East Level 2
Well-Known Member
I know that now, but from my seat I thought he waved play-on. Might need new glasses.
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.
Ref Watch
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 56,928
Or a different seat for the final. ;-)I know that now, but from my seat I thought he waved play-on. Might need new glasses.
East Level 2
Well-Known Member
True. My cousins were on the second row of block 501, Fantastic view.Or a different seat for the final. ;-)
malg
Well-Known Member
I heard one of the commentators mention about their chance being offside during the commentary...Absolutely right on that first minute chance for them. At HT if you look at the freeze frame on the replay as the ball is headed forward, the Sheff Utd lad is just offside, so it wouldn't have counted if he had scored....assuming VAR draw the lines correctly. Never a given these days. But at no point was it even suggested the lad may be off. The Haaland 'foul' before he shot....it was soft, maybe stood on his foot, but as baldfraud said, the keeper stopped moving after hearing the whistle.
Bernie's pen....it wasn't even up for debate, although it took a couple of looks at the replay to see that it was actually Bernardo who touched the ball, not the Sheffield lad. He swung his boot, missed the ball and Bernardo was just wiped out. Clear and obvious!
threadkiller
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2006
- Messages
- 309
The ref blew the whistle before Haaland took the shot. He couldn't haw known that he was going to shoot, as it wasn't obvious.Sorry , i think you've missed the point here, the fact the cheating c**t ruled out our goal (was at the game, and haven't seen replay yet) in no way means he thought it was a foul, it simply means he wasn't allowing us to score.
i am struggling for strong enough words, that are allowed on this forum, but that twat is the modern day Peter Walton, not incompetent or useless, simply a cheat, and NOTHING will ever persuade me otherwise after Rashford's disgraceful goal.
@Blue Budgie to me, this was a clear example of game manipulation. He'd been told to keep 22 players on the pitch. Keep the score down so that viewers are still watching late in the game. No early bookings to force a red card, don't bother about time wasting and don't let City dominate early on.Can't believe I'm posting this but I can't fault Attwell today no fuss no contentious decisions. Let's see how long this new version lasts!
Basically think Atwell should be sent off for for DOGSO, because you can be certain, that that is what he will do to us, if given half a chance!The ref blew the whistle before Haaland took the shot. He couldn't haw known that he was going to shoot, as it wasn't obvious.
Think its fair to say, I DON'T LIKE HIM !!
Sir peace frog
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,495
- Location
- stalking the canals and rivers
- Team supported
- Manchester City Football Club
for " injuries" the physios should be allowed on with the game still in progress (as they do in rugby) too many players go down to stop play and pressure imo, allowing the physios on would sort the injured from the tactical
Agree with those saying use VAR as a 'challenge' system instead.
Just give sides one challenge per half, that can be used for any decision they feel is wrong, if after review that were correct they keep the challenge. Get it wrong and it's gone.
Everything is an on field decision, back to how football used to be ran, so no checks other than those brought about specifically by challenges. Stops VAR spending an age looking for decisions when nobody's even appealed in the first place.
Should reduce the checks as anything frivolous would mean you might not be able to get something important referred later on. However it would mean if someone felt a corner decision was 100% wrong, they could have it checked. Daft that some blatant wrong decisions don't get amended currently.
Just give sides one challenge per half, that can be used for any decision they feel is wrong, if after review that were correct they keep the challenge. Get it wrong and it's gone.
Everything is an on field decision, back to how football used to be ran, so no checks other than those brought about specifically by challenges. Stops VAR spending an age looking for decisions when nobody's even appealed in the first place.
Should reduce the checks as anything frivolous would mean you might not be able to get something important referred later on. However it would mean if someone felt a corner decision was 100% wrong, they could have it checked. Daft that some blatant wrong decisions don't get amended currently.
Last edited:
Stephen230
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 7,341
- Team supported
- MCFC
Agree with those saying use VAR as a 'challenge' system instead.
Just give sides one challenge per half, that can be used for any decision they feel is wrong, if after review that were correct they keep the challenge. Get it wrong and it's gone.
Everything is an on field decision, back to how football used to be ran, so no checks other than those brought about specifically by challenges. Stops VAR spending an age looking for decisions when nobody's even appealed in the first place.
Should reduce the checks as anything frivolous would mean you might not be able to get something important referred later on. However it would mean if someone felt a corner decision was 100% wrong, they could have it checked. Daft that some blatant wrong decisions don't get amended currently.
Your last line is precisely what you’re advocating for with this idea, when a team is out of challenges and the referee makes a big mistake.