Premier League

[LeftWinger]

2 hours ago, windymiller7 said:

After his errors last season and that last night, I'm beginning to think this Michael Salisbury chap sits in the VAR room watching Netflix 'cos he's certainly not watching the f*cking game!

I met him once at a mutual friend's party.

He was complaining about goalkeepers having to stay on their line for penalties - suggesting they'd always bang their heads on the post. Now considering the goals are 24 feet wide - I think it's safe to say it's possible for a goalkeeper to stay on his line without banging his head on the post. 

[benhben]

How are Chelsea still within FFP restrictions? I know they will have a big income via commercial deals, TV money etc but no champions league and they must have spent nearly £1billion over the last couple of years and are still bidding on every player going. Thought they wanted the squad to downsize. 

Their wage bill will be eye watering. 

[AllRoverAsia]

ManUre have benefited from corrupt decisions all of my life.

The difference now is that there is video evidence.

Football stinks of corruption and it is only going to get worse as the Regulators main area of interest is self enrichment.

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, arbitro said:

I think the non award of a penalty to Wolves last night was the worst VAR decision since it's inception and there is a lot to go at.

That's just patently wrong. 

[AllRoverAsia]

12 hours ago, Eddie said:

It's a penalty, but it's not as stonewall as some of you are making out. There's always going to be a degree of debate over a keeper making contact with a player when he's going for the ball and when that contact had no impact on anything following on from it.

I'd want it. I'd expect it to be given. But there will be far clearer penalties that aren't awarded this season.

The keeper whilst no where near the flight of the ball took the Wolves player out with a high and dangerous contact which he could have avoided, making it deliberate.

Penalty and red for violent conduct, imho.

It may not be the worst VAR pen decision. It's in the top 2, and I forget the other but it probably involved MU or Liverpool.

[Eddie]

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

The keeper whilst no where near the flight of the ball took the Wolves player out with a high and dangerous contact which he could have avoided, making it deliberate.

Penalty and red for violent conduct, imho.

It may not be the worst VAR pen decision. It's in the top 2, and I forget the other but it probably involved MU or Liverpool.

It's definitely not a red, that's crazy.

It's also not even in the top 10. We've had moments where the technology has completely failed, we've had totally incorrect interpretations of defenders playing the ball or not, and we've had some truly clear and absolutely obvious errors. 

This was probably a penalty 9/10, but to make it out as if there's absolutely zero room for debate is wrong. If you disagree with me, are you saying that every time a goalkeeper comes out to get the ball that his first contact has to be the ball? What if he doesn't get the ball but just brushes into/knocks a player over? How many penalties do you plan on awarding this season when a keeper comes out for a cross? 

This is an extreme version of that, but it's not as black as white as many are saying and it is certainly far from the worst error of the VAR era in the Premier League. 

[windymiller7]

33 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

I met him once at a mutual friend's party.

He was complaining about goalkeepers having to stay on their line for penalties - suggesting they'd always bang their heads on the post. Now considering the goals are 24 feet wide - I think it's safe to say it's possible for a goalkeeper to stay on his line without banging his head on the post. 

Wow!

He shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a football stadium if he thinks like that! (Perhaps that's why they're keeping him tucked away at Stockley Park!)

[rigger]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

It's definitely not a red, that's crazy.

It's also not even in the top 10. We've had moments where the technology has completely failed, we've had totally incorrect interpretations of defenders playing the ball or not, and we've had some truly clear and absolutely obvious errors. 

This was probably a penalty 9/10, but to make it out as if there's absolutely zero room for debate is wrong. If you disagree with me, are you saying that every time a goalkeeper comes out to get the ball that his first contact has to be the ball? What if he doesn't get the ball but just brushes into/knocks a player over? How many penalties do you plan on awarding this season when a keeper comes out for a cross? 

This is an extreme version of that, but it's not as black as white as many are saying and it is certainly far from the worst error of the VAR era in the Premier League. 

The challenge was reckless, uncontrolled, and dangerous. That is why it should be a red.

[arbitro]

17 minutes ago, Eddie said:

That's just patently wrong. 

Tell me one that is worse.

[TheWeasel]

3 hours ago, windymiller7 said:

After his errors last season and that last night, I'm beginning to think this Michael Salisbury chap sits in the VAR room watching Netflix 'cos he's certainly not watching the f*cking game!

