Ref Watch

Vic said:
That's not what it says.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does, falls under "intensity of a foul challenge". In addition, it also says that OFR should be used for a match changing decision late on, which this was.
 
manchester blue said:
It was our decimated defence that meant we didn’t pick up all the points today. Not the referee.
Still in our hands.
Click to expand...
At nil nil it was in our hands. Give us the penalty, Taylor/var and it changes the game.... if we (cough) score the bloody thing that is.
Yes the defence was decimated but we need fairness and honesty from refs.
 
blue b4 the moon said:
Alty just shit, how many times can Antonio go down?

As for both pens, he's shit enough to miss them but VAR should be giving both, even the one we got VAR has to ask him to look at it.
Click to expand...
He was looking straight at the 2nd pen, a stonewaller if ever there was one and he still had to have his arm twisted by VAR to give it. Dreadful bias and incompetence.
 
Vic said:
Intensity of a foul challenge is for whether it's Serious Foul Play or not.
Click to expand...
Apparently the "premier league shareholders" make the rules about the referee going to look at the monitor. Given how high a bar they've set for "clear and obvious" the referee going to look at the monitor is a time-wasting formality.

VAR: Referee Review Area explained

www.premierleague.com www.premierleague.com
 
they got away not giving the first one which was a stonewall pen,the ref tried to get away from giving the second and once VAR looked at it they had to give it as it was far and away a stonewall pen,they would have been found out if they hadn’t of given that second one and even hard line non believer’s of match fixing and corruption would be hard pushed not to see what they are trying to do …
 
Blue Mist said:
At nil nil it was in our hands. Give us the penalty, Taylor/var and it changes the game.... if we (cough) score the bloody thing that is.
Yes the defence was decimated but we need fairness and honesty from refs.
Click to expand...

Not asking for much are you ?

When have PiGMOL reps ever provided those characteristics ?
 
deano ou812 said:
they got away not giving the first one which was a stonewall pen,the ref tried to get away from giving the second and once VAR looked at it they had to give it as it was far and away a stonewall pen,they would have been found out if they hadn’t of given that second one and even hard line non believer’s of match fixing and corruption would be hard pushed not to see what they are trying to do …
Click to expand...
I think they can easily not give both, nobody in the media would highlight it. Rival fans would just laugh. We would be furious but we would just be pissing into the wind of anti City corruption.
 
deano ou812 said:
they got away not giving the first one which was a stonewall pen,the ref tried to get away from giving the second and once VAR looked at it they had to give it as it was far and away a stonewall pen,they would have been found out if they hadn’t of given that second one and even hard line non believer’s of match fixing and corruption would be hard pushed not to see what they are trying to do …
Click to expand...

Sorry which ‘first one’ are we talking about - didn’t see it in the ground
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
It wasn’t clear on first viewing. On first look it looked like Jesus was trying an overhead kick and was just falling backwards. It was only on the replays that you saw the kick.

That was on VAR for not giving it, can’t blame Taylor for that.
Click to expand...
I accept Taylor might have missed that and that is what var is supposed to be for. If that was the only contenious decision I would not be posting on here, but he fidnt just miss one, he missed both. That stinks.
 
Blue Mist said:
I accept Taylor might have missed that and that is what var is supposed to be for. If that was the only contenious decision I would not be posting on here, but he fidnt just miss one, he missed both. That stinks.
Click to expand...
Exactly you can excuse missing one but two nope,also more concerned why VAR didn’t think the first one wasn’t a pen as nailed on as they come …
 
deano ou812 said:
Exactly you can excuse missing one but two nope,also more concerned why VAR didn’t think the first one wasn’t a pen as nailed on as they come …
Click to expand...
As someone has said in the var thread, forget who, rags and dippers get both given by the ref and then they see if Var says no.
The second was so nailed on, even bent fuckwit Neville said it was clear so I think it would have been too embarrassing even for Pigmol to deny it.
 
Apart from not giving the penalty straight away, I thought Taylor did well, if anything he seemed to favour us in the 50/50 decisions. The “Alty” fan doesn’t want Liverpool to with the quad either!
 
If you get awarded a pen by var with minutes to go, to win the game, surely you can’t claim much more. Unless the next conspiracy is Mahrez is in on it too. Disappointing it wasn’t given straight away, but var which apparently was going to shaft us today, did it’s job.
 
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