VAR thread 2022/23

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

This is my thoughts on it also. I don't believe the refs are capable of running some underground betting ring that is influencing games, especially football. Sports which can be influenced directly by the players e.g. Snooker, Tennis and NFL etc I do believe have deliberate corruption.

What I am seeing is an almost cult like group of people just defending themselves and each other.
I would love to hear the conversations that happen on the mic after that tackle by Fabinho.

"What do you think mate"
"Yeah definitely a red but you were right there and should have seen it. "
"Probably right pal, shall we just ignore it and move on or im gonna look a right idiot on TV."

EITHER scenario is wholly unacceptable, but we never get to the bottom of it, and NOBODY is ever held responsible for the 'f*ck ups'.

 

[SWP's back]

The 'letter of the law' narrative is what we've been sold.

Essentially the PL/PiGMOL have interpreted the LOTG to support this narrative. Rahsford was 100% interfering play and effected the outcome.

No no no. I don't know anyone who says that. I fully accept he did not touch the ball but he clearly interfered with play.

This bloke isn’t a rag, he isn’t a scouser, he explains the decisions for espn



And sometimes he explains when they get it wrong.



I think Rashford was offside and I think it was totally the wrong decision but I understand why it wasn’t given as offside having read his thoughts on it.

 

[Blue Mist]

This bloke isn’t a rag, he isn’t a scouser, he explains the decisions for espn



And sometimes he explains when they get it wrong.



I think Rashford was offside and I think it was totally the wrong decision but I understand why it wasn’t given as offside having read his thoughts on it.

Seriously ! You state you understand the decision after the explanation given by a bloke on espn !.
He doesn't mention that Rashford was shielding the ball from Akanji and he deffo doesn't bother to mention he lifted his leg as though to shoot which directly effects Eddie's actions. He simply states that Rashford was off but the guy who scored wasn't. That's not an explanation in anyway shape or form.

 

[Stephen230]

Seriously ! You state you understand the decision after the explanation given by a bloke on espn !.
He doesn't mention that Rashford was shielding the ball from Akanji and he deffo doesn't bother to mention he lifted his leg as though to shoot which directly effects Eddie's actions. He simply states that Rashford was off but the guy who scored wasn't. That's not an explanation in anyway shape or form.

He does explain why Ederson’s reaction to what Rashford may be about to do, is irrelevant by law.
——

The real case for discussion is about Ederson, and whether his actions would have changed had Rashford not been there. Perhaps, but Rashford doesn't impact the goalkeeper's ability to come and play the ball. He may affect his choice to do so, and how he might shape for a save, but the law doesn't discuss how a player might behave differently if the offside player isn't present; it only discusses the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

———

And no, I don’t agree with the decision. And neither does he. But he understands the laws of the game as well as anybody.

 

[SWP's back]

Seriously ! You state you understand the decision after the explanation given by a bloke on espn !.
He doesn't mention that Rashford was shielding the ball from Akanji and he deffo doesn't bother to mention he lifted his leg as though to shoot which directly effects Eddie's actions. He simply states that Rashford was off but the guy who scored wasn't. That's not an explanation in anyway shape or form.

Ok we aren’t going to agree so I’m done.

 

[SWP's back]

He does explain why Ederson’s reaction to what Rashford may be about to do, is irrelevant by law.
——

The real case for discussion is about Ederson, and whether his actions would have changed had Rashford not been there. Perhaps, but Rashford doesn't impact the goalkeeper's ability to come and play the ball. He may affect his choice to do so, and how he might shape for a save, but the law doesn't discuss how a player might behave differently if the offside player isn't present; it only discusses the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

———

And no, I don’t agree with the decision. And neither does he. But he understands the laws of the game as well as anybody.

I did wonder if anyone with the capacity to understand words would read it, thanks.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I did wonder if anyone with the capacity to understand words would read it, thanks.

I understand what the guy is saying, but it's just flannel. The footballing authorities could have easily wheeled someone out to discuss the 'spirit' of the law or the 'inferred' meaning of the interfering with play element of the offside law if they'd have wanted to prove it the other way.

 

[Bluearmy]

... and was, therefore, offside.

Theres been about 10 similar incidents since. All called offside. Not one word said against them, about any of those calls…..

 

[Bluearmy]

This bloke isn’t a rag, he isn’t a scouser, he explains the decisions for espn



And sometimes he explains when they get it wrong.



I think Rashford was offside and I think it was totally the wrong decision but I understand why it wasn’t given as offside having read his thoughts on it.

Will he explain why weve had at least 10 similar incidents since, all called offside!!

 

[kaz7]

unless you're a Sheff Utd fan , in which case a few predictably call the ref/officials corrupt

Not a red - club should appeal that red card

Jebbo, can’t blame him. Absolute disgrace referee

www.s24su.com

Thought you were not posting / wumming on this thread anymore