The media keep them relevant. They hype them up at every single opportunity. Even if they were getting beaten in every game they'd big up their players, their crowd, their manager, anything. They just put them at the top of the headlines no matter what. At the same time they downplay our achievements and the 115 charges bollocks is manna from heaven for them.
Premier League Games 13/14/15 April '24
- Thread starter kaz7
- Start date
The media keep them relevant. They hype them up at every single opportunity. Even if they were getting beaten in every game they'd big up their players, their crowd, their manager, anything. They just put them at the top of the headlines no matter what. At the same time they downplay our achievements and the 115 charges bollocks is manna from heaven for them.
LangleyBlue1970
Well-Known Member
All I hear from the media is ten hag getting sacked and Southgate coming in. That’s comedy, not relevance.
The only sickening thing I hear about them now, not that I pay much attention, mind, is scruffy Jim being their saviour. That thoroughly fucks me off, but the counter is ago they’re recruiting.
They’re nothing.
heslops barnet
Well-Known Member
Red shirt?
DenisLawBackHeel74
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 11,611
Yes, I thought the same. But as we know, if you need to forensically analyse it, it’s not a clear and obvious error …
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
Of that there is no doubt
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
Having looked at it a few times I think VAR has to overturn it and they made the right decision.
Initial contact looks to be outside the box.
Fouls continuing into the box according to Law 12 have to be holding offences. He’s not held him, just impeded him so first contact is what matters for this type of foul.
Clear and obvious isn’t relevant here. It’s a line decision, has to be either inside or outside. Like offside it’s not considered subjective but binary. Tricky but looks more out than in so it’s pretty much the only decision he can come to.
The VAR official has just followed a simple process there and I can see why that’s the decision he had to make.
Initial contact looks to be outside the box.
Fouls continuing into the box according to Law 12 have to be holding offences. He’s not held him, just impeded him so first contact is what matters for this type of foul.
Clear and obvious isn’t relevant here. It’s a line decision, has to be either inside or outside. Like offside it’s not considered subjective but binary. Tricky but looks more out than in so it’s pretty much the only decision he can come to.
The VAR official has just followed a simple process there and I can see why that’s the decision he had to make.
heslops barnet
Well-Known Member
If it was for one of the red shirt teams it would of been a penalty…no argument
Having seen other angles I’m still not 100% sure.
From the side view it looks outside, just.
But from the angle behind the goal it looks like it continues maybe just enough to be on the line, maybe over it.
So without any definitive angles, then the penalty should stand by their own ruling ‘clear and obvious’
From the side view it looks outside, just.
But from the angle behind the goal it looks like it continues maybe just enough to be on the line, maybe over it.
So without any definitive angles, then the penalty should stand by their own ruling ‘clear and obvious’
Millwallawayveteran1988
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2010
- Messages
- 39,186
Just the 241 shots against them in the last 10 games.
Bet we haven’t had that many against us in the last two seasons.
Bet we haven’t had that many against us in the last two seasons.