Michael Salisbury was actually my P.E teacher in my final year at Darwen Vale, nice chap to be fair...Appalling decision though.

I might be wrong I'm fairly certain he was a linesman that mixed up Kieran Gibbs and Alex Oxlade Chamberlain in a match against Chelsea and got the wrong one sent off. 

[AllRoverAsia]

24 minutes ago, Eddie said:

It's definitely not a red, that's crazy.

It's also not even in the top 10. We've had moments where the technology has completely failed, we've had totally incorrect interpretations of defenders playing the ball or not, and we've had some truly clear and absolutely obvious errors. 

This was probably a penalty 9/10, but to make it out as if there's absolutely zero room for debate is wrong. If you disagree with me, are you saying that every time a goalkeeper comes out to get the ball that his first contact has to be the ball? What if he doesn't get the ball but just brushes into/knocks a player over? How many penalties do you plan on awarding this season when a keeper comes out for a cross? 

This is an extreme version of that, but it's not as black as white as many are saying and it is certainly far from the worst error of the VAR era in the Premier League. 

Actually I'm talking about how the keepers contact with the Wolves player evolved in this specific incident.

[rigger]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

It's definitely not a red, that's crazy.

It's also not even in the top 10. We've had moments where the technology has completely failed, we've had totally incorrect interpretations of defenders playing the ball or not, and we've had some truly clear and absolutely obvious errors. 

This was probably a penalty 9/10, but to make it out as if there's absolutely zero room for debate is wrong. If you disagree with me, are you saying that every time a goalkeeper comes out to get the ball that his first contact has to be the ball? What if he doesn't get the ball but just brushes into/knocks a player over? How many penalties do you plan on awarding this season when a keeper comes out for a cross? 

This is an extreme version of that, but it's not as black as white as many are saying and it is certainly far from the worst error of the VAR era in the Premier League. 

I would hope, every time the keeper commits a foul. 

[Riversider28]

It doesn’t matter if the foul wasn’t in the top 10 or top 500, it was an appalling decision by everyone concerned not to award a penalty. Also, keepers are a more protected species than bats and snow leopards and almost always get decisions in their favour. It’s a wonder the Wolves player didn’t get booked for fouling Banana or whatever his name is. 

[DE.]

5 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

ManUre have benefited from corrupt decisions all of my life.

The difference now is that there is video evidence.

Football stinks of corruption and it is only going to get worse as the Regulators main area of interest is self enrichment.

We got shafted by ridiculous decisions in both our games against them in 94/95, the baffling sending off of Berg at Ewood and the phantom push given against Shearer at OT. Big Ludek Miklosko wasn't standing for that though, judging by his heroic performance on the final day of the season he was incensed as we were at the injustice of it all. 

[AllRoverAsia]

9 minutes ago, DE. said:

We got shafted by ridiculous decisions in both our games against them in 94/95, the baffling sending off of Berg at Ewood and the phantom push given against Shearer at OT. Big Ludek Miklosko wasn't standing for that though, judging by his heroic performance on the final day of the season he was incensed as we were at the injustice of it all. 

He did have a stormer .... And Andy Cole did us proud too, having an off day.

[DE.]

14 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

He did have a stormer .... And Andy Cole did us proud too, having an off day.

Fortunately for us Cole didn't exactly hit the ground running at Man Utd, although I think too much is made of the Cantona suspension. Maybe he would have driven them on in the final months, but I'm sure I remember reading that statistically they gained more points after he was suspended.

[wilsdenrover]

30 minutes ago, DE. said:

Fortunately for us Cole didn't exactly hit the ground running at Man Utd, although I think too much is made of the Cantona suspension. Maybe he would have driven them on in the final months, but I'm sure I remember reading that statistically they gained more points after he was suspended.

Man U were on 54 points after 26 games (the Crystal Palace one)

They finished on 88 points from 42 games.

Before ‘that match’ 2.07 points per game

After ‘that match’ 2.25 points per game

[DE.]

24 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Man U were on 54 points after 26 games (the Crystal Palace one)

They finished on 88 points from 42 games.

