Media Thread - 2021/22

[Inter Me Nan]

Beautiful piss boiling.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

This place would be going mental if the penalty incident had been the other way round. Nobody is still certain if off side had been given or if it had even been looked at , the standard of officiating and communication is abysmal . Huge three points , which at this stage of the season is the only thing that counts .

The offside was after the hand/ball incident.
The freekick was taken out near the touchline, so it was nothing to do with Richarlison.
The screen said it was checking for handball, and it wouldn't have if Richarlison had been given offside.

 

[cashmereundies]

Big nose was off side so fuck off prick.

Thought his nose was offside a couple of times

 

[crazyg]

Olly Allen (who?) in the Daily Mail.

'most blatant handball ever' by Manchester City's Rodri​

Let’s put his statement in context. Modern football began in 1863.

So he's got a point, then?

;-)

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

This is why VAR should be on an open mic for the stadium and tv audience to hear reasons for decisions.

I was watching the England v Wales game at the back end and they were about to take a throw in and I noticed the clock - stationary at 70-odd mins. It didn't start again until the throw-in was taken! Timewasting sorted out with one simple decision. Didn't particularly warm to the idea that yer carry on playing beyond the 80mins until the ball is dead! But the goons in charge of maladministering our game have long since decided that we cannot learn one blind lesson from other sports. The fact that we don't hear what's going on between ref and VAR, and we only get a snippet of info whether VAR is looking or not is the first ingredient for manipulation.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Olly Allen (who?) in the Daily Mail.

'most blatant handball ever' by Manchester City's Rodri​

Let’s put his statement in context. Modern football began in 1863.

And just how many handballs did Sepp Blatter count when he was researching the game to conclude the Chinese invented it! I think that the decision has ruined more breakfasts today than when the Titanic sank.

 

[jimbopm]

Re: Richarlison being offside.

I suspect that he was probably a fraction offside but the thing with these VAR checks is that they review the immediate decision first and if they are starting to get ready to call the referee over to the monitor then they check for offside in the buildup.

Why not do things the other way round? When a review is done in cricket, the first thing they check is the legality of the delivery, then they review the actual decision.

We could all be getting our knickers in a twist over this handball when in fact the play should have been stopped before then. It would have been nice of Sky, with their tens of cameras available at each broadcast, to at least have cleared this up but they didn’t offer one replay of the through ball. I start to wonder why not? Is it because Richarlison was in fact offside and they are just hiding that replay in order to focus on the controversy?

I will say this though, if he was onside then for me it’s a penalty all day. I know the rules are what they are, but if that had happened in Everton’s box I would have been fuming if they said no penalty.

 

[Centurions]

The offside was after the hand/ball incident.
The freekick was taken out near the touchline, so it was nothing to do with Richarlison.
The screen said it was checking for handball, and it wouldn't have if Richarlison had been given offside.

No it wasn't, Richarlison looked to time his run slightly early and since the ball came off him and/or Eddie and that led directly to the "handball" they had to bring it back. The free kick should have been taken around the corner of our area, where it was actually taken from is immaterial.

I say it looked to be offside because MotD decided to completely ignore the fact that the ref gave an offside decision (presumably on advice from VAR or his linesman).

Regardless, fuck 'em all.

 

[paulchapo]

Can't believe he made those statements. He shouldn't be on there if he doesn't care about the rules. If he thinks it's a penalty then fine, but if there are rules about green and red zones then he should explain them and exactly why he thinks it was a penalty.

I'd have been a bit miffed if we didn't get that though.

Me too but var has not given us even more blatant penalties so my tears didn't last long.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Richarlison being offside.

I suspect that he was probably a fraction offside but the thing with these VAR checks is that they review the immediate decision first and if they are starting to get ready to call the referee over to the monitor then they check for offside in the buildup.

Why not do things the other way round? When a review is done in cricket, the first thing they check is the legality of the delivery, then they review the actual decision.

We could all be getting our knickers in a twist over this handball when in fact the play should have been stopped before then. It would have been nice of Sky, with their tens of cameras available at each broadcast, to at least have cleared this up but they didn’t offer one replay of the through ball. I start to wonder why not? Is it because Richarlison was in fact offside and they are just hiding that replay in order to focus on the controversy?

I will say this though, if he was onside then for me it’s a penalty all day. I know the rules are what they are, but if that had happened in Everton’s box I would have been fuming if they said no penalty.

The offside appears to have been after the handball but, as usual, the pundits either don't understand VAR or are being deliberately obtuse.

Tierney obviously saw the incident but decided it was not a handball as it hit Rodri in the so-called green zone where the sleeve is. VAR then looked at it when the offside occurred and decided it wasn't clear enough to overrule the original decision. Had Tierney given the penalty, it wouldn't have been overturned for the same reason.

This is exactly the same as the Ederson incident at Arsenal, that the media all wet their knickers over. The ref's decision would have been supported either way because there wasn't conclusive evidence either way.