The PGMOL Apologies Thread

Sir peace frog said:
They know that the no penalty v wolves was a bit obvious ,i had an inkling if there was a decision yesterday it wouldn't go united's way, hey presto they didn't give united what looked like a definite penalty( according to the poxy rules at the moment) , now whatever you say ,for or against united that shows they are talking about decisions before matches imo or are being influenced , and that is a big worry.

Var actually works, (i don't like it mind you) what does not work is the mystery surrounding the decisions , we need to hear why a decision is or isn't given , ok they apologised, but nowadays every fucker is apologising about something or other ,as if that make things better , but i don't need an apology ,i need a reason , im sure the wolves manager would prefer an explanation rather than a weak half hearted apology

until they start giving explanations , then as far as im concerned things are being manipulated
Click to expand...
nailed it
 
I'm beginning to move away from the idea that VAR is biased in favour of certain sides and from some of the conspiracy theories on here. I'm moving towards the fact that some (or most) of the people running VAR are totally incompetent.

Utd v Wolves def pen, but the Rags should have had a pen last night. In my head is still that Rhodri gand ball we got away with against Everton a few years back.

VAR is just shit.
 
RiversideBlue said:
I'm beginning to move away from the idea that VAR is biased in favour of certain sides and from some of the conspiracy theories on here. I'm moving towards the fact that some (or most) of the people running VAR are totally incompetent.

Utd v Wolves def pen, but the Rags should have had a pen last night. In my head is still that Rhodri gand ball we got away with against Everton a few years back.

VAR is just shit.
Click to expand...
Same here though I think they didn't give utd that decision because they had decided not to. And that was because of last week s decision.

Hence that is not refereeing to the standards of the game, but to the politics around it. It's still corrupt if that's the case because what's to say they won't decide anything else.

Corrupt or inept.
 
lust overlord said:
By todays standards of applying the daft handball rules,that should have been given.
If that handball has happened against us, I'd be shouting for it,along with the vast majority.
The ridiculous inconsistencies are at the root of the distrust.
Click to expand...
I use the 1970's rule. Would it have been given then ? Answer no. Since the 70's the authorities have done everything they possibly can to confuse and fuck up a simple rule. I thought this season the refs were
meant to accept the ball may inadvertently hit a players hand without it being a penalty.
He was not making himself bigger or trying to block the shot with his arm, but to be honest, who knows.
 
Blue Mist said:
I use the 1970's rule. Would it have been given then ? Answer no. Since the 70's the authorities have done everything they possibly can to confuse and fuck up a simple rule. I thought this season the refs were
meant to accept the ball may inadvertently hit a players hand without it being a penalty.
He was not making himself bigger or trying to block the shot with his arm, but to be honest, who knows.
Click to expand...
in this case he WAS making himself bigger (although not necessarily intentionally), had it not hit his hand it would have been past him and potentially a shot on target
 
Blue Mist said:
I use the 1970's rule. Would it have been given then ? Answer no. Since the 70's the authorities have done everything they possibly can to confuse and fuck up a simple rule. I thought this season the refs were
meant to accept the ball may inadvertently hit a players hand without it being a penalty.
He was not making himself bigger or trying to block the shot with his arm, but to be honest, who knows.
Click to expand...
do you use the 1970s rules for two footed tackles :)
 
Sir peace frog said:
. . . . . . .

until they start giving explanations , then as far as im concerned things are being manipulated
Click to expand...
I think we won't be getting these because there are too many anomalies that will need explaining, too many circles to be squared, too many contradictions from one match to another.

How does PiGMOL explain the penalty for the ball hitting Jack's fingernail and not for the ball hitting the Spurs player's palm? The subconcious preferred result, the carrying over of one mistake in a previous match that is dealt with in another! Arbitration within the game has never been more of a shambles since I started watching.
 
flook said:
that's a penalty all day every day under todays rules, the only possible mitigation is how close the shot came from, but that's largely ignored with hand positions like that
Click to expand...
This is a problem all of PiGMOL and the cartels creating. Of course it should have been a pen no question, however cos of the nonsense against Wolves where the officials made it clear they were favouring the home side, they now have to go out of their way to try and even things up. Oliver is probably the highest rated referee hence unlikely he will get overruled or even questioned by VAR, clear and obvious error, aka plausible deniability. everyone is out for themselves. The cartel clubs have so much influence on who gets what, be that prestigious domestic or European games PiGMOL jump to their tune. But they can’t go to far before it becomes a total joke hence yesterday’s decision. If we had been denied a pen like the one Wolves didn’t get on Monday, no one would have batted an eye lid, no apology, no ref been taken off the next round of games etc and that pen at Spurs would have been given.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
I think we won't be getting these because there are too many anomalies that will need explaining, too many circles to be squared, too many contradictions from one match to another.

How does PiGMOL explain the penalty for the ball hitting Jack's fingernail and not for the ball hitting the Spurs player's palm? The subconcious preferred result, the carrying over of one mistake in a previous match that is dealt with in another! Arbitration within the game has never been more of a shambles since I started watching.
Click to expand...
For me the most ridiculous thing about the Grealish Cup Final "handball" was that the ball was going away from goal and Jack had his back turned. Not a penalty in a million years. For the Spurs one last night the shot was on target so it did prevent a goal-scoring opportunity. It would be better if they just reverted to common sense and let the referee decide (perhaps with the help of VAR) if it was deliberate or not. That method, while not perfect, is much better than the current farce.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
For me the most ridiculous thing about the Grealish Cup Final "handball" was that the ball was going away from goal and Jack had his back turned. Not a penalty in a million years. For the Spurs one last night the shot was on target so it did prevent a goal-scoring opportunity. It would be better if they just reverted to common sense and let the referee decide (perhaps with the help of VAR) if it was deliberate or not. That method, while not perfect, is much better than the current farce.
Click to expand...

Don’t want to open old wounds but Grealish’s hand was up around head height.

You’ll probably be able to find an exception to anything if you look hard enough but I can’t recall any not given when the ball hits their hand up above shoulder height these days.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Are there any questions being asked about the Spurs penalty was denied?

I'm sure there was an incident after the United penalty where there was an over the top tackle (I think by Casemiro) that looked like it was a foul in the box.
Click to expand...
Martinez - and I thought it was a definte penalty. Don't think he touched the ball.
 
Stephen230 said:
Don’t want to open old wounds but Grealish’s hand was up around head height.

You’ll probably be able to find an exception to anything if you look hard enough but I can’t recall any not given when the ball hits their hand up above shoulder height these days.
Click to expand...
I'd agree that by the standards of 'these days' the rags should have had a penalty. But equally the standards of these days are absolute bullshit. You're asking people with no history of playing the game to judge a 'natural position.' Pause the TV during any defensive action and look at all of the natural positions that the defenders are taking up, and you'll notice arms all over the place. Someone pointing to tell someone else to mark someone. Someone raising their arms because they're jumping or claiming an offside.

What we have now is a system that puts the burden on the defending player to actually put their arms in an unnatural position, to avoid being hit. What the original intention of the rule clearly was though, was to avoid having players deliberately standing with their arms outstretched in order to make themselves bigger. That would be a far better guideline. If the player didn't deliberately handle the ball, did they deliberately position themselves to make themselves bigger using their arms? Or did they just have their arms out because they were doing something you'd expect a defender to do?
 
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