein an action is (mistakenly) related to a separate, previous action which has nothing whatsoever to do with the subsequent action.

Mind, had Messrs.Keown and Shearer made the connection between the two events that Moss is a useless twunt, then they might have had a case..

I'm sure you'll agree with me in thinking that both pundits need to go back to their Oxbridge 'alma maters' for refresher courses to get back to the levels of insight and logical thought we've become accustomed to when watching MOTD over the years..[/QUOTE]
 
johnevans said:
Like you and no doubt many a Blue from Crumpsall to Edgeley, from Weaste to Dukinfield, I was sitting on my sofa and spluttering into my light ale when I heard the comments from Keown and Shearer on the penalty and sending-off decisions.

I mean, that these two seasoned, insightful pundits, noted for their backgrounds in Philosophy, Logic and Classical Studies, should make the mistaken conclusions they did by falling into the 'Post Hoc Fallacy' almost made me choke on my crinkle cut crisps!

As everyone knows, 'Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc' (literally, 'After this, therefore because of this') has been used by philosophers down the ages to point out the flaws in such attempted examples of 'logic', wherein an action is (mistakenly) related to a separate, previous action which has nothing whatsoever to do with the subsequent action.

Mind, had Messrs.Keown and Shearer made the connection between the two events that Moss is a useless twunt, then they might have had a case..

I'm sure you'll agree with me in thinking that both pundits need to go back to their Oxbridge 'alma maters' for refresher courses to get back to the levels of insight and logical thought we've become accustomed to when watching MOTD over the years..
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
Sir, that is very eloquently written and drives straight to the heart of the matter.

Unlike, you and those esteemed pundits I do not have an Oxbridge education in Philosophy or Classics, so I had to Google the Post Hoc Fallacy.

Now suitably educated, I concur that Moss is a useless twunt.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.