Before ‘that match’ 2.07 points per game

After ‘that match’ 2.25 points per game

Thanks. From the way the tale is told nowadays in certain quarters, you'd think losing Cantona had a devastating impact that completely crushed United. The fact is they ultimately slightly improved once he got suspended. It had no impact whatsoever on their results. Meanwhile we spent the majority of the season without Batty and Gallacher - with both of them fit perhaps we would have won the league before the final day of the season. 

[jim mk2]

On another note, WTF was ManU v Wolves featured on the BBC 10pm news and the women's World Cup semi-final less than 48 hours from kick-off ignored?

The WWC has attracted enormous interest while most people outside partizan supporters s of both clubs couldn't give two hoots about the game at Old Trafford

A bizarre and poor editorial decision

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, DE. said:

Thanks. From the way the tale is told nowadays in certain quarters, you'd think losing Cantona had a devastating impact that completely crushed United. The fact is they ultimately slightly improved once he got suspended. It had no impact whatsoever on their results. Meanwhile we spent the majority of the season without Batty and Gallacher - with both of them fit perhaps we would have won the league before the final day of the season. 

The gap after that match was the same as at the end of the season - 1 point.

The only differences were we had 2 games in hand and the better goal difference.

Batty and Gallacher may well have helped but we’d almost certainly have won before the final day if the refs in the game between us and them were more competent*

* I’m being kind.

[DE.]

54 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The gap after that match was the same as at the end of the season - 1 point.

The only differences were we had 2 games in hand and the better goal difference.

Batty and Gallacher may well have helped but we’d almost certainly have won before the final day if the refs in the game between us and them were more competent*

* I’m being kind.

At the very least we should have gotten a draw at Old Trafford. Hard to know how the game at Ewood would have panned out, but we were on top before the sending off and United's away record during that period was poor, so I don't think we go on to lose.

Ipswich also gave United a massive helping hand by completely capitulating to that 9-0 defeat, which ridiculously swung the GD in United's favour. The only caveat to that is that Ipswich did beat them at Portman Road when they would have been expected to lose, so that negates the 9-0 somewhat. From memory United rested a number of players for that match and their overconfidence was punished.

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, DE. said:

At the very least we should have gotten a draw at Old Trafford. Hard to know how the game at Ewood would have panned out, but we were on top before the sending off and United's away record during that period was poor, so I don't think we go on to lose.

Ipswich also gave United a massive helping hand by completely capitulating to that 9-0 defeat, which ridiculously swung the GD in United's favour. The only caveat to that is that Ipswich did beat them at Portman Road when they would have been expected to lose, so that negates the 9-0 somewhat. From memory United rested a number of players for that match and their overconfidence was punished.

I think we’d have won at Ewood but like you say we’ll never know - at least it didn’t prove decisive in the end.

This is United’s team at Portman Road: 

Manchester United: Gary Walsh, Steve Bruce, Denis Irwin, Gary Pallister, Paul Ince, Roy Keane, Andrei Kanchelskis, Brian McClair (Nicky Butt 83), Ryan Giggs, Lee Sharpe (Paul Scholes 62), Eric Cantona

[Mike E]

1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

On another note, WTF was ManU v Wolves featured on the BBC 10pm news and the women's World Cup semi-final less than 48 hours from kick-off ignored?

The WWC has attracted enormous interest while most people outside partizan supporters s of both clubs couldn't give two hoots about the game at Old Trafford

A bizarre and poor editorial decision

Why would something that’s not happened (and already announced as happening previously) be on the news? Unless there’s been an injury to Chloe Kelly or something?

[DE.]

6 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think we’d have won at Ewood but like you say we’ll never know - at least it didn’t prove decisive in the end.

This is United’s team at Portman Road: 

Manchester United: Gary Walsh, Steve Bruce, Denis Irwin, Gary Pallister, Paul Ince, Roy Keane, Andrei Kanchelskis, Brian McClair (Nicky Butt 83), Ryan Giggs, Lee Sharpe (Paul Scholes 62), Eric Cantona

It was certainly a good enough team to beat Ipswich on the day. I think they'd played a European game midweek and I'm sure I can remember Fergie complaining about them being tired and griping about the fixture list. The more things change...

[wilsdenrover]

8 minutes ago, DE. said:

It was certainly a good enough team to beat Ipswich on the day. I think they'd played a European game midweek and I'm sure I can remember Fergie complaining about them being tired and griping about the fixture list. The more things change...

The game was in September 😁😁😁😁