United Thread - 2023/24

[halfcenturyup]

And "football" wonders why there are discipline problems between referees and players, and a lack of respect.

They should caution players like this whenever they cheat and whenever they show dissent. Fernandes would be cautioned at least once every game. He would miss loads through suspension, and only then would he be made to think about his behaviour.

Instead, football authorities seek to address their clear on-field disciplinary problems with ideas like blue cards, which would disrupt games and spoil the enjoyment of fans. Just make the referees enforce the laws they already have in place. You rarely see referees command authority anymore.

You rarely see them make any howlers, and yet we have VAR .....

 

[paulchapo]

Couple of rags in work are shitting it about Sunday. They think we will overrun their midfield if Casemiro plays.

You can actually see him decline further on the pitch and every time he plays.

I know we've not been playing great but I think we'll give them a right twatting

It's a derby and on paper we should but I can't remember the last time we comfortably gave any team a twatting. 3-1 away at Brentford looks comfortable but it wasn't. It may have been if their keeper hadn't played like Gordon Banks in his prime, but even then they missed a few chances themselves.

 

[paulchapo]

I wonder what actual legal basis there is to him "taking over the football side". There must be something contracted or the Glazers could just remove that "right" as they still have their 75%.

I don't think there has been anything actually said he has "Taken over the football side." That just seems to be the consensus of opinion. He's been pushed into the spotlight and spouting off about everything as if he owns the club but he doesn't. Unless I've missed something he owns 25%. It's just a pr drive by the Glazers for him to do this as the rag fans think he's the white in shining armour come to rescue them. It gets the fans off their back for a bit.

 

[ShorehamCitizen]

Has anyone mentioned SWPs retrospective 3 match ban after t Stoke away against Delap which was sponsored by a obsessed MSM campaign

That one seems to be forgotten by most these days. The MSM are the poison in our society.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Yes but they were players who were not carded during a game but retrospectively given a red. I was referring to players who were given a yellow that was later upgraded to a red after the game. It only happened once and commentators have frequently pointed out, before and since, that this can never happen under PL/FA rules. How many times has a player received a yellow only for commentators to say "He's a lucky boy"?

Retrospective red cards were commonplace before VAR. Are you Clarkieing me here?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Retrospective red cards were commonplace before VAR. Are you Clarkieing me here?

Only if the referee hadn't seen the incident though, as far as I'm aware. I don't remember any other incident where the authorities upgraded a yellow to a red after the fact, because that was seen as re-refereeing the game. They could only do it for situations the referee missed. Most City fans at the time couldn't really argue that the challenge deserved a ban, the main point of contention was that they seemingly changed the rules for it.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Only if the referee hadn't seen the incident though, as far as I'm aware. I don't remember any other incident where the authorities upgraded a yellow to a red after the fact, because that was seen as re-refereeing the game. They could only do it for situations the referee missed. Most City fans at the time couldn't really argue that the challenge deserved a ban, the main point of contention was that they seemingly changed the rules for it.

It always depended what was in the match report though, didn’t it?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It always depended what was in the match report though, didn’t it?

In a sense. If it was clear from the match report that the referee didn't see the incident, then they could issue a retrospective ban. But it's hard to argue that a referee who issued a yellow card for a foul didn't see it. As far as I know, that is still the rule.

All of this is just my understanding of things though. Could be bollocks.

In Thatcher's case, the referee could probably have argued that he gave a yellow for the lateness and strength of the tackle, but missed the elbow, and so that would be reasonable grounds to upgrade it.

 

[Vienna_70]

So, let’s get this straight.

The rags, supposedly the greatest team in the world, are weighing up a move for 30 year-old, injury-prone Ross Barkley?

Ha! Ha!

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

In a sense. If it was clear from the match report that the referee didn't see the incident, then they could issue a retrospective ban. But it's hard to argue that a referee who issued a yellow card for a foul didn't see it. As far as I know, that is still the rule.

All of this is just my understanding of things though. Could be bollocks.

In Thatcher's case, the referee could probably have argued that he gave a yellow for the lateness and strength of the tackle, but missed the elbow, and so that would be reasonable grounds to upgrade it.

I’d have to watch it again too. I think we’re pretty much on the same